Sitting of 20 March 1917

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Barton and Stretford Railway Bill,
Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon, the Table, and to be printed.
Railway Bills (Group 1),
Sir GODFREY BARING reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday, 25th April, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
Copy presented of Statement of the Amounts due by the Public to Depositors on 31st March, 1915, and of the Receipts, Interest, and Disbursements during the year ended 31st March, 1916, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 57.]
CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1917–18).
Estimate presented of further Sum to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1918 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 56.]
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report No. 919 (Nyasaland, Report for 1915–16 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    DEPORTATIONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether the
    572
    arrest and deportation of Mr. J. J. O' Kelly, without charge or trial, was-because he is secretary of the Society for the Preservation of the Irish Language, a purely literary body, which has been publishing an annual volume of Irish literature and has undertaken a scheme for writing the whole history of Ireland in modern Irish based on the baronial division; whether the material for the annual report of this society, taken from Mr. O' Kelly's house by the military last May, will now be returned to him; (2). whether the arrest and deportation of Mr. J. J. O' Kelly, without charge or trial, was because he is vice-president of the Gaelic League, and a member of and constant attendant on its four most active subcommittees, namely, the Oireachtas committee, which holds an annual festival extending over a week, and is devoted to the revival of the language, literature, social customs, songs, stories, music, art, pastimes, and industries of Ireland; the finance committee; the publications committee; the committee charged with education and organisation; and whether all these activities are now held to be illegal; and (3) whether the arrest and deportation of Mr. J. J. O' Kelly, without charge or trial, was due to his criticism in the "Catholic Bulletin" of the proposal to partition Ireland, or to his criticism of the Hardinge Commission on-the insurrection, or to his criticism of the financial provisions in the Government of Ireland Act, or to his criticism of the three Irish Members of Parliament on whose advice Ireland has been ruled in recent years; and whether all or any of such criticisms are now held to be illegal?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I can add nothing to the answers I have made to the numerous questions asked by the hon. Member on this subject.
    Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not informed the House whether any of these activities are illegal, and why this gentleman has been deported without charge or trial. May I ask for an answer to the question on the Paper, whether those are the offences? Mr. Speaker, am I not entitled to an answer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had his answer.
    Mr. GINNELL: No; I have had no answer.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It may not suit the hon. Member, but he has had an answer.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has this gentleman committed any offence whatever?
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, seeing that the War Office and the Home Office say that the control and maintenance of those deported from Ireland without charge or trial rest with the Irish Office, will he say what the intentions of the Government are regarding the places in which, the conditions under which, and the time for which the deportees are to be compelled to reside; why Irish newspapers sent to them by friends are not allowed to reach them: and what are the arrangements for their maintenance and the maintenance of their dependent families in Ireland deprived of their breadwinners?
    Mr. DUKE: The matters mentioned in the first part of the question are controlled by the military authorities under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and] cannot find that any suggestion to the contrary has been made. No stoppage of newspapers has been made by any Irish Department; or, so far as I know, by any Department. In any case in which the question of dependants arises inquiry will be made, and any necessary action directed.

    REBELLION IN IRELAND.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary if he is now in a position to state the name of the valuer on whose valuation the Government have paid £63,000 of public money to the "Freeman's Journal," Limited, for destruction of property which that company itself in its annual financial statement preceding the insurrection valued at £31,000; whether in any case other than that of this newspaper the estimate of the claimant's valuer was so closely adopted without reference to other evidence of value; and, if he still refuses to allow an independent examination of the particulars of this case, will he say why?
    Mr. DUKE: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on the 22nd instant.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question: If he refuses an independent examination of these particulars, why?
    Mr. DUKE: These particulars were examined by as capable a Committee as I have ever known.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow an independent examination of these particulars, and, if not, why?
    Mr. DUKE: No, Sir, I do not propose to do anything of the kind.
    Mr. GINNELL: Because you dare not?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is it the case that loss of profit has been allowed in this case, whereas in the case of all the other Dublin shopkeepers who have suffered loss of profit has not been taken into account? There is considerable feeling amongst Irish shopkeepers that they have been discriminated against if the figures given by the hon. Member are correct.
    Mr. DUKE: I looked into the matter very closely, and I am satisfied that the proprietors of this journal have been dealt with in precisely the same way and on precisely the same lines as every other applicant. If necessary, I have not the least objection to get the papers and show them to my hon. and learned Friend if he thinks there has been discrimination.
    Mr. HEALY: The shopkeepers of Dublin undoubtedly feel strongly on the subject, and I should be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would investigate the matter a little further.
    Mr. DUKE: If I am asked to look further into the matter and see if there has been discrimination, although I am satisfied there has not been, I cannot refuse the request.

    APPOINTMENT OF MEDICAL OFFICER (NEWPORT, MAYO).
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary under what statute or by what authority the Local Government Board for Ireland claim the right to object to the appointment of Dr. George Maguire as medical officer of Newport (Mayo) dispensary district, on the grounds that he is of military age; and, if the Board have no such legal right, will he advise the immediate sanction of the appointment, so that the sick poor of this district may have the medical attendance to which they are entitled?
    Mr. DUKE: Under the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1851, the approval of the Local Government Board is required to any appointment of the medical officer of a dispensary district.
    Mr. DORIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the grounds why this gentleman was not sanctioned?
    Mr. DUKE: My impression is that he was not sanctioned because he was of an age when he was eligible to render much more important services to the State.
    Mr. DORIS: What will the poor people do for medical attendance?

    WOOL CLIP, IRELAND
    Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what arrangements have been made for the purchase of the Irish wool clip this year; whether the system set up last year is to continue; if there is to be any revision of the scale of prices paid to the Irish farmers for their wool; and if they will be paid the same prices as farmers in Great Britain?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): It is proposed to continue the present system of purchase this year. The scale of prices is being reconsidered, and the Irish prices will be on the same basis as those for Great Britain.
    Mr. DONOVAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that there is considerable dissatisfaction existing in regard to the constitution of this Committee and the carrying out of this scheme for this wool purchase; whether it is a fact that there is general dissatisfaction existing in regard to the working of the scheme; whether it is a fact that representative suggestions and views put forward by a large body of Irish Members were flouted and ignored; what steps he proposes to take this year to put this Committee on a popular and representative basis, and what steps he proposes—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already asked five questions.
    Mr. FORSTER: My answer to all five is in the negative.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    LAND CULTIVATION (IRELAND).
    Sir T. ESMONDEasked what steps do the Government propose to take with reference to the supply of artificial fertilisers for Irish agriculture next season?
    Mr. DUKE: I dealt with this matter in reply to the hon. Member for South Sligo last Thursday.
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the recommendations of the agricultural policy sub-committee, he will consider the advisability of vesting the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board with increased powers and facilities for the acquisition and division of the untenanted grass lands in Ireland so that the same may be allotted and divided amongst uneconomic holders, evicted tenants, and landless men, and made available for tillage next year?
    Mr. DUKE: Land legislation for Ireland such as the hon. Member mentions would raise such controversial issues that I am not able at present to entertain the idea of presenting a Bill on the subject.
    Mr. MEEHAN: Could it not be done under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not think it could.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Dickson, of Tullaghan, county Leitrim, has offered for sale a grazing ranch near Tullaghan, all of which is most suitable for food production; and whether the Department of Agriculture will take over this land for the term of the War for distribution for tillage purposes?
    Mr. DUKE: In January last the farm referred to was put up for auction, but there was no bid. The case is under investigation by the Department of Agriculture.
    Mr. F. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners were some time ago negotiating for the purchase of a large farm situated at Tullaghan, county Leitrim, then in the possession of a man named Reynolds, on the Massey estate, for the purpose of redistribution and enlarging uneconomic holdings in that district, including John and Pat M'Gowan, evicted tenants; and whether the Estates Commissioners will now acquire this land for the said purpose and to increase the area of tillage in that district?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that John and Pat M'Gowan held as yearly subtenants about 12 acres and 17 acres, respectively, of the holding of Robert J. Reynolds of about 59 acres. The Estates Commissioners, with the consent of Reynolds, declared the sub-tenants to be

    577
    direct tenants for the purposes of sale under Section 15 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and purchase undertakings were signed accordingly. Reynolds signed an undertaking to purchase the remainder of the holding in his occupation, and it was suggested that he might enlarge the lands in the occupation of John and Pat M'Gowan. He, however, sold his lands and the present occupant is unwilling to part with any portion of them. The Estates Commissioners have no power to compel him to sell the lands or any part thereof.
    Mr. F. MEEHAN: Having regard to the fact that there is no suitable land for tillage available in this district will not these tenants be provided with allotments for tillage during the term of the War?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot say that off hand.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Lord Lieutenant can see his way to exercise his prerogative to have the remaining part of the imprisonment remitted in the case of those men from the parish of Milltown, county Galway, at present in Galway Gaol for having undertaken tillage operations on the farm of Mr. J. D. Blake?
    Mr. DUKE: No application has been made for the exercise of the prerogative in these cases. The men are in gaol in default of giving bail for good behaviour, and they can obtain their release at any time by complying with the order for bail.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can give a rough estimate of the amount of untenanted land in Ireland that is not being adequately used and is desired by would-be cultivators for purposes of food production; and whether it, or any proportion of it, can be acquired for that purpose under the Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act, without the need of having recourse to the Land Purchase Acts?
    Mr. DUKE: The materials for such an estimate do not exist. The Tillage Regulations in force in Ireland appear likely to secure a considerable present increase of tillage for food production, and I hope they may permanently encourage tillage, but the general conversion of grazing lands into tillage appears not to be within the scope of the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Are there to be any proposals under this head in the new Bill which has been promised dealing with agriculture?
    Mr. DUKE: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question at the moment, as to whether that is a question to which attention is being directed.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Will it be possible to deal with the grazing ranches in Ireland under this new Bill?
    Mr. DUKE: Hon. Members know even better than I do what a controversial topic this is, and that it would very likely be impossible to pass such a measure without serious controversy.
    Mr. WHITE: Is it not the fact that a considerable amount of this land is not being as adequately used as is desirable?
    Mr. DUKE: It is quite true that a great deal of this land is being used as it has been used probably for two generations for the purpose of grazing. What the hon. Member invites me to do as an emergency measure is to alter that economic condition throughout the country. I do not think that emergency measures were designed with that object.
    Mr. LYNCH: Have not the Congested Districts Board at this moment power to do what is here asked, and will not the Government put pressure on the Congested Districts Board to use some expedition in doing this work instead of shillyshallying as they have been doing for months?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot accept the suggestion that the Congested Districts Board have been shilly-shallying as the hon. Member says. I have made representations, however, to the Congested Districts Board to accelerate their procedure in the existing state of emergency.
    Mr. HAZLETON: What is controversial about the question of land purchase?
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that 400 acres of land in the townlands of Cappanaclough and Derrykearn, etc., Queen's County, are flooded annually and rendered useless for tillage purposes by the River Nore; if he is aware that this flooding is caused by a weir on the river a few miles further down; if he is aware that the woollen mill in connection with which the weir was erected is dismantled, in ruins, and has not been working for

    579
    over thirty years; and whether, under the circumstances, and in view of the necessity for increased tillage, he will take any action to have this weir removed?
    Mr. DUKE: I have called for a Report as to the floodings the hon. Member mentions, and as to whether the Board of Works are able to deal with the matter without proceedings under the Arterial Drainage Acts. Such proceedings necessarily occupy many months.

    OATS AND WHEAT.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is yet in a position to say who is to select or differentiate as to the qualities of oats, or how such selection is to be carried out; what prices will be given for damaged oats and wheat; and will he consider carefully any representations made to him by an authority outside the Government as to the best mode of dealing and standardising the different classes of wheat and oats?
    Mr. DUKE: I am communicating with the Food Controller on the matters mentioned in the question. They are not within the province of any of the Irish Departments.

    IRISH PRODUCE (PRICES).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will cause steps to be immediately taken by the Irish Department of Agriculture to prevent English bacon curers exporting live swine from Ireland until such time as the Food Controller will fix an equivalent price as regards Irish and English bacon; is he aware that the difference of 8s. or 10s. per cwt. in price is a direct incentive to Messrs. Harris and Harris, and other big bacon curers in this country to go over to Ireland and purchase live swine for export; and if he will take steps to prevent the Irish bacon curers being put at such a disadvantage in the matter of trade? competition with the bacon curers of this country by having such a large margin per cwt. in the prices fixed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): I have been asked to reply. The prices of bacon were fixed after full consideration of the previous prices for English and Irish bacon, and of the normal difference between them.
    580
    There seems to be no good reason why these prices should unduly stimulate the export of live pigs from Ireland, which has always existed on an extensive scale. It would certainly not be in the interest of Irish producers to prohibit this export. The prices, as already stated, are subject to revision at periodic intervals.
    Mr. LUNDON: If the prices come to be revised, will the right hon. Gentleman take good care that Irish bacon curers should be consulted as to the fixing of these prices, and also that the opinion of Irishmen should be taken and not that of a Government broker or contractor?
    Captain BATHURST: I cannot say that that question arises, but in any case I can say that Irish producers as well as representatives of the bacon curers will be consulted.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care not to prohibit the exportation of live pigs from Ireland, as there are many men deriving a living from that?
    Captain BATHURST: I am sorry to say that I could not hear what the hon. Gentleman has asked. Perhaps he will meet me after questions, and I will endeavour to give him an answer.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he was consulted by the Food Controller before the prices for Irish butter and bacon were fixed; and, in view of the necessity for having Irish interests safeguarded in such matters, will he insist that Mr. Hegarty, chairman of the Irish Creamery Managers' Association, who has the confidence of the Irish butter producers, should be consulted when Irish butter prices are being fixed, and also have a representative of the Irish bacon trade consulted as to the price to be fixed for Irish bacon?
    Captain BATHURST: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the second part of the question, Mr. Hegarty was present, with other delegates, representing butter and bacon interests in Ireland, at the conference on the 22nd inst. of representatives of Provincial Produce Exchanges and Producers' Associations, to discuss the prices of provisions.
    Mr. LUNDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my question, that Mr. Hegarty will in future be brought over not on his own initiative,

    581
    but at the request of the Food Controller, when the butter question comes to be decided? He came over a week ago on his own initiative, without being asked by the Food Controller.
    Captain BATHURST: The Food Controller has not directly anything to do with these conferences. As I have pointed out before, they are held under the auspices of the London and Provincial Produce Exchanges, and they send representatives of the producers, British and Irish. I will make the suggestion to the secretary of the London Produce Exchange.

    MARGARINE (SALE AS BUTTER).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that it is now becoming a common practice to expose margarine for sale without any label on it and have it thus sold as butter; is he aware that such proceedings are most detrimental to the butter industry; and will steps be taken immediately to prevent them and have heavy penalties imposed upon people who may be charged with doing such work?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture are not aware that the practice referred to is common. Careful attention is paid to the matter by the inspectors of the Department. There is no power to interfere with the discretion of magistrates as to the amount of the penalties inflicted for the offence.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of Agriculture (Ireland) what the Department propose to do in those cases in which they undertook to supply seed potatoes which they are now unable to supply; and why, in these circumstances an offer of 500 tons of seed potatoes to the Department has not been even acknowledged?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture have arranged for the supply of all the potatoes ordered by rural district councils in connection with approved loan schemes. The greater portion of the potatoes have been supplied, and a very large quantity distributed to the applicants. It is expected that the remainder will be dispatched this week. The Department received from a gentleman in Mullingar an offer to sell them 500 tons of potatoes which, on inquiry, it was found he did not hold.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why is not the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture here to answer these questions? We have not seen him in the House this Session.
    Mr. DUKE: The Vice-President is occupied very closely indeed in matters devised to fulfil the obligations arising out of the state of agriculture in Ireland at present, but in answering his questions I take care to be in personal communication with my right hon. Friend with regard to these matters.

    FISH SUPPLY.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether any stops, such as those announced by the Board of Agriculture in England, are being taken by his Department with respect to the preservation and increase of the supply of fish from sea and inland waters?
    Mr. DUKE: The matter is being considered by the Department.
    Colonel ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will endeavour to improve the facilities for the transport of fish from the coasts of Scotland in order to help the fishermen and to supplement the food of the people?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): I can only assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Board of Trade realise fully the importance of this question, which is, I understand, being considered by the Fishery Board for Scotland in consultation with the railway companies concerned.
    Mr. EUGENE WASONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now heard from the Railway Executive Committee as to whether they intend to insist on the prepayment of fish by passenger train; and what action he proposes to take in this matter?
    Mr. ROBERTS: This matter is being considered by the Railway Executive Committee, and I am unable to give a definite answer at the present moment.
    Mr. WASON: I will put down the question again for Monday, and unless I receive a satisfactory reply I shall call attention to this question on the Motion for the Adjournment.
    Mr. BOOTH: The worm will turn!
    Mr. LEICESTER HARMSWORTHasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will say what steps are being taken by his Department to assist Scottish fishermen to increase the supplies of fish; and whether he proposes to render available for the home market cured fish normally exported?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The steps taken are mainly in the direction, first, of securing the greatest possible opportunities for fishing consistently with naval interests; and, secondly, of organising the available resources in vessels and men so that a maximum of catching power may be brought to bear within the limits authorised from time to time by the naval authorities. For reasons which my hon. Friend will appreciate, I cannot enter into details. It is the fact that the total landings in Scotland in 1917 down to the present date greatly exceed those in the corresponding period of 1916. The question whether existing stocks of cured fish should be retained in this country is primarily one for the Food Controller; and as regards future catches, particularly in connection with the great summer herring fishing, everything possible will be done so far as I am concerned to meet the requirements of the home market.
    Mr. E. WASON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will lend his assistance in seeing that the Board of Trade do not insist upon prepayment for the carriage of fish, which will injure very seriously the carriage of fish from Scotland to this country?
    Mr. MUNRO: I shall be very happy to confer with my hon. Friend.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the President of the. Board of Trade whether the inquiry into the supply and distribution of sugar in Ireland has been completed; and whether he is able to make any announcement on the subject?
    Captain BATHURST: I have been asked to reply. The reports of the inspectors who visited Ireland have been received. They do not indicate that there is any general shortage of sugar in Ireland as compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, but they make it clear that the same problems in regard to distribution are found there as elsewhere. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, these problems are
    584
    under the immediate consideration of a Departmental Committee, and the Food Controller is not prepared to anticipate the findings of that Committee.

    MERCANTILE MARINE.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the scale of food supply in use in the mercantile marine is in reasonable conformity with the requirements of the Food Controller?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Board of Trade and the Ministry of Food have this matter under consideration.

    PICKLED HERRINGS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether 90,000 barrels of pickled herrings are about to be exported out of the United Kingdom from Stornoway; and, if so, whether such export should be permitted during the present crisis?
    Captain Viscount WOLMER(representing the War Trade Department): I understand that there are approximately 90,000 barrels of pickled herrings in Stornoway representing the winter catch. Licences for their export from the United Kingdom have not yet been granted, and will not be as long as there is any prospect of their being consumed at home. The President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries has appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire, part of whose task will be to encourage the home consumption of such fish. There has never yet been any demand from the British public for pickled herrings, and if this continues to be the case, it is clear that steps will have to be taken to prevent the local industry from being ruined. It is, therefore, very desirable that every effort should be made to popularise this form of food at home.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: May I ask whether his attention has been called to the statement made in the papers recently that barrels of pickled herrings on being opened were found to contain bars of aluminium consigned to Holland?
    Viscount WOLMER: They would not be allowed to go.
    Mr. WATT: Will the hon. Gentleman represent as an attraction of pickled herrings that they give rise to a considerable thirst?

    PETROL SUPPLY.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Petrol Committee is reducing the supply of petrol to the farmers, in some instances to one-third of their previous supply; is he aware that the action of the Committee will prevent the proper management of the farms and interfere with food production; and will he arrange for the farmers to have a larger supply of petrol?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Petrol Control Committee are not reducing the supply of petrol to farmers for use in motor ploughs, motor tractors, and agricultural machinery generally. Private motor cars owned by farmers would not, however, be allotted more than the ordinary restricted allowance unless they were actually being used for agricultural purposes for which an increased quantity of petrol was necessary.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made by the Petrol Committee where motor bicycles and motor cars are being used in the management of large farms for agricultural purposes, and not for pleasure?
    Mr. ROBERTS: In cases where we experience any doubt in the matter we refer to the Board of Agriculture and the County War Agricultural Committees.

    CANADIAN-CANNED SALMON.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can see his way to have the prohibition against the import of Canadian-canned salmon so relaxed as to give the relatively small amount of salmon canned in British Columbia the benefit of a free entry into Great Britain, in view of the fact that the pre-war import of such salmon amounted only to one-fifth of the total import from the North American Continent and that the remaining four-fifths, chiefly the product of Alaska, have a free entry into the United States, whereas there is a high Import Duty charged on all British Columbian salmon entering that market?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Long): I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that it has been found possible to make an arrangement of the nature indicated in the reply returned to his previous question on the subject by the Secretary to the Board of Trade on the 21st instant.

    PETROL SUPPLIES.
    Sir T. ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the result of his communications with the Petrol Committee on the subject of the supply of petrol to clergymen of all denominations in Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: I have already written to the hon. Member informing him that the Petrol Committee will be glad to continue to allot a small quantity of petrol to the clergy using motor cars in connection with their professional duties.

    BURTONPORT AND LETTERKENNY RAILWAY.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is now in a position to make a statement of the intentions of the Government with regard to the Burtonport and Letterkenny Railway?
    Mr. DUKE: I have not yet received the Report on the Burtonport Railway, but the matter is being dealt with as speedily as possible. The legal and financial questions require careful consideration.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: Seeing that it is now over a month since this matter was brought to the attention of the Irish Government, and the working of the railway is steadily going from bad to worse, and that the matter is very urgent, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take steps for dealing with the matter very speedily?
    Mr. DUKE: I shall certainly do that. I am well aware of the very unfortunate condition which the past management of the railway has produced; and every effort that can be made is being made to remedy that. If legislation becomes necessary the matter may have to be considered, but I hope it will not be necessary.
    Mr. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement on this subject next Monday?
    Mr. DUKE: I am not sure that I shall. The Railway Executive and other authorities are dealing with this matter with great closeness, and I can assure the hon. Member that they are taking the keenest interest in the business, with a desire to remedy what has been a great wrong to the inhabitants in that part of the country.

    HEALTH RESORTS, IRELAND (TRAVEL FACILITIES FOR VISITORS).
    Captain DONELANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that since the outbreak of the War the health resorts and watering places in Ireland have had to depend almost altogether upon visitors from the industrial and agricultural parts of the country, owing to the curtailment of the cross-Channel and other passenger steamboat services, and that any increase in railway fares or reduction in railway facilities will not only tend to deprive city workers of a much-needed vacation, but will seriously affect the health resorts and watering places of Ireland: and whether, with a view to protect the interests at stake, he will press this matter upon the attention of the proper authority?
    Mr. DUKE: The Irish Railway Executive Committee have the matter referred to in their hands. They will, I am sure, give such facilities as they can for necessary traffic, but economy of fuel is a governing consideration in railway control under present conditions.
    Captain DONELAN: May I take it for granted that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the facts mentioned in the question are accurate?
    Mr. DUKE: I know that for several small Irish watering places it is a very serious matter. I have taken care to have attention called to it in every quarter where effect can be given to such measures as are possible for mitigating the trouble

    FISHING PERMITS (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), in view of the statement of the Admiralty that permits for fishing are issued in Ireland on the recommendation of the Department of Agriculture, if he will state the grounds upon which that Department withholds its recommendation in the case of Mr. Maurice O'Connell, Renard Road, Cahirciveen, thus depriving him of his means of living by the lawful industry of fishing with his boat the "St. Fiacra," in which his money and industry are invested; and whether the necessary document will be issued for the season now opening?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture have not seen the statement referred to. The case of Mr. O'Connell was dealt with in reply to the hon. Member on the 19th instant.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary to the Admiralty informed me in this House that the Admiralty endorse permits only when they are given by the Department of Agriculture, and the question I ask is why the Department of Agriculture refused the permit in this particular case?
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member must have misunderstood what I said. What I told him was that the decision in the matter rests with the Admiralty commander on the Irish coast.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the Department given this man a recommendation? I am entitled to an answer. The Secretary to the Admiralty said that the Admiralty only endorse permits when they are issued by the Department. Has the Department refused a permit in this case?
    Mr. DUKE: If a question is put on the Paper I will make inquiries. That is not the question on the Paper.

  MUNITIONS.

    COTTON TEXTILE TRADE.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware of the uncertainty which prevails in the cotton textile trade arising out of the order of the 8th March affecting the priority of production of textiles; whether applications have to be made by exporters to, and priority certificates obtained from, the Ministry of Munitions in respect- of each export order before priority certificate B can be issued by such exporters to the manufacturers; if so, whether he is aware of the number of applications which will have to be made and of the consequent delays which will occur; and whether he will make a statement as to the procedure which has to be followed by manufacturers and exporters of textiles.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The Order of 8th March only requires firms to give priority to any work for which they may have received A or B certificates. Unless and until and such

    589
    certificates are received by a manufacturer he can go on with the ordinary commercial work as he pleases. Class B certificates may be issued in respect of "export orders certified in writing" by various Departments as being "of sufficient national importance to be specially approved for export to approved destinations," and as regards ordinary commercial orders, the responsibility for the issue of any certificates that may be found necessary will rest mainly with the Board of Trade. I have been in communication with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and I understand that it is not his intention, as a rule, to exercise this power by issuing certificates for particular export orders, but by issuing a general Order specifying any industry in which he may consider that production for export should have priority over production for home consumption, and also specifying the classes of orders to which for this purpose priority must, so far as practicable, be given. My hon. Friend will, therefore, see that it will be unnecessary for applications to be made to the Board of Trade or to the Ministry of Munitions each time an exporter desires to secure priority.
    Mr. NEEDHAM: Will the hon. Gentleman take care to make representations to the President of the Board of Trade to consult the cotton trade before anything is done or any Order is issued?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I will make that communication to him.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Has the hon. Member, the head of this Department of the Ministry of Munitions, dealing with the priority claim, himself the commercial experience and qualifications to enable him to deal with this commercial matter?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The head of this branch of the Ministry of Munitions does not deal with individual applications, but he acts on the advice of men who are experts on the subject.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Has the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, who is at the head of this Department of the Ministry of Munitions, the commercial experience qualifying him to discharge the duties of this important office?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I stated before that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, who
    590
    is at the head of this branch of the Ministry of Munitions, is assisted by the advice of experts.

    WOOLWICH ARSRNAL.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that men of many years' service in Woolwich Arsenal are being released for the Army while younger men, some of them single, with much less service are being retained; whether he is satisfied that the method of selecting the men to be released leaves no opportunity for the practice of favouritism; and whether he is aware of the case of a man who has been ordered to join the Army early next month, who has been in the Arsenal for sixteen years and only lost one hour since the outbreak of war, and who when he goes will leave behind single men with only two years' service?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: In selecting men to-be released for military service in the Ordnance Factories at Woolwich the rule is that men of equal skill are released only in order of age, single men being taken before married men. The Minister is satisfied that this rule is observed by the management. It is essential that the management should retain the power of keeping single men in preference to married men in those cases where the single men are better qualified for the work which has to be done. I have not been able to trace any such case as that referred to in the last part of my right hon. Friend's question, but if he will send me precise details I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions (1) if he is aware that instructions have been given that viewers in future will not be allowed to work in the town in which they reside, and that Woolwich viewers who have moved their homes and families to Birmingham will not be allowed to work in Birmingham; that they will not be allowed the option of travelling to and from their homes and foregoing the subsistence allowance, but must take lodgings in the town where they are working; and whether he will take steps to remove these restrictions; and (2) if he is aware that, under Departmental Order No. 300, issued from Woolwich, the viewers employed in the Birmingham inspection department have had their wages reduced by 4s. 3d. per week and their conditions of employment

    591
    made worse; and whether he will inquire into this matter with the object of at least increasing their pay to what it was previous to the order being issued?
    Mr. FORSTER: These questions refer to the War Office Inspection Department. The object of the new order is to secure uniformity of treatment for all the viewers employed under the inspection department, the headquarters of which are at Woolwich Dockyard. The decision has been arrived at after full consideration.
    Mr. WILSON: Is not this an example of the extravagance of the Department which sends men from the town where they were living to a place where they have to be paid subsistence allowance?
    Mr. FORSTER: It was rather late in the, day when this question reached the War Office and I had no opportunity of looking at the Order which has been made. However, if my hon. Friend will put the question I will look into the matter more fully.

  NATIONAL SERVICE.

    OFFICIAL ADVERTISEMENTS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that official National Service advertisements are being published in the Scottish newspapers addressed to the men of England inviting them to enrol for National Service; and whether the National Service appeal is directed only to Englishmen and not to Scotsmen?
    Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): My right hon. Friend has requested me to reply to this question. This matter has already been brought to the notice of the Director-General of National Service, and the wording of the advertisements to which my hon. Friend refers has been amended. The appeal is not only directed to Englishmen but to all men between the ages of eighteen and sixty-one throughout Great Britain.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it the fact that the gentleman who is in charge- of the distribution of these advertisements is an American, and is there no Britishers who could be asked to do this work, and who would have a more intimate knowledge of the divisions of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. BECK: I cannot add anything to the answer.
    Mr. WATT: Is not the use of the words describing the country as the United Kingdom a breach of the Treaty of Union?

    INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SALE).
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Prime Minister (1) in case of further restrictions being made with regard to the sale of intoxicants, will he provide for such compensation to the industries affected as will enable proprietors of public-houses where desirable to keep their premises open to the public for purposes of recreation and refreshment; and will he state whether the Government has come to a decision as to the desirability or otherwise of State purchase; and (2) whether he is aware of the vote recently taken at Govan, when the large majority of workmen voted in favour of the total prohibition of the sale of spirits and beer during war-time, and, in view of the unanimous declaration of the employers and managers of shipbuilding yards and munition works in that neighbourhood in its favour, will he take such steps as may be necessary to reduce the quantity of spirits available for consumption in the same proportion as the reduction in the production of beer, etc.; and will he consider the desirability of affording compensation to persons employed in the licensed trade until such persons are able to obtain employment in national or other service, and to others dependent upon such industries, seeing that the sooner termination of the War by a few weeks would pay for such compensation and also for loss of revenue incurred by such restrictions?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): All I can say is that the whole question is receiving the consideration of the Government.
    Sir FRANCIS LOWE: Will any further restriction of the output of beer be made by Bill or by Order?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It will be done today or to-morrow under the Order of the Food Controller.
    Mr. BOOTH: Are we to understand that the position of the tenants or publicans who are giving service will be considered at the same time as the position of the wealthy brewers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Most certainly; whatever consideration is given to the one will be given to the other.
    Sir F. LOWE: Will there be an opportunity of discussing this further restriction as on the first occasion, when it was done by Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In the Prime Minister's statement it was made quite plain that the matter would be carried out at once.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Have the Government in mind any special considerations which differentiate this trade from any other trade?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the general answer I have given.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any figures in regard to question No. 49?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not got the figures.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Prime Minister whether, with a View to ascertaining the desire of the Scottish people for prohibition of the sale of liquor during the War, and for the period of demobilisation after the War, he will consent to a Return being obtained of the number of petitions and resolutions, etc., received from Scotland since the formation of the present Government by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government, and by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), and also of the number of petitions presented to the House of Commons praying for the prohibition of the sale of liquors during the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government, after full consideration, are not prepared to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. MILLAR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the expressed desire to ascertain the opinion of Scotland, the conference was not a very simple method of ascertaining the view of the people of Scotland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It was a simple method of ascertaining the view of those who signed, but it was not a simple method of definitely ascertaining the opinion of the country.
    Mr. MILLAR: Are not resolutions from public bodies received in this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; but I said that I did not think that they could be taken as a definite indication of the opinion of Scotland.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling of non-smokers is that tobacco is not good?
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: What would the right hon. Gentleman regard as an effective expression of opinion in Scotland?
    Mr. CONDONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether all classes of beer are included in the restrictions as to output; and, if not, will he say what classes of beer are exempt; whether Bass's pale ale is at present exempt from any restrictions; and, if so, will he state for what reason?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The existing restrictions as to output apply to all classes of beer brewed by a brewer for sale, and therefore include the beer referred to in the last part of the question.

    GOVERNMENT DECISIONS (PUBLICATION).
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the conflicting official and semi-official statements regarding the Government's decisions and intentions, he will institute a plan whereby from one to two columns in each of the leading daily papers shall be reserved for the publication of a daily official communique issued by the Government, so that people of all parties may be put in possession of the actual intentions and decisions of the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that opinion in regard to the War and the importance of any action or decision of the Government is largely governed by the particular paper a man may happen to buy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of that, but I am aware of what is the general view taken.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it not essential that every person in these islands should know the intentions and decisions of the Government regarding this War?
    Mr. LYNCH: Is not the opinion of the Government itself formed by the newspapers?

    MOTOR SPIRIT (RACE MEETINGS).
    Mr. HASLAMasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that hundreds of motor ears are being used by persons attending race meetings, and, in view of the consumption of petrol, will he take means to bring racecourses and their precincts within the meaning of the Acts relating to betting in public places; and will he take means to prevent the publication of betting information?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The general question of allowing or suppressing race meetings is one which has been dealt with by the Board of Trade. I do not think anything would be gained by adopting the indirect method of discouraging them which is suggested by the hon. Member.

    RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Prime Minister why the Reconstruction Committee has been reconstructed; and why no representative of Ireland finds a seat upon it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It was decided when the present Government was formed that some modification in the composition of the Reconstruction Committee was necessary, and this was carried out. As regards the second part of the question, it is proposed to add an Irish representative.

    LIFEBOAT SHEDS (INCOME TAX).
    Sir GODFREY BARINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the buildings of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, including those round the coast in which the life boats are housed, which are part of the necessary paraphernalia of the lifeboat station, are assessed to property tax; whether he is aware that the work of the institution, if it were not supported by voluntary contributions, would become the duty of the Board of Trade under the terms of the Merchant Shipping Acts and consequently a charge on the national funds; and whether, having regard to the
    596
    position of the Lifeboat Institution in the United Kingdom, he will now forego the demand for the tax in respect of premises occupied by the institution for the purposes of its national and humanitarian work or whether he will take power in the next Finance Act to give the institution the same exemption as is given to hospitals?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the number of cases in which Income Tax assessments have been made on lifeboat sheds is small, and that the amount of duty paid is insignificant. My hon. Friend will remember that a Committee of Inquiry into the Income Tax in all its bearings has been promised as one of the first steps to be taken immediately after the termination of the War. Among the matters which will engage the attention of the Committee will undoubtedly be the scope of the exemption in favour of charities, and obviously it is undesirable to anticipate without a general investigation the conclusions at which the Committee will arrive.

    RAILWAY FACILITIES (JURYMEN).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the hardship entailed on jurymen who are compelled in the discharge of their public duties to travel considerable distances by train at their own expense to attend the Assizes; and whether, pending the removal of this hardship, he will give directions that jurymen travelling by train to attend the Assizes shall be exempted from payment of the 50 per cent. increase recently placed on railway fares?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The claims of jurymen for exemption from the recent increase in railway fares have been considered by the Board of Trade, but, in present circumstances, it has not been found practicable to make a concession in their favour.
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to reconsider this question, and to bear in mind that these men are compelled to travel for public duty?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware of the fact, but I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press me further on the subject to-day.

    CENTRAL PRISONERS OF WAR COMMITTEE.
    General IVOR PHILIPPSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government is aware that there is a general desire in this House and in the country for an inquiry into the organisation and methods of the Central Prisoners of War Committee; and what steps he proposes to take to set up a Select Committee of this House, or a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, to inquire into the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As the House is aware, an informal but representative Joint Committee of both Houses is about to undertake an inquiry into this subject. Under the circumstances, I do not think it advisable to move for the appointment of a Select Committee, but I shall be prepared to reconsider the matter if the informal Committee find that they are unable to conduct their inquiry efficiently for lack of the necessary powers.
    General PHILIPPS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a meeting of members interested in this subject a resolution was passed in favour of a Select Committee with only one dissentient?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; but I am not sure that the other proposal was not before it. In any case, this has been adopted, and I think we must see how it works.
    General PHILIPPS: Will the right hon. Gentleman secure the co-operation of the War Office, the Foreign Office, and the Post Office, and for the payment of expenses?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider that.
    Mr. LOUGH: Will this Committee have any power to summon witnesses before it and take any steps necessary?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Obviously that is the point of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. I have already said that I hoped there would be no difficulty on that score. If difficulty is found we will reconsider the constitution of the Committee.
    Mr. BIRD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of the Committee appointed?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): The Committee will be constituted as follows:

    Lord MacDonnell.

    The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Bentham).

    The hon. Member for North Mayo (Mr. Daniel Boyle).

    Lord Muir-Mackenzie.

    The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Fell).

    The hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady).

    Lord Gainford.

    TOBACCO.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the tobacco now in stock in the United Kingdom is chiefly the product of America, and that to prohibit import at present would shut out the crop now due to come home from Nyasaland and other British Colonies?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The import of tobacco, the produce or manufacture of his Majesty's Dominions, is at present permitted under general licences.

    PAPER RESTRICTION ORDER, 1917.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Royal Commission on Paper have received a letter, dated 14th March, 1917, from the London Association for Protection of Trade, Limited, with regard to the Paper Restriction Order, 1917, and offering to send a deputation to the Commission to express the views of its members; and, if so, why the Royal Commission has not even acknowledged a communication from so representative a body of business men?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I understand from the Commission that the letter was duly acknowledged on its receipt. The questions to which it refers are at present under the consideration of my Department.

    ELECTRIC SUPPLY.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to ensure that the interests of the electric lighting companies

    599
    concerned are represented on the new Electric Supply Committee by the appointment of two members intimately connected with the working of electric lighting supply?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The interests of electric supply companies are fully represented on the Committee.
    Mr. HENDERSON: By whom?
    Mr. ROBERTS: By my right hon. Friend the President, by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Falconer), Mr. Devonshire and Mr. Merz.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Is he aware that Mr. Devonshire represents the tramways, and will he take it from me that there is not a single one representing the electric lighting companies, and will he put on two members who do?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I must follow the advice given to me.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the question again?
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the draft of the Report of the Committee on Electrical Trade after the War, which was appointed in April, 1916 (Sir C. A. Parsons, chairman), has been before the Department,; and whether the Report will be published and when?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have not yet received this Report.

    J. H. WAGNER AND COMPANY.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether J. H. Wagner, the proprietor of J. H. Wagner and Company, of Watling Street, is an unnaturalised German; whether two months ago he received a petition asking that this business should be wound up, signed by fifty-two of the leading firms in the textile trade of the City of London; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The answer to the first and second inquiries contained in the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The case was considered both in July last and again last month by the Board's Advisory Committee, to whom the Board remitted the petition referred to. The Committee, after bearing the gentleman who drew up the petition, reported
    600
    that they still regarded the case as one in which "special reasons" rendered it inexpedient to make an Order under Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916. I may say that in reporting to the Board the Committee stated that the business in Alsace with which Wagner had been connected up to the outbreak of war was predominantly French, that Wagner had been settled in this country for thirty years, that they were satisfied that he is wholly British in his sympathies and interests, and that the business which he is conducting is beneficial to British industry. The Board have accepted the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, reaffirmed as it has been after a second careful investigation, but are maintaining supervision of the business.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the very high position of the signatories of the petition, did the Advisory Committee see any of them before coming to this decision?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I stated in my reply that the gentlemen who drew up the petition were heard.

    WATER TRANSPORT FACILITIES (CANALS).
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade (l) whether the Canal Control Committee has only control over the independent canals and not those owned by the railway companies; whether the policy of the railway companies to discourage traffic on all canals which they control is to be allowed to persist in view of the need of using all means of transport available in the country to the fullest capacity; seeing that all traffic has ceased on the Kennet and Avon Canal for the past three months, although there is congestion at Avonmouth and goods are waiting there needed by farmers and others throughout the 90 miles traversed by the canal, will he say what action he proposes to take; and (2) whether the railway-owned canals are under the control of the Railway Executive; whether he is aware that the Kennet and Avon Canal has for some months ceased to carry any traffic at all, that, owing to shortage of rolling-stock, farmers in Wiltshire and South Berks have difficulty in obtaining such things as seed corn and oil for tractors, and that the absence of canal transport facilities is

    601
    having a prejudicial effect upon food production throughout the 90 miles of agricultural country traversed by this canal; and whether he can take any steps to ensure at once the resumption of traffic on the canal and communication direct between Reading and Avonmouth to its full capacity?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Canal Control Committee and the Railway Executive Committee have control respectively over the leading independent canals and the railway-owned canals. Both Committees are fully alive to the importance, in present circumstances, of utilising canal transport to the greatest extent possible, and are working in co-operation to that end. As regards the Kennet and Avon Canal, I understand that the canal is, and has been, available for any traffic which carriers are in a position to bring upon it. The Great Western Railway Company are not themselves carriers on the canal.
    Mr. PETO: Does the hon. Gentleman not think there would be a better chance of utilising to the full the facilities for water transport in this country if we had one authority now, instead of two committees to deal with it; and secondly, in reference to that part of his answer where he said the Kennet and Avon Canal was available for traffic, is he aware that as a matter of fact, although in time of peace it carried a very considerable traffic indeed, the statement in my question is perfectly true and that for three months it has carried none at all?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware of the importance of water transport, and I think there are indications that the Department are taking steps in order to develop it. In regard to the Kennet and Avon Canal, I understand that the question is one of labour shortage, to remedy which attempts are being made.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    PLOUGHMEN.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the action of the recruiting officer at Perth and of tribunals in Perthshire in calling up ploughmen to the Colours for 5th April proximo; and, if so, will he, as President of the Scottish Board of Agriculture, take steps to prevent this interference with the growing of the food of the people?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am informed that no such general action has been taken in the district referred to by my hon. and learned Friend, but if he will send me information as to any specific instances, I will make inquiries.

  AIR SERVICES.

    VISCOUNT COWDRAY AND MEMBERS or PARLIAMENT.
    Mr. BILLING(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Chairman of the Air Board has expressed his willingness to meet the Members of this House for the purpose of debating the present position of our Air Services; whether these proceedings will be private, and whether the chairman is prepared to receive written questions prior to such a meeting, that he may be enabled to answer them at the meeting; and also when is it proposed that this meeting should take place, and where it will be held?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the AIR BOARD (Major Baird): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The President of the Air Board has been asked by the hon. Member for Brentford to meet a body of Members of both Houses, known as the Parliamentary Air Committee, who desire to lay their views before him. Lord Cowdray has consented to do so. The date of the meeting is not fixed, but it will take place in the House of Commons after the Easter Adjournment. The procedure will be quite informal.
    Mr. BILLING: Do we understand that that meeting is to be open to any Member of this House?
    Major BAIRD: It depends upon whether he is a member of the Air Committee, I imagine.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the Chairman of the Air Board follow the example of the Food Controller, and invite Members generally to come?
    Major BAIRD: One reason why they have not all been invited is that he was not asked to do so; if he were asked to do it, I have no doubt my Noble Friend would find no difficulty whatever in meeting any Member who may desire to meet him.
    Mr. LYNCH: As a member of the Air Committee of this House, may I protest against such a meeting being restricted to members of the Committee?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must ask a question, not make a statement.
    Major BAIRD: My Noble Friend was asked by the Chairman of the Parliamentary Air Committee whether he would meet the members of the Committee, and he said "Yes," and it is difficult to see what reason there can be for objecting to that.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an undertaking that every Member of this House shall receive an invitation?
    Mr. FABER: Is not Lord Cowdray a public official, and if he comes to the House of Commons as a public official can any meeting be restricted to the members of the Air Committee, or must it not of very necessity be extended to all Members of the House?
    Major BAIRD: I think other Members can come if they want.
    Mr. FABER: Will my hon. and gallant Friend put it much more clearly than that? If no doubt other people can come, will he not say plainly that this meeting is open to all Members of the House?
    Major BAIRD: I thought I had said so. If they want to come they can come.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I make a personal explanation? As Chairman of the Parliamentary Air Committee, with the sanction of the executive committee, I applied to Lord Cowdray to ask whether he would meet us to discuss certain points. I had no authority whatever to do so on behalf of the House generally, and it was purely a private meeting with a certain number of members who had banded themselves together. I should not have presumed to ask any Minister to meet the Members of the House generally.

    MILITARY OPERATIONS IN PALESTINE.
    Mr. ASQUITH: May I ask the Government to tell us whether there is any news from the seat of war?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am very glad to be able to read the following communiqué which we have received from the Commander-in-Chief in Egypt:
    "We advanced our troops a distance of fifteen miles from Rafa to Wadi Ghuzzeh (five miles south of Gaza) to cover construction of railway. On the 26th and 27th we were heavily engaged in this neighbourhood with a force of about 20,000 of the enemy. We inflicted very heavy losses on him and have taken 900 prisoners, including the General Commanding and whole Divisional Staff of the 53rd Turkish Division. This figure includes four Austrian officers and thirty-two Austrian and German other ranks. We have also captured two Austrian 4 2 howitzers. All troops behaved splendidly, especially troops of Welsh. Kent, Sussex, Hereford, Middlesex and Surrey Regiments, and the Anzac and Yeomanry mounted troops."

    old Age Pensions.
    Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary if he will explain on what basis of calculation the Local Government Board refused to grant an additional allowance of 2s. 6d. to an old age pensioner named James Casey, of Loughatorick, Loughrea; is he aware that this man is eighty years of age, has no home of his own, and is sheltered as an act of charity by an old age pensioner; and whether, seeing that the Loughrea pension sub-committee, having all the facts before them, on two different occasions awarded him the additional allowance of 2s. 6d., the Local Government Board will dispatch an officer to investigate the facts on the spot?
    Mr. DUKE: As the hon. Member was informed by the Local Government Board on the 12th instant, the case of James Casey, of Loughatorick Moyglass, Loughrea, has again been under consideration, but as the circumstances have not altered since the previous decision that he was not entitled to the additional allowance of 2s. 6d. a week the Board could not entertain the appeal.
    Mr. DUFFY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the basis on which the calculation is made?
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member will not expect me to have in my mind the domestic circumstances of James Casey. Certain rules are applied in these cases. I made inquiry of the Local Government Board, and I am satisfied that they have taken the same measures in Casey's case as in all others.
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state upon what

    605
    grounds the Local Government Board disallowed an increase of 2s, 6d. per week of the old age pension of Thomas Hoban, Ellison Street, Castlebar, county Mayo, which was awarded to him by Castlebar (No. 1) Pension Sub-committee on being satisfied that he and his wife, who is not an old age pensioner, were suffering special hardship owing to the War; and can he give details of the pension officer's estimate of Hoban's income representing it as exceeding 19s. 6d. per week?
    Mr. DUKE: The Local Government Board disallowed the application of Thomas Hoban and his wife for the additional allowances on the ground that the pensioner's means exceeded 19s. 6d. a week.
    Mr. DORIS: I asked for details of the 1916 income because I am convinced there is nothing of the kind.
    Mr. DUKE: I will send them to the hon. Member.

    Education (Ireland).
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary if he has received a resolution from the Irish National Teachers' Organisation demanding, in view of the proposed large additional Grant to be devoted to English education, an equivalent Grant for Irish primary education; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. DUKE: I have seen a copy of the resolution referred to, and the Board of National Education inform me that resolutions dealing with the matter have been passed by a number of branches of the teachers' organisation. As I stated on Monday in answer to the hon. Member for West Kerry, the other matters mentioned in the question are engaging the attention of the Government.

    Dublin Metropolitan Police.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Superintendent Dunne, of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, theatened a police constable on the 29th November last that if he, the police constable, had not a higher record of summons, he would transfer him to another division as a punishment; whether he will state why constables should be induced by threats of this nature to summon people without cause in the city of Dublin so as to keep up a high standard of crime; will he state if it is a portion of a policeman's
    606
    duty to manufacture charges against the citizens of Dublin; and, if so, with what object?
    Mr. DUKE: On or about the date mentioned the Chief Superintendent had occasion to reprimand a constable for negligence, and to warn him that unless his duty was more efficiently performed he might have to be removed to another division. I am satisfied that the suggestion of a desire on the part of superior officers of police in Dublin to manufacture groundless charges is absolutely unfounded.
    Mr. NUGENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same threat was made to stop the salary of another policeman because he would not accept 3s. less than his ordinary pay, and the next day he was sent for and paid the amount?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not know how the hon. Member assumes I should be aware of these suggested facts unless I have some source of inspiration. They do not arise out of the question
    Mr. NUGENT: I do assume that when investigation is made about a case of this nature, all the facts should be submitted to the right hon. Gentleman in order that he may answer questions fully in the House.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary if it is according to the regulations of the Dublin Metropolitan Police for a superintendent to ask a sergeant into a public-house and therein conspire to arrange for the dismissal of constables over whom he has no control; if he is aware that the constables referred to were dismissed, while the superintendent and sergeant who broke regulations are both retained in their position; is he aware that the constables dismissed were Catholics and the officers retained were non-Catholics; and will he state what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. DUKE: The Chief Commissioner is not aware of any instance in which a superintendent of the Dublin Metropolitan Police entered a public-house with a sergeant for such a purpose. Such a proceeding would be contrary to the regulations, and the Chief Commissioner will be prepared to make a full investigation if the facts are placed before him.
    Mr. NUGENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the facts have been placed

    607
    before the Chief Commissioner and that a sergeant was sent direct to appeal that this question should not be put down?
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Superintendent Flynn at a parade of constables in his division, held on the 10th February, told the men that they were getting their money by false pretence and threatened that if the did not bring more summonses he would report them and have them transferred as a punishment; is he aware that some men protested that they could not bring summonses against innocent people, and that the superintendent further stated that there were only three summonses for January, 1917, as compared with twenty-one for the previous January; and will he intimate whether it is the duty of the Dublin Metropolitan Police to manufacture crime.?
    Mr. DUKE: I have made inquiry, and am satisfied that the allegations in the question are without foundation.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary how many constables are engaged in protecting Major Price, the number of plain-clothes constables that follow him, and the number convenient to his residence; is he aware that Major Price has written to the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan police regarding explosions near his house at 109, North Circular Road, Dublin; and is he aware that the inspector of the district after investigation discovered that the explosions in question were merely squibs thrown by children?
    Mr. DUKE: I can give no information as to police arrangements made for the safety of individuals. I had not heard of the explosion of squibs which the hon. Member mentions. Such explosions are not the subject of official reports.
    Mr. NUGENT: Why has a constable been brought up on complaint of Major Price for this very incident?
    Mr. DUKE: I have no knowledge of that
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a person was arrested at the end of April last for having illegally in her possession at Cathedral Street, Dublin, property supposed to be looted from city shops, and that the said person was to come up on remand on the
    608
    3rd May last, and that the said person did not appear, and has never been brought to trial; if he is aware that the reason why the person charged was not brought to trial was that the property disappeared from Store Street Police Station; and will he state if any inquiry has taken place as to the person responsible for the custody of the property or any effort made to recover the property, and, if so, with what result?
    Mr. DUKE: Certain charges of the nature suggested were made at the end of April last. If the hon. Member will inform me of the name of the woman to whom he refers, and the nature of the looted property, I will have inquiry made.
    Mr. NUGENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to hold a sworn inquiry into the incident and I will produce the constable and sergeant who made the charge, name and address of the person who was charged, the date upon which they were to appear and all the other particulars?
    Mr. DUKE: I have inquired. I do not know whether I should have authority to hold a sworn inquiry.
    Mr. NUGENT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it most unfair that sergeants and constables, who have been threatened that they will be transferred or means will be taken for their dismissal, to have this inquiry unless they get an: indemnity for giving information?
    Mr. DUKE: If improper means are used to stifle inquiry I shall use the powers of the Police Act and see that an effective inquiry is made.
    Mr. NUGENT: Could not the right hon. Gentleman easily ascertain whether the person was charged or not? Surely there is an entry in the records of the police that the charge was made.

    Killeshin Coalfields (Ireland).
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the mining expert of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) has visited the Killeshin coalfields, Queen's County and Carlow; if he has furnished any report thereon; and whether, with a view to the development of these coalfields, he will consider the advisability of advising that a thorough survey of these fields should be made by Government experts with a view to ascertaining their productiveness and commercial value?
    Mr. DUKE: The Economic Geologist of the Department of Agriculture visited the district referred to in 1912. Pits hitherto sunk in the district have been abandoned as unremunerative, and it is not possible to investigate fully without heavy expenditure. The records of the Geological Survey indicate that the seams are thin. A re-survey of the Leinster coalfield, including the district in question, by the Geological Survey is in progress.

    Vaccination Acts (Prosecution, Crumlin, County Antrim).
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the Rev. S. Evans Bowen, the Manse, Crumlin, county Antrim, was prosecuted under the Vaccination Acts for not having his baby vaccinated, and fined; if he is aware that the reverend gentleman was subsequently prosecuted under the Public Health Act for the same offence and ordered to have his child vaccinated; if he is aware that he was prosecuted and fined for disobeying that order and actually conveyed to Belfast Gaol for refusing to pay the fine, which was paid by friends after his arrival at the gaol; if he is aware that the reverend gentleman has reecived a notice from the Antrim guardians that he is to be again prosecuted for the same offence; and if he can state whether it is his intention to take steps to relieve the Rev. Mr. Bowen from the persistent persecution to which he is being subjected for merely exercising a privilege at present enjoyed by English, Scottish, and Welsh parents?
    Mr. DUKE: This matter is being dealt with by the local authorities in the discharge of their statutory duties. So far as I know I have no dispensing power in such a case.
    Mr. P. MEEHAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this Act of Parliament is enforced against this clergyman living in the North-East of Ulster against Ms will?
    Mr. DUKE: Most Acts of Parliament are enforced upon defaulters against the will of the defaulters.

    Irish Mines (Control and Inspection).
    Mr. SAMUELSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, having regard to the great extent of the mineral rights now vested in the Government
    610
    through the Estates Commissioners by reason of sales of estates under the Irish Land Purchase Acts, he will consider the advisability of having steps taken to have Ireland constituted a separate division apart from Lancashire and North Wales for the purposes of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Acts, and to have the control and inspection of Irish mines transferred from the Home Office, Whitehall, to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: The extent of the mining operations mentioned in the question does not seem at present to warrant a change such as is suggested.
    Mr. LUNDON: Is not the best means of carrying out the request made by the hon. and learned Gentleman to set up an Irish Parliament, and when that Parliament is set up it will have control of the mines as well as of several other things.

    Letterkenny and Burtonport Extension Railway.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now prepared to grant an inquiry into the working of the Lough Swilly Railway Company in relation to the Letterkenny and Burtonport Extension?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am not yet in a position to add to the replies given to previous questions on this subject.
    Mr. LAW: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman will do so before the House rises, as it is nearly a fortnight since the matter was brought up?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Report has not yet come in. Some delay has been caused owing to the illness of the expert who prosecuted the inquiry.
    Mr. LAW: If the Report is not received until after the House rises, will he kindly communicate with me or my hon. Friend in the matter as soon as he has come to a decision?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Certainly.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
First Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BILLS PRESENTED.
MUNITIONS or WAR BILL,—"to extend and amend the Munitions of War Acts, 1915 and 1916,"presented by Mr. KELLA-WAY; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]
BILLETING OF CIVILIANS BILL,—"to make provision for the billeting of persons engaged on work of national importance for the purposes of the present War," presented by Mr. KELLAWAY; supported by Dr. Addison, Sir Laming Wortihington Evans, Mr. John Hodge, Mr. Henry Forster, and Mr. Prothere; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE. (PART I. AMENDMENT)
BILL,—"to amend the enactments relating to National Health Insurance with respect to persons suffering from disablement in consequence of the present War," presented by Sir EDWIN CORNWALL; supported by Mr. Barnes and Mr. Baldwin; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday, 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Army (Annual) Bill, without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. ASQUITH: May I ask whether the Government have any other information to give us as to the course of business between now and the Recess?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have been informed that there is some opposition to our parting with the Bill for the Prolongation of the Life of Parliament before Easter. As in any case it could not go through the House of Lords before the Recess, I think it would be a waste of time to proceed with it now. That will leave to-morrow free for the further stages of the Military Service Bill which I am introducing to-day. If this Bill is finished to-morrow, then on Monday we shall take the Education Estimates, and the House will adjourn on Tuesday. In any case, I hope the Motion for the Adjournment will be made on Tuesday.
  Mr. BILLING: Will any of the other Bills be taken to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If there is time we shall take some.
  Sir J. JARDINE: For how long shall we adjourn? [HON. MEMBERS: "That was stated yesterday."]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I said yesterday that we should adjourn for a fortnight.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move, "That this House do sit To-morrow."
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether it is intended to move the suspension of the Five o'Clock Rule to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir; I think it will be for the convenience of the House to do so. There will, however, be no intention of sitting late.
  Mr. LOUGH: Is it intended to take any other Bills to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend has asked me whether we propose to-morrow to take other Bills than the one I have
  636
  stated. There are some small Bills which, if the House is willing, might be taken. The suspension of the Rule, however, will only apply to the Military Service (Review of Exceptions Bill).
  Mr. CLANCY: May I inquire about the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill? If it is not taken this week, it cannot be taken next.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is one of the Bills which we shall get through if we can, but we shall net delay the Adjournment, because we do not think it is of "that importance.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, "That this House do sit Tomorrow."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  MILITARY SERVICE (REVIEW OF EXCEPTIONS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  In the opinion of the Government this Bill is an absolute necessity in view of the present military situation. As the House well knows, one of the greatest difficulties with which each Government has had to cope ever since the outbreak of the War has been the proper apportionment of our man-power between the fighting forces in the field and the essential needs at home. We have had many Debates on this subject. It has always happened that one set of people thought only of the Army, and the other thought of the needs at home. The need, however, of combining the two has always been kept in view by the responsible Government of the day, whatever it was. That difficulty has never been greater than it is at the present moment. The House knows that it is impossible for our military authorities to make the best use of the material placed at their disposal unless they can know in advance, not only the number of men who will be obtained, but the rate at which they will be obtained, so that they can make their arrangements on that basis. Arrangements were definitely made last August which, it was hoped, would give the military authorities all the men necessary for this campaign on the scale on which it had been arranged. That antici-

  637
  pation has not been fulfilled. It has not been fulfilled for the simple reason that as the War proceeded the Cabinet found that the needs at home were for the moment so pressing that those of the Army in the field had for the moment to give way.
  The main ground for this change is well known to the House. It is due to the increasing severity of the submarine menace. In consequence of that the Army has not got the men which it expected to get from agriculture, and the Government, and I think everyone in the House and in the country, recognises that food production has, for the moment, become one of our most pressing needs. In the same way the men who were expected to be obtained front various works and shipyards have not been forthcoming, because, for the same reason, we had come to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary that every ship which could be put into the water should be launched, and that no man could be spared for that purpose. As a result of what has happened in that case, I think it is right to tell the House, so that it may understand the exact position, that the recruits obtained since the beginning of this year have fallen short of the number estimated by no less a figure than 100,000 men. Everyone will realise, in view of the definite arrangements made not only by our own Commander-in-Chief, but in conjunction with our Allies in France, that such a falling off must be serious, and might easily be more than serious. I am glad to say, however, that in some considerable degree that shortage has been made good in the method which has often been urged in this House, and of which everyone will approve—that is to say, there has been a change in the men employed in the Army itself.
  4.0 P.M.
  Those fit for service have been sent to the front, and the work behind the lines is being done to a much greater extent than ever before by men not fit to go into the fighting line. It may be said that that ought to have been done long ago. Perhaps, like many other things, it could have been done sooner; but we have always kept in view the pressure which from the beginning has rested on the War Office in all arrangements of this kind. I myself know, that my attention was called two years ago to the number of clerks of military capacity who were doing clerical work. A most serious effort has been made by the military authorities to remedy that defect to whatever extent it can be
  638
  remedied. General Lawson has been appointed by Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig for the express purpose of getting to the front all the men we can raise, and, in addition to the relief which has come from men, as the House knows, the services of women are also being utilised there, too. They will be able to assist our Army not only in such work as cooking, but in clerical work. From these sources considerable relief has been obtained for the shortage of which I have spoken. In spite of this, however, shortage exists. The Army authorities feel that unless in some way the shortage can be made good our prospects in the coming campaign will be seriously jeopardised. I do not pretend that the Bill I am introducing to-day will meet all the needs of the situation. The Government still believe that it is possible to obtain for the front the men who are required to carry out the fighting on a scale which was anticipated, and that it is a question of organisation at home. We cannot make definite plans until we know to what extent the voluntary National Service scheme will enable more men to be obtained for the Army, but in the meantime this step is absolutely necessary. The Bill which I am now introducing will enable the military authorities to deal with 1,000,000 men, and their estimate is that at least 100,000 recruits will be forthcoming from this class within the next three months. I need not say to the House that the Government would not willingly bring forward a Bill of this kind. We thoroughly recognise the hardship which is involved, but, though there is hardship, I do not believe it is unfair, and we must recognise that the stage which the War has now reached, when every one of the belligerents-is putting forth greater efforts than have ever been put forth before, when the result of the War may depend on the extent of the efforts made at this time, under those circumstances it must be felt it is not unfair to make this demand. After all, it comes to this: It is a principle which, I am sure, would be adopted by everyone in this House—at least, everyone who thinks we are engaged in a just War, and is determined to see it brought to a successful conclusion—that every man who is fit to go into the fighting line should be there unless his services are required for national needs of equal importance at home. That must be the principle. It is, as I have said, very hard in many

  639
  cases. No one would not try to avoid it if he could. It is very hard that in many cases the call should be made on these men, but in a long War like this standards have changed, and must continually change. Men who in the earlier stages of the War were rejected would now be taken, and there are many other reasons which show that there is a very considerable number of men who can be made available without unfairness.
  The House knows that, in addition to the varying standards of which I have spoken there were special reasons in this country which made a considerable number of men escape, or not come under the Military Service Acts, who ought to have come under them. For one thing, during part of the recruiting campaign, under the name of the Lord Derby Scheme, an immense number of men came forward at one time. There were, I believe, on one day as many as 300,000. In these circumstances medical examination was not as thorough as it ought to have been if there had been more time. That is shown on the other side of the picture, when many men were taken where it was a distinct disadvantage that they should have been taken. They were taken on account of being passed improperly by medical boards. There is a large number of men of this class, and it is not unfair that they should be subjected again to examination. In addition to that, there is a considerable number of men, I am sorry to say, who have succeeded in evading service by something like fraud. Well, in their case there will be no special sympathy on the part of anyone in this House. But the real justification for this measure, in the opinion of the Government, is that we must judge of a man's fitness now and not by any condition in which he was six months or a year ago. If his conditions have changed, if his state of health has changed, and made it right and possible that he could fitly serve the country in the field, his services should be made available for that purpose. I have said there is great hardship in this. I can imagine no case much harder than that of a man, for instance, who had served his country, had been wounded, had gone back to work, and was under the impression that he had done his share and would not be called upon again. That is true, but you have to consider, not only the needs, but the question of fairness to our troops who are fighting, and while there is that hard-
  640
  ship, it is only right to say that in this Bill the Government have done everything they can, subject to the needs of the nation, to make it as light as possible. In such a case as I have mentioned no man will be called up in less than a year from the time when he was discharged with wounds.
  Of course, the real hardship is the absence of finality. A man who is medically rejected cannot feel that he can set himself to work at home with any certainty. It is impossible to give finality. No one can tell what the necessities of this War may be, but the Government have done what they could. Anyone rejected will not be called up again for six months, and I think I may add this, that the Army Council have had their lesson with regard to medical examination. It is not in their interests either to take men who are not fit for service, or to employ our very limited medical staff in constantly examining men who will never be fit for service. This will be taken into account, and the House may be assured that, so far as it is possible, no unnecessary inconvenience will be imposed on the men liable under this Bill.
  Mr. ALDEN: How about those recently rejected in the last months or weeks?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I say, when they are called up they will not be called up again for six months. "They will not be called up again if rejected within the last few weeks, unless there is some ground to suppose there was some mistake in the medical rejection.
  Mr. BILLING: Invalided out?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am just going to deal with that case. Among the hardships, it seems to me that a very great one is that of an officer or a non-commissioned officer who has been discharged from the Army, and becomes liable again to be called back to the Service, except in the rank which he left. In the Bill it is stated that it is the intention to restore them to those ranks, but it has been found necessary to give a dispensing power to the Army Council. I dare say the House will think that does not give a man protection, but they have got to consider the other side of the question. It may be that there were men who, perhaps by accident, or by want of proper forethought, obtained commissions. Now, to give a commission to a man who is not fit for it not only

  641
  endangers the whole strength of the Army, but really risks the lives of the men placed under them. It is, therefore, necessary to make these restrictions. But when I read the Bill I spoke to the Army authorities specially on this point, and I can say it is their intention to exercise this dispensing power with the utmost care, and with the distinct purpose of restoring every man where they possibly can to the rank previously occupied. Another class who are affected by this Bill, and who are not. specially under medical test, are those who have been rejected on other grounds. In this case I do not think there is special hardship. What is meant here is to have power to deal with men, for instance, who made application to a particular corps—that is to say, a corps like the Artists—early in the War, and were not accepted for that corps, and they have been treated as if they had been rejected. It is an open question whether that is a legal rejection, but, in any case, to try to carry it out would be difficult if the point were raised, and it is put in this Bill clearly that all such cases are to be subject now to military service.
  I would like to call the attention of the House to this fact: A Bill on precisely the same lines was carried by the French Government last week. It would not be right for me to go into the numbers of the male population of France who have been called to the Colours, but the House knows that it is a much larger proportion than is the case in this country, and the fact that the French have found it necessary to adopt this same measure is an indication of what I have already said, that everyone of the belligerents is putting forth his full fighting force to-day, and that it is necessary for us to do the same. I have spoken of the hardships to individuals, but we have got to consider the other side of the question. We have got to consider, not only the needs of the nation in this hour, but the question of fairness to our troops who are fighting at the front now. If you look at it from the point of view of our necessities, the position is clear to everyone. I am thankful to say that one reason this falling off in recruits has not had the disastrous results it might have had hitherto is that the casualties so far this year have been less than were anticipated; but we all know—there is hardly a Member in this House who does not know it with apprehension—that the time of great fighting,
  642
  with terrible casualties, is in front of us. It may well happen that the whole value of this year's campaign may depend on our being able to drive home any success which we may be fortunate enough to achieve, and it might well be that the falling off of the anticipated recruits for the Army might have the difference between really almost decisive results and a victory which would have nothing like the same effect. But, in addition to this, we have, as I say, to consider the men who are fighting in France. If it is a question of hardship, they have had their share. From their point of view, every chance of shortening the War is a duty which we owe to them, and, in addition, everyone acquainted with the Army knows that the moment the numbers of battalions begin to run down, and cannot be replaced, the feeling of confidence in the whole Army, from the Commander-in-Chief to the private, is weakened. At this moment the moral of our troops in France is splendid. They have the confidence which they have had from the beginning of the War, but they have it now more than ever that they are far more than a match for the enemy. Well, it is our duty to let them see that they can count on support from home, that they are not going to be left in the lurch, that their numbers, if it can be done, are to be kept up to the full extent.
  I have only dealt with general considerations in regard to this Bill, but I assure the House that, in the opinion of the Government, it is necessary to take this step. I notice that there is an Amendment down—I do not think it deals directly with this Bill—in regard to the question of pensions. I should like to say this about that: I would hardly think that it ought to affect, in any case, our decision now, but the subject has been very freely discussed in this House. Many opportunities have been given for dealing with it, and, though it is quite true that, in putting in an Amendment of that kind, anyone can count on the sympathy, and sometimes the support, not only of the House of Commons but of the country, it is only fair to say that that sympathy is not more strongly felt by the House than it is by this Government, and the Government which preceded it. So far as I am personally concerned, the first speech I made after the War broke out was to the effect that these men had the

  643
  first claim upon us. I have never changed that view, and since I have occupied my present position, as the House knows, measures dealing with these men, involving immense sums of money, have gone through. As Chancellor of the Exchequer I have never admitted the view— and I do not think anyone in my place would have admitted it—that it was necessary to try and cut down expenses. I have looked upon this matter in precisely the same way as I should have done if I had been a Minister in any other office. The House should consider this question as a whole, and if they do so they will come to the conclusion, I think, that not only is this country treating these men much more generously than they have ever been treated in the world before, which is not enough, but that they are treating them as generously as our duty to the country in other directions enables us to treat them. I sincerely trust the House will enable us to get this Bill, which we must have before Easter, without undue delay.
  Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words, "this House declines to proceed with the Second Reading of the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Bill until the Government is prepared to accept full responsibility in regard to providing pensions for such men as, having been accepted for service by the Army medical authorities, are subsequently discharged from service owing to disability not caused by their own willful misconduct."
  The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement which I agree is serious in its import because it means that the military situation is such that in order-to deal with the demands made apparently by the military we are to be forced to pass a Bill through this House in the hope that out of a million men who have already been rejected, most of them for medical reasons, we may get 100,000 medically unfit men for any offensive which may take place in the near future. I think the House of Commons ought to consider that statement very seriously. If it is true, as my right hon. Friend has said, that that is the situation, it seems to me that, instead of discussing facts and figures, this Government in this House ought to
  644
  be reviewing policy, and instead of seeking to come to this country, which has now reached the stage in which out of a million men who have been medically rejected, we expect to get 100,000 for the Army, we should consider, for example, whether we should not give up the Salonika Expedition altogether and release those men on the Western front, and thus relieve the shipping which is being absorbed there, and we should do this in order that this country may be enabled to sustain itself during the critical months of the War that are to come. I suggest that when we are parting for the Easter Recess that this Government, which after all was formed in order that things should be done speedily and vigorously, should not have come down to the House after four months and ask for this at the last moment of the Session when they must have known how their demands were increasing. I hope that before we agree to this Bill we shall consider it very carefully.
  This question of the medically rejected men has a very long history. There has been a series of pledges made both by the previous and the present Administration which forms a very formidable catalogue. Pledges have been made from time to time with regard to these men. The present and the past Government kept none of those pledges. They broke them all. Every pledge that was given to every man who volunteered or was taken compulsorily into the Army has been broken by either one or the other of the Coalition Governments. The catalogue of these pledges includes many with which this House is familiar. It goes back to the famous Lord Derby's group scheme by which men were induced to join the Army, and since they accepted the pledge given by Lord Derby they have gone through considerable vicissitudes of experience until now presumably this Bill will fulfil Lord Derby's pledge by putting the attested men in the same position as the conscripts under the Military Service Acts. Lord Derby said in those early days that if a man's certificate was signed by a doctor that man would be exempt from any further medical examination. I have here in my hand a series of some twenty separate pledges that have been made to the men who have been recruited into the Army from time to time, every one of which has been broken. It may be that owing to the War we have lost all our moral sense, but some of us, at any rate,

  645
  would be better pleased if some attempt were made to keep the pledges which have been given to these men.
  I want to say that when the Leader of the House of Commons comes down to this House and asks us to provide him with another 100,000 men out of the 1,000,000 men who have already been rejected, he ought to come with clean hands. The present Government actually has within its four corners men of military age. These men who have been in uniform since the outbreak of this War, who have been trained to drill men and discipline and lead men, they have been combed out of the Army for presumably work of greater national importance on the Treasury Bench, work which could be done by many other hon. Members of this House who are above military age, but who are not deficient in ability. Therefore the Leader of the House of Commons has no moral right to come down to this House and ask his fellow-citizens, men who have already been rejected as medically unfit, and are therefore in a worse physical category than some of the Ministers who sit in this Government, and ask them to make up the hundred thousand of which he is short. I think that ought to be said, and it applies not only to the Government, but to many of the people employed by the Government. [An Hoy. MEMBER: "And the late Government."] I think as a matter of fact, that both Governments broke every pledge they ever made on these points. While you have got efficient men of military age in many of your offices doing work which could be equally well done by women, I think these men should be given a chance to go into the Army. I have been present at some military tribunals when your military representative has told men who have not a physical leg to stand upon so far as their health is concerned, that they were doing work which any woman or girl could do. Any woman or any girl could do the work of some of these military representatives on the tribunals, who not only get promotion, but higher pay. They are men of military age with military experience behind them, and they should be doing work in the fighting line on the West or the East fronts. Therefore, I say to the Leader of the House, if he is going to ask hon. Members and the country to respond to this appeal, let him clean out his own Government first, and then let him come here and say, having done that, he is forced on account of the military situation
  646
  to make a further demand on the medically unfit who are left in this country. I have put down an Amendment, which reads as follows:
  "That this House declines to proceed with the Second Reading of the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Bill until the Government is prepared to accept full responsibility in regard to providing pensions for such men as, having been accepted for service by the Army medical authorities, are subsequently discharged from service owing to disability not caused by their own willful misconduct."
  I am ready to admit that what the Leader of the House has said with regard to what we have done in the matter of pensions is, to a large extent, true. We have endeavoured to provide a scale of pensions which is adequate to the needs of the men who have served in the Army, but my right hon. Friend is wrong when he assumes that we have met the case of these men, because he must know perfectly well that already over 100,000 men have been discharged from the Army who were accepted by Army medical doctors as fit. That number is increasing. It is being concealed at the present moment because those men are not being discharged from the Army, but they are being discharged into Class W Reserve. Does the House of Commons realise that there are soldiers in Class W Reserve who have lost an eye or a leg in actual fighting in this War, and who have been discharged into Class W, and because they are there they have no pay, their wives and children have no separate allowances, and they are unable to draw the pension for the eye or leg so long as they are retained in Class W? Employers to whom they go to ask for work refrain from employing them because of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I say that 100,000 is not a true figure, because it includes all the men in Class W Reserve. I assert that that figure is getting nearer to 250,000 than 100,000. Those men have this provision made to them now. They can only get a gratuity.
  I want to put this to my right hon. Friend, because he is not without sympathy for the men who are fighting. I do not think anybody will allege against the Leader of the House that he is not prepared and ready to meet the situation. Let me put this direct question to him. He has stood at that box this afternoon and appealed to us who represent those

  647
  men in this House to pass an Act of Parliament that may compel them to come into the Army. The road into the Army is through the examination of an Army doctor. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, if he gets this power from the House of Commons, if these men pass the Army doctor as a result of this Bill passing, that there will be no humbug about gratuities, and that he will see to it, as Leader of this House, that they will be made eligible for pensions? That is a fair offer to my right hon. Friend. I believe that this is a just War, and I am prepared to do anything to see it through, but I want to look in the face the men whom we ask to take up this responsibility. If we in this House are going to put this immense power into the hands of the military authorities, then do not let us give that power without knowing what we are giving. Do not let us be put off, as we were put off before, by the Minister of Pensions suggesting that these men can be disposed of. The phrase is bad enough. Think of the nation trying to dispose of the men who have been broken in the ranks of the Army ! Will my right hon. Friend get up and pledge himself and his Government that these men, if they are taken by the Army doctors as fit to fight, will be considered fit for pensions, and that he will see that they are pensioned?
  It may be that those of us who are not inside the Government do not know all the facts. It may be that these men are required for very essential reasons. I do not think anybody would grudge giving what is necessary if we are assured that there is some prospect of success. But whether there is a prospect of success or not, do not let us give our own constituents away to the Army without conserving their rights. That is surely a small thing to ask. If my right hon. Friend gets his Bill, will he stand by the men for whom he is asking? I see that the late Prime Minister is also in the House. He had a great many similar questions through his fingers. He had to come to the House and ask for men. I make the same appeal to him, because, after all, he represents a very considerable body of opinion in the country and in the House, and he enjoys the respect of both. Will the leaders of opinion on the Government Bench, backed by the leaders of opinion on the Opposition Bench, play the fair game with the men that they are asking to come into the
  648
  Army? Will you, if the men pass the military doctor this time, as the result of this Bill, make it your purpose and your resolve and your determination to see that they are eligible for pensions and are not disposed of by any small sums in the form of gratuities? If victory is worth having, it is worth paying for. The little extra that is required is nothing to this country, but the result that may accrue is a great thing to this country. You are making an appeal to a body of men who prima facia are not physically fit, men who must go into the Army even in spite of their not being physically fit, and all this Amendment asks is that the House will see to it, if they make this bargain, that the bargain is kept with the men, that they are provided with pensions, and that this abominable system of disposing of them by a scale of gratuities which may be a great deal less than £150 is got rid of.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to second the Amendment which has just been proposed by my hon. Friend for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). Candidly, I must confess that I have not been greatly impressed either by the reasons or by the promises which have come from the Front Bench to-day. We have had the same arguments and the same promises on every occasion upon which an extension of the Military Service Acts has been before this House. We have always been told that these men who have been rejected would not be called upon to present themselves again for medical examination. It is only fair to quote the exact words. On 16th May, 1916, when this same question was under discussion on the Military Service (No. 2) Act, and when criticisms very similar to those made by my hon. Friend were put before the representative of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman the present Colonial Secretary (Mr. Long), who was then in charge of the Bill, said:
  "Those who are rejected again will never again be harried and called upon to undergo a fresh medical examination."— OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th May, 1916, col. 1455, Vol. LXXXII.]
  We must remember that was not the first pledge, because in the first Act there was a definite pledge that men who had been medically rejected since 1st August, 1915, would not be asked to undergo medical re-examination. But the late President of the Local Government Board had to face the breaking of a pledge, and he said," Well, it is true I have to come

  649
  before you in a white sheet—I have to ask you to amend the Act which we only passed three months ago—but you may take it that we have reached finality." My right hon. Friend, however, is fair enough to say now that there is no finality. Apparently, we have to go on month after month re-examining and resifting out these men, going lower and lower in the scale of health and physical capacity, and he expects the Members of this House and the people of the country to believe that this is a way of winning the War. There are many other alternatives. One way of getting 250,000 men would be by coming away from Salonika. That is one alternative. Another thing, it would relieve the most awkward and critical situation which this country has to face in regard to shipping. The right hon. Gentleman brought in the submarine question. He told us that this Bill was due to the submarine question. We could not take men from the land or men from the shipbuilding yards, and therefore we must take the medically unfit. There is a better way than that. You have an Army of 250,000 men hung up at Salonika, suffering from a bad climate, with a sickness rate unexampled in any other theatre of war, and achieving no military result, and with these men there you come to this House and you ask us to fake 100,000 medically unfit men in order to win the War.
  There are other alternatives. Why not be honest and raise the age and take physically fit men over forty-one? You do not need to eat your words to do that. There has been no pledge given up to the present not to raise the age. Why cannot you do that? Why you should go on harrying men whose lives for more than twelve months have been made a burden to them? We all know that this is not the only pledge that is involved. My right hon. Friend referred to what had occurred under the Derby scheme. Lord Derby promised that the attested men were in every respect to have equal rights with the conscripts. The conscripts were safeguarded from re-examination under the Act if they were not called up before 1st September, but the Army Council has for months now been calling attested men under the Derby scheme, although they have been medically rejected. Now, in order to carry out the pledge, the Government withdraw the privilege which was given to the conscripts. They say, "We
  650
  will put you all in an equally unfavourable position." In order to redeem the promise made to the attested men under the Derby scheme, they are going to eat their pledge to the conscript under the Military Service Act. The argument which has been put to the House by my hon. and learned Friend in respect of this question of treatment in regard to pensions is unanswerable. Is your medical examination to be a real medical examination or is to be a sham? This House ought not to part with this Bill until it knows. We know for a fact that for months now the medical examination has been an absolute sham.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) put down a Motion on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates on this question of medical re-examination. Unfortunately, he had to state his case in a very thin House, but for a whole hour he cited case after case which had come before him as chairman of a tribunal. He is not a person who would naturally criticise the administration of the Army authorities. He is a man who is interested in getting men into the Army in a fair way, but every one of his cases he had personally investigated, and it was the most serious indictment that has ever been brought against any branch of Army administration, or war administration, since the beginning of the War. It proved conclusively that in any number of cases the medical men who are examining recruits for the Army are not giving anything which can be described fairly as a medical examination at all. They are taking consumptives; they are taking men suffering from heart disease; they are taking epileptics. All these have been taken and poured into the Army. We know that 100,000 of them have been actually discharged already. Almost another 100,000 have been taken and have not yet been discharged. Some of them are in Class W Reserve. There is little care exercised in the matter of classification, and when a man is once in the. Army you find him being exchanged from one category to another without any apparent reason. It is true that they go before the doctor, but only in the very rarest of cases does the doctor take the slightest trouble to examine the man. He may be put in Class A on the most cursory examination. There has never been any answer. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has told us that the per-

  651
  centage of mistakes is very small. He took an arbitrary period of seven weeks, and found that the percentage was something like.7. It is easy to get a figure for an arbitrary period, but you cannot dispose of your 100,000 actually discharged, you cannot dispose of the men in your hospitals to-day by making up a percentage figure.
  All these things prove conclusively that your existing medical re-examination is a sham and a farce, that as a result of it you are getting men into the Army who are being discharged without any pension and men who will never be able to resume their civilian occupations—men who, in the long run, must be thrown upon the Poor Law, and who, as an hon. Friend who is very familiar with these things reminds me, will be thrown upon the approved societies under the Insurance Act, and we all know how difficult is the position of those approved societies in the matter of finance—many of them being practically bankrupt. I hope the House will agree that there are two questions which must receive a categorical answer. I hope that some of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench will take an interest in this, because, after all, these pledges were given by them. My right hon. Friend the ex-Prime Minister was responsible for the pledge given by the present Colonial Secretary that these men were never to be harried again. If that pledge is to be broken, surely my right hon. Friend is going to take some interest in seeing that the people to whom the pledge was given are protected. I therefore make an appeal to him to support us in obtaining a fair reply to the two questions we now ask—first, Is the medical examination of the men affected by this Bill to be a real examination, and is it such an examination as will secure that men who are passed for Class A are really fit for Class A, and if they are passed for other categories that they are really fit for the work in those categories? The second question is, If the Government's medical men pass these men into these categories, and it turns out that their health is such that they cannot discharge the work laid upon them in those categories, and they have to be discharged unfit from the Army, not owing to any misconduct of their own, will the Government undertake responsibility in the matter of pensions for those men? Those are the two questions to which I
  652
  make bold to say the House ought to demand an answer from the Government. I maintain that if the House docs not; obtain an answer to those questions—a straight answer, an answer without any equivocation—this House will not be discharging its duty to the country.
  Mr. CARADOC REES: I should like to say one or two words about military representatives. I have met a good number of them, and the first remark I would make is that many of them are over military age, and receive no pay at all for the services they are rendering. With regard to doctors, there are hard cases, and, speaking generally, in these cases care is taken by doctors in their medical examination. I am not going to say anything about broken pledges or promises which have not been fulfilled. The point before the House to-day is what is the best thing to be done now. Is this Bill a good Bill, having regard to the circumstances of the day? I understood an hon. Member to say that this Bill is intended to get men fit to fight. That is a mistaken idea. It does not follow, because men are taken into the Army, that they must be fit to go into the fighting line. There are labour units at home and labour units abroad. There is sedentary work at home and sedentary work abroad. It does not follow, therefore, that men who are found to be medically fit on re-examination are going to be put into the fighting line at all. If they can be put into other branches and release other men for the fighting line, it is important that they should go in. With regard to the medically rejected men, some of them were examined as far back as August, 1915. Suppose that a man was medically examined eighteen months ago and, perhaps, rejected at that time because he had met with an accident at football. During the whole of that time he has not been re-examined and has not been liable for service in the Army. The standard of rejection which obtained then is altogether different from the standard obtaining now. This has been going on for many months. The War Office has been saying that the medical rejects who had been attested were in the Army Reserve and that the medical rejects who were not attested were not in the Army Reserve. You have had these inequalities. A considerable amount of grumbling has been going on with regard to the pink form which ought to have

  653
  been sent before the 1st September, 1916, if the medical rejects were to be reexamined. In some districts the pink forms were sent out, but in others they were not. Consequently there has been a lot of inequalities throughout the country.
  There is one further point with regard to the Bill upon which I desire some information. I want to know if the Bill deals with rejected men, not merely medically rejected men, but all rejected men? The House knows that a number of men at one time went forward, but if they had any strain of, say, German blood or foreign blood in them, they were rejected straight away. The mayors of East London at a deputation last week, were pressing home the fact that these alien rejects—that is, unnaturalised Britishers who had alien blood in them—were taking the places of Britishers who were sent abroad. There is the strongest feeling throughout the United Kingdom on that point. I want to know whether those men who were rejected in the early stages of the War-not medically rejected, but rejected simply because of some foregn blood in them—are bound to come up for further examination and can be put into the Army? If they can, it is important for these people that they should know it. An hon. Member of this House, speaking in the smoking room the other evening— there are many sensible speeches made in the smoking room, and they are all short —said to me: "If I had a friend in my house, and I gave him the right of asylum, and if the house catches fire and he remains sitting in the drawing-room reading a book and will not assist to put out the fire, there are only two things to be done: either he must come out of the house or must assist in putting out the "fire." There are a number of people in this country of that kind. One wants to know whether they are going to help to put the fire out, and, through this Bill, be brought into the Army. One has great sympathy with the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). With regard to pensions, if the men are put into the fighting line, I should certainly support him, but if the men are put to sedentary or labour work merely, then the Pension Act already passed by this House meets the case. In conclusion, I am greatly impressed by the remark of the right hon. Gentleman in
  654
  introducing the Bill that there cannot be finality until the War is over. Of course, there cannot be finality.
  Sir CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON: Rising for the first time to address this House, I can claim some slight acquaintance with this subject, because I had considerable experience, not only in connection with the Derby scheme, but, first of all, as a military representative before one of the most important tribunals in Scotland—that of the city of Edinburgh, and subsequently as chairman of the Appeal Tribunal for the county of Perth. I support this Bill on two grounds, first of all, because there is a need for it. We ordinary Members of the House cannot judge of what the military requirements are. We have not, quite properly, the information. The Government have the information. The Secretary of State for War has the information, and he says that further men are necessary, and that the small influx of young men who are coming to be of military age and otherwise is not sufficient, and that we must get more men. Therefore the need is plain. In the second place, I say that there are men to be got. We have not such information as the Government possesses as to the sources from which men can be obtained or the number of men to be got under this scheme, but with full knowledge they say that there is a large number of men who, under this scheme, can very well be brought into the Army. For that reason we ought to pass this Bill. I have, in my experience, seen a good deal of rejections and the grounds for rejections. Although, of course, my knowledge is small compared with that of the members of the Government and of the Secretary of State for War, I have seen enough to convince mo that there is a large number of men who hold certificates of rejection who could very well be in the Army. When the medical officers began this work there was no experience on this scale, or anything like this scale. At that time, and before that time, the idea was one of selection of the very best men you could get. We have got past all that. If we can get a serviceable man in we must have him, although ho may not come up to pre-war standards. At that time there were certain rules which were somewhat slavishly adhered to. I will venture to give the House two illustrations of such cases which were brought before me by way of complaint, addressed to me in Perthshire

  655
  as sheriff of the county by men who were rejected and who regarded their rejection not as a favour, but who protested against not being taken into the Army. One of them wrote me as follows:
  "I have been engaged for the last ten years in such light work as tree-felling, saw-milling, road-making, quarrying and ploughing, and I have never been off work a day, but I am rejected because one of my legs is one-eighth of an inch longer than the other, while white-fingered, narrow-chested youths, who have been engaged in the arduous work of tying-up parcels all their lives, are passed lit,"
  5.0 P.M.
  The other case was that of a man who wrote to me saying that he was a professional cricketer, that he had done the hat trick, middle stump each time, but was rejected for defective eyesight. I brought these and other cases before a very distinguished doctor who was examining the recruits locally. He told me that the difficulty was that there were certain rules. He quite agreed that these men, and many others who he had rejected, ought to be in the Army, but he said that if he sent those men up he would be told that he did not know his business, because he had broken some technical old rule about qualifications. There is a large number of men of that kind in the country who might very well be in the Army. I have no sympathy with those, I confess, who regard the certificate of their own disability, or of some defect of their own, as a privilege which exempts hem from military service. I have not been long a Member of this House—a month or two—but I have heard many Debates and listened to thousands of questions, and many of these Debates and questions have been directed to urging the Government to reconsider classes and cases, and to let men off from a particular class or from the Army because new circumstances have emerged, or some mistake has been committed. Now that should not operate all on one side. It is our duty to look at both sides of the question. The Army is just as much entitled to consideration and to have its case re-examined as are those who want to get out of the Army, or who desire special privileges in respect of their services. No doubt there are hard cases, but in my profession there is an old saying that hard cases make bad law. If we are to have regard to hard cases in this matter, I think we shall find that hard cases make skeleton divisions.
  We must have regard to urgent military necessities. There are many hard cases
  656
  of men who started in business and undertook obligations before the War began, relying upon the assurance that peace was not likely to be disturbed, and they would never be called upon to perform military service. These men have had to break their engagements and to give up their employment, and when there are hundreds and thousands of such cases, I suggest we need not be so very tender of those who, at present, hold certificates of exemption. I am sorry I appeared to intervene between the House and the late Prime Minister. I noticed that the two hon. Members "who have spoken against this Bill are both Scotsmen. We have had another Scottish voice here today; we have a message from General Murray, a Scot who is with the men in the field, and we all hope that before long we shall hear that General Murray has done what one of the greatest English soldiers—Richard Coeur de Lion—failed to do—has taken Jerusalem. I venture to think the people of Scotland are determined to support their men in the trenches and to support the great leaders of whom they are so proud—Field-Marshal Haig and General Murray—and, on behalf of the men in the trenches, I hope this House without hesitation will pass this Bill.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I am very glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Johnston) has had an opportunity of making a speech which induces us to congratulate ourselves on his accession to our ranks. He pointed out that the Debate so far has been entirely taken part in by Scotsmen, and, I am reminded, one Welshman. I am not a Scotsman, but I am a Scottish Member. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I think it will be the experience of everybody to whatever nationality he may belong, there is hardly any limit to the eccentricities in the way both of of exemptions and inclusions which doctors and tribunals and the other authorities concerned have committed themselves to in the course of the very difficult task of combing out, as it is called, the population. So long as human judgment is fallible and variable I am afraid that cases of that kind will be and must be an inevitable occurrence. My object in rising—I will not enter into any arguments on the general principle—is to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to give some little explanation which might very much

  657
  shorten and simplify our Debate. My right hon. Friend has spoken of 100,000 men as the number to whom this Bill may probably apply. I assume they are all men who have been medically rejected as unfit for Army service.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Substantially.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Rejected on medical grounds as unfit for military service. I think the House will be glad to be assured—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to give that assurance—that these 100,000 men are not in any substantial proportion occupied in equally useful work in other forms of service.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, they are under precisely the same conditions as the men who came under the first Military Service Acts. They have a right to go before the tribunals and to be treated in every respect, from that point of view, as the others.
  Mr. ASQUITH: That may very much qualify the number of 100,000 men.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We have taken that into consideration.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Does not that imply that men employed on other equally important service—agricultural or munitions or any other service, should not be brought back into the Army under this Bill or any other Bill. On that, I think, we are absolutely agreed. The point on which I want to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman is the one raised by the two hon. Members who respectively moved and seconded the Amendment. It is assumed, of course, that these men who are going to be re-examined are men who hitherto have been exempted on medical grounds. But some of them may be men who, having been originally passed and gone into the Army, have been discharged as unfit for service. I do not want to dogmatise, or even to express any conjectional opinion, but, so far as I have been able to familiarise myself with the fact, I am not at all sure that an equal number of men have not been passed into the Army who ought to have been rejected to those who have been rejected, but ought to have been passed. I think it is a very disputable point as to where the balance lies. We have all of us had brought to our notice, in our own constituencies or in
  658
  other ways, numbers of cases of men who have passed the medical examination, and after a very short time of service—sometimes only a few days—have proved themselves manifestly unfit to serve their country in a military capacity.; That aspect of the case ought not to be left out of account in dealing with a measure of this kind. Take the case which has been put by the two hon. Gentlemen of men who, having been previously rejected ore medical grounds, now upon re-examination stand the test and are sent into the Army, and then prove, as is not unlikely to be the case, to be really unfit for military service. Is not the appeal which has been made that they should be dealt with generously in the matter of pensions, are appeal which ought to commend itself to the House of Commons. I think if my right hon. Friend, or those who represent the War Office, were in a position to give some assurance on that point, it would very much facilitate the passing of this measure. No one wishes to protect men who have been rejected on imperfect evidence and escaped. Every man in the House will agree it is perfectly right that they should be re-examined and subjected again to the doctor's test, and perhaps a fuller examination. If they pass that test and qualify for military service, they should go. If my right hon. Friend can give an assurance on the point raised in this Amendement, it may be the passage of this Bill through the House will be enormously facilitated.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: With the permission of the House, may I point out to my right hon. Friend how this case stands, if he is not familiar with it? The position, as I understand it, is this: Anyone who has been taken into the Army is entitled to a pension if, on his discharge, it is found either that his ill-health is due to service in the Army or that his previous ill-health had been aggravated by it. The only case where a pension is not given is the kind of case which has been explained over and over again by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions: it is that of men who have by mistake been taken into the Army and who are perfectly unfit. In many cases they have never attended drills and have done no work. What my hon. Friends ask is that these men should get the same kind of pensions as if they had gone through actual service.
  Mr. HOGGE: No, I do not ask that.
  Mr. ASQUITH: The men we are dealing with now are men already rejected, and we think the military authorities should look on that as some kind of warning. In spite of their rejection they are now to be re-examined and to be sent into military service.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I need not say that any case which is put by my right hon. Friend, who has had experience of precisely the same character, is one which deserves attention from the Government, and will get it. Is not this the position —I put it to my right hon. Friend? Assume a mistake is made of the same kind again, then are we going to give them the same kind of pension? I admit, in dealing with these matters, it ought to be possible to be more careful in the examination, and what I will promise to do—I cannot answer at once without communication to the War Office—I will ask whether it is possible to make the medical examination so perfect as to run no risks of this danger.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: The point which my right hon. Friend has just mentioned is the point on which I desire to address one or two words to the House. It is a very serious request to make to the House—to pass a Bill of this kind. There are few, if any, Members of the House who would be unwilling to grant it on the statement made by my right hon. Friend, but if we do pass this Bill it is imperative that every possible attempt should be made to avoid mistakes by the medical authorities who do the re-examination, and to avoid the difficulties which have been pointed out by the late Prime Minister and by my two hon. Friends in submitting this Amendment. What I venture to put to the House is this, that, without any reflection being cast on the medical authorities of the Army in the past, there can be no doubt they have been greatly overworked and have in many cases made great mistakes. These ought to be prevented in the arrangements to be made by the War Office for re-examination, if this Bill is to be carried with public acquiescence and if the dangers which lurk in it are to be avoided. I would like to make one suggestion which I made last autumn to Lord Derby and to the War Office. The tribunal of which I am a member found the greatest difficulty in dealing with the very large num-
  660
  ber of men who had not been medically examined or re-examined under the existing law. It was very desirable, in the interests of the Army, that this examination should take place as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. When we came to inquire how it was that case after case that came before us had to be adjourned, sometimes indefinitely, for want of medical examination, we found that it was because there really was not a large enough staff of military medical authorities to deal with the cases promptly.
  The suggestion was then made that it might be possible to get the services of civil medical practitioners to a much greater extent than had been done in the past—not, of course, to allow medical men to decide on behalf of the Army cases arising immediately near their own homes or within range of their practice, but to join with military doctors in forming a board, say, ten, fifteen, or twenty miles away from where they are carrying on their daily practice. In that way you would get what you have not got up to now. You would get in many cases the larger and more varied experience of the civilian doctor as to many kinds of disease, and you would have the representative of the Army Medical Service, who knows the Army conditions, and who knows what the points are that ought to be specially looked for when you are deciding about taking men into the Army. What many of us regret is that the War Office, which braced itself so well to so gigantic a task, still does not snow enough recognition of the fact that you may have competence in professional men although they are not wearing khaki, and that you ought to bring to aid those who are wearing khaki those who have had medical experience as civilian practitioners. If only the War Office could divest itself of the notion that everything must be done by someone who is holding a permanent commission under the King, and that nothing can be done by people outside, however wide their experience or however acute their intelligence, if they would put aside that departmental predisposition-all Government Departments are bound of necessity to have this predisposition— this problem would be much more easily solved. I can say, from my own experience in the early months of this year, that it was very difficult indeed to attach proper weight to medical certificates issued in November and December because of the rush, crush, hurry, and congestion

  661
  of the work under which these gentlemen had to do their duty. When this Bill has become law, when thousands of men come again before tribunals asking them to decide their fate in the light of a new medical examination it is of the greatest consequence that there should foe no ground whatever for thinking that this re-examination has been done perfunctorily or without adequate variety of knowledge and skill.
  I am appealing to my hon. Friend in no spirit of hostility, on the contrary I am doing all I can do as a mere layman to help the Army in the War, but from the point of view of one who sits on tribunals principally and has a good deal to do with recruiting all through the War, I ask him to arrange that the War Office should seek the help—it may be for one or two days in the week—of experienced local practitioners, both in order to get rid of the congestion and in order to have a greater variety of experience and, therefore, a greater weight of judgment. I have worked it out for one English county on the financial side, and it was a mere flea-bite compared with the money which is now being quite properly, but lavishly, spent in a thousand directions. There will be a great feeling, on the part of thousands of persons, of regret and anxiety at the harassment which is involved in the carrying out of this Act of Parliament. We want to minimise that as much as possible, and it is to minimise that that I make these suggestions. I need hardly say I desire to associate myself with what has fallen from my hon. Friend in regard to the need of considering the pensions question in relation to these exceptional cases. I am quite sure the appeal made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) will be carefully attended to by the Government. We have on the one hand to be sure that this Bill is necessary— after the statement of the Leader of the House I cannot take the responsibility of saying it is not necessary—but if it be necessary, it is equally necessary to make it work as smoothly, as fairly, and with as much weight and sense of justice as we can possibly get into its administration. That can only be done if there is a great improvement in the discharge of the duties of medical re-examination, not because those who have tried it before have not done their best, but because many were inexperienced and many were overworked. Help that is
  662
  available has not yet been sought to anything like the extent which might have been done. If that is done it will be the duty of us all not only to carry out this Act of Parliament, but to try and make our fellow citizens understand that the need of the country calls for it and it does not mean that there is an intention, on the part either of the Government of this House or of the country, to have greater harshness in administration, but where men are really qualified to serve in the Army who, at this crisis, can desire that any of them should refrain from doing so?
  Colonel BURN: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman knows that almost a mobilisation of the medical men of this country has taken place, and really the doctors who actually belong to the old Army Medical Department are absolutely in a minority. Most of the medical men now who examine recruits and who are doing duty at the front are men who have joined temporarily for service during the War.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I am aware of that fact, and I hope I said nothing derogatory to them or implying ignorance of the fact that many of them have joined the Army since. My point is that I worked out, in one English county, the possibility of doctors who are at home giving one or two mornings a week to this particular work.
  Colonel BURN: I did not mean that the hon. Gentleman said a word which was derogatory, only he was proposing to call in the advice of civil practitoners and I was attempting to explain that so many civil practitioners were employed already that they were doing the greater part of the work of examination. It is perfectly true that in the great stress and rush that there was for recruits in the early stages of the War many men were passed into the Army who certainly had no place there, and ought, for medical reasons, not to serve in the ranks. But at the same time, when the great rush of recruits was on, many men were very cursorily examined, and I am perfectly convinced, from my own knowledge of cases which have come before me, that men have been refused as not being fit for the Army who were perfectly capable of serving in the ranks. Many of these men would not be required to serve in the ranks or in the trenches at all. There are many positions which have

  663
  to be filled at what we call the back of the front, where life is certainly very different from what it is in the trenches. Perhaps I, from the nature of the duties I have to perform in my constant visits to the front, can tell the House as well as any individual of the vital necessity there is for men in order to fill the vacancies and gaps which must occur in a war of this description. Our position in France is an extremely good one, but it is vital that the Commander-in-Chief, if his plans are to be carried out, should have this constant and continual supply of men, and that the ranks of the divisions which are facing the enemy should be kept full. Hon. Members do not perhaps know that the flower of the Germany Army and the bulk of the divisions of the German Army are facing the front held by the British Army. We all know that the French have fought magnificently. They have proved themselves to be true Allies and true Frenchmen. No one could wish for anything more gallant than the defence the French have made at various positions of the line, and especially at Verdun, and it was simply by French tenacity and bravery that the Germans were defeated at that point. There are many other things connected with this campaign which must prove to every individual in the country that men are first and foremost vitally necessary for the conduct of this campaign. The hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) and my hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment suggested means by which men could be got. They spoke of Salonika, and asked why we do not draw 250,000 men from there. It is a very dangerous thing for any hon. Member to lay down what men are to be drawn from any part of the front. Even with the knowledge at my disposal, which is possibly greater than that of those two hon. Members, I should be very sorry to take the responsibility of ordering a withdrawal of the troops from Salonika or from any other portion of the front. There are a great many things to be considered. Perhaps those hon. Members do not know that, at any rate, the good that our force is doing there, if not positive, is negative good. It is containing a very portion of the enemy forces which might be very well and very usefully employed elsewhere. So I think, as has always been my opinion, that we had better leave the strategy of this campaign to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff and his advisers.
  Mr. PRINGLE: If it had been so left we should not have been at Salonika.
  Colonel BURN: There are a good many reasons other than military which keep a force at Salonika or elsewhere, and, after all, when this War is over, doubtless the hon. Member will be perfectly satisfied with the reasons which have placed the force there. I, and many others who are in a far better position than I am to express an opinion about that, would rejoice if they felt they could get those 250,000 men from that part of the world. When we discuss the question of men I see there is very great and deep interest being shown by those who occupy places below the Gangway, and I think I might equally suggest that we ought to make an appeal to Ireland to provide some of the many young men who are to be found in Irish towns at this moment. Ireland has been left immune from the operations of the Military Service Act. It is not my intention to discuss that, but in view of the splendid way in which the Irish regiments have fought in this campaign, and the brilliancy with which they have fought, I think at this time of the country's peril Ireland might very usefully add a considerable portion of the 100,000 or 200,000 men we have been talking about. However, that seems to be a question that is left in the hands of Ireland to do as they please.
  Mr. DILLON: No; if it had been left in our hands we would have sent you another 100,000.
  Colonel BURN: I am very pleased to hear the hon. Member say so, and I would remind him that it is not too late to send them now, and if they will send them they will be very welcome.
  Mr. DILLON: You want to provoke me into telling you why they are not sent.
  Colonel BURN: I do not want to provoke the hon. Member. I am not anxious to go into the question of why you should have Home Rule or why you do not get Home Rule. I only say that the men are wanted, and in my opinion every man who can be spared and is fit to fight for his country should be got; and now is the time that he has got to do it. I have no hesitation in saying that. After the War is over and when peace is declared, then the representatives of Ireland will have to stand up and will have to tell us why they have not got as equal a right as any other

  665
  portion of the British Dominions to speak as regards peace negotiations. I feel that there are many young men in Ireland who think that it is an insult to them that they have not been called to the Colours in order to fight for their native land. That is a question that undoubtedly will be settled after this War is over. I heard the remarks made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) when he addressed himself to the Leader of the House as regards men in Government offices. I am not definitely certain, but I am led to believe that the civilians employed in Government offices have been combed out as far as it is humanly possible they can be. I believe that only those who are absolutely essential are still holding their places in the Government offices, and I feel convinced that the Leader of the House would not allow men of the proper military age who are fit and able to fight to be retained in sedentary posts where they are doing nothing except pen work for their country. The few months that are now coming on will be the vital time of the War. We have got a Commander-in-Chief in France in whom the Army reposes its trust and confidence, and I am certain that this great War will be brought to a successful issue. At the same time I would impress upon this House the necessity, before everything else, of providing the men to fill up our ranks. Then, and by these means alone, shall we be able to bring the Germans to their knees and to enforce a peace on terms which would suit our country and our Allies, and once and for all stamp out the military despotism of the German nation.
  Sir M. LEVY: After the opening remarks of the Leader of the House I think anyone who would oppose this Bill must be a man of great courage, and after what we have learned from the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Burn) one feels further impressed with the desirability of doing all that one possibly can at the earliest moment to find the necessary men. But in saying that I think we are entitled to seek from the Minister in charge of the Bill some information as to the attitude of the War Office. It has been said and is well known that a great many men have received exemptions who certainly were not medically unfit. On the other hand, it is well known that a great many men have been taken into the Army who were totally unfit from the medical point of view. I want to ask the hon. Member (Mr. Mac-
  666
  pherson) to give us some explanation or some assurance that the medical examination which these men are to undergo under this Bill shall be an examination of a really reliable character. I expect every hon. Member has his attention drawn day by day to cases, in consequence of the overworked condition of the doctors, of men utterly unsuited being taken into the Army. Let me give a case which was recently brought under my notice. I know the man and I know the full facts. The man had been rejected as totally unfit for any military service. He was anxious to serve his country and tried to get employment in the Remount Department, but was turned out on each occasion as being a weakling and unfit for service. That man was called up a few weeks ago for re-examination. He told me that seventy men were re-examined by what was called a travelling board, and practically every one of them was passed into the Army. This man presented himself afterwards at 48 hours' notice, and he was taken, and told he would be very useful for the tanks. What is the result? Within one week that man was in hospital. He remained in hospital something like eight weeks, and has now been rejected from the Army. Similar cases are occurring frequently, and I think we are justified in asking that the re-examination of those who have been rejected shall be an examination reliable in every shape and form. I hope that the Minister in charge of the Bill will be prepared to consider favourably an Amendment I propose to put down, to the effect that in extreme cases a man shall have the right to be examined by a board, and, if he desires, one member of that board shall be his own medical adviser.
  I am as anxious as the Minister in charge of the Bill to get every physically fit man. into the Army, but, on the other hand, I say it is a mistake to increase your numbers unless you are increasing them with men who are efficient and who will be some good to this country in the War. I want also to impress upon the Government that they must make up their minds that every man they take into the Army after his re-examination, no matter what may be the cause of his illness, shall be entitled to pension. I heard the Leader of the House say that these men when they were invalided out were entitled to pensions, but words were quoted in which it is claimed that they must prove that their illness has been aggravated by military service. So long as the men are the

  667
  servants of the State the responsibility should rest on the Government, just as the responsibility rests on any other employer. If the Government in any way impairs or injures the health of a man, no question of aggravation should arise in the minds of the people who have to decide whether or not that man is entitled to a pension. There is another point which, perhaps, cannot be met by this Bill, but in regard to which I would like to have some assurance. A large number of young men or boys have left the secondary schools and public schools probably at an earlier age than usual with the object of going to Woolwich and Sandhurst and then to obtain a commission in the Army. Many of these young men and boys have been rejected as medically unfit. I want the Government to take into consideration the position of these boys and to say that under the new system of lowering the medical scale for admission into the Army, these boys shall not have their interests prejudiced by the fact that they were rejected on an earlier occasion. I think that is a fair request to make, and I sincerely hope that it will be taken into consideration. I admit that perhaps it is impossible for my hon. Friend to do anything in the Bill to make the position of these boys equivalent to what it was prior to their being rejected, but if he will give the House an assurance it will be a source of great gratification to a large number of people.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) should be congratulated on having raised an issue of very wide and far-reaching importance, and also on the reply which has been given to him. As I understand it, the Government have given a pledge.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Hear, hear. A pledge!
  Sir H. DALZIEL: They have given a pledge to the late Prime Minister that in future there is to be better medical examination than has taken place before, and that if, after recruits are obtained, they become medically unfit, their claim is to be more favourably considered in the future than in the past.
  Mr. WING: Is that really so?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I am trying to ascertain. I would like to know exactly where we stand, and if there is any change in the
  668
  position of affairs as the result of to-day's. Debate? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House must have meant something: when he said that he was going to see that there was better medical examination. I do not think he need worry himself there about making any promise which ought not to be made, because the whole House knows that the medical examination has been very unsatisfactory in the past. Let us not blame it entirely on the doctors. The Under-Secretary for War will know that some time ago a circular was issued to the doctors, informing them that they were not to take too much heed of the condition of the recruit at the time, whether they were accepting him or rejecting him, but they were to come to their decision in regard to how they thought that recruit would be in six months' or a year's time. I thought that was a very dangerous circular. It was one that obviously said to the doctors, "Pass the recruit; let him take his luck, and see what happens." I have a copy of the circular, so that I am speaking of what I know.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I should like-to see it
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I have not the circular here at the moment, but I can get it. I think it was sent in February. My hon. Friend need not shake his head.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have not seen it.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: There are many-things at the War Office that my hon. Friend does not see. I only plead for the doctors that we must not place the whole responsibility upon them. They have been rushed to a large extent by those who had to get the men necessary to carry on the War, the result has been extreme pressure upon the doctors, and it is quite true, we all know, that men have been passed really without any examination at all. As far as the future is concerned, we must have something more than we have had to-day from the Leader of the House. I do not think it is good enough to say we are going to have better examination, and I do not think it is good enough to say that if the men turn out medically unfit their ease is going to be favourably considered. I see my right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister in his place. I know if he were sitting with us below the Gangway what a splendid case he would make out on behalf of the claims put forward by my hon.

  669
  Friend, what a splendid case he would put up if he agreed with it, which I naturally assume he would do, and no man is more anxious to do the right thing by these men than he is! Therefore I direct his attention to this: Is it not fair, if these men have been medically rejected in the past, if, in face of definite pledges given to some of them that they would never be examined again, they are now to be examined again—they are to be more carefully examined than ever before—they are passed through, and they have got to sell their businesses, into which, on the faith of a decision of the Government, they put their money, is it not fair if, after being passed as fit, they are, through no fault of their own, declared medically unfit, that they should be entitled to something more than a gratuity, that they should be entitled to a pension?
  The question was raised as to whether you would treat these men in that position as well as the men who had been in the trenches. I do not think that that is quite fair. If a man is accepted by the Army, he is bound to go where the Army sends him. If by a mere accident he is not in the trenches, that is no fault of his. After being accepted by the doctors, he ought to be in the same position, to all intents and purposes, as the man who is ordered into the trenches. Therefore I say that there is a case which is far more important than has existed up to the present time for saying that the position should be more clearly defined than it has been. He ought not to trust to a gratuity in the future. He ought to have a pension. Make it as small as you consider necessary, and as large as you think the circumstances warrant. Let him know where he stands. I believe that if the Government take that line at this moment, it would practically end this controversy, a controversy which is otherwise likely to increase, and as to which I am perfectly certain that public opinion holds the view strongly that these men should be more favourably considered. I do not consider the position satisfactory. I do not consider that it ought to be left where it is. I consider that we ought to have a definite agreement on the floor of this House. My hon. Friend does not like pledges. The days have gone by for pledges in this House, because, I say it advisedly, we have had half a dozen pledges which have not been kept.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: A hundred pledges.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Both Front Benches are to blame for all the pledges that have been made and have been violated, so that private independent Members of the House are in this position, that they must not put too much confidence in the statements of Ministers, no matter what particular Government they may belong to, when a few months later it may be said that the pledge which was given no longer applies, that it has no relation to the present position. We know these cases well. There is one directly before us at the present time. Take the case of the pink form. I have received at least a dozen letters this morning from people who will be affected by this proposal. The circumstances were these. They had been rejected as medically unfit, and they had been assured on behalf of the Government that they would never again be called up for re-examination. On the faith of that they placed what little savings they had in businesses and made arrangements for the future according to that declaration on the part of the Government. Had it been different, had they thought that they might be called up for re-examination, they would not have undertaken the responsibilities which they have undertaken. The case of these men is a very strong one. Only a few months ago that pledge was made. Now they are to be called up after they have invested their savings in these businesses. These are cases which ought to be very favourably considered by the Government. So far as I am concerned I shall want something more than has yet been stated before I support even the Bill which is before us. Why should we have this Bill to-day? We have it because the Government require another 100,000 men. I will show my hon. Friends how they can get them without this Bill. If the declaration before the country is that we have got such a state of things in carrying on this War on twelve or fifteen different fronts that 100,000 men is the only demand we are making at the present time, I think that it is a very small demand in view of the liabilities which we have undertaken. A hundred thousand men does not go very far.
  Mr. DILLON: It is only 100,000 unfit men.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: My hon. Friend is right; this Bill only applies to unfit men, but of course it involves the assumption that we cannot get the 100,000 men who are required at the present time, otherwise

  671
  we would not pass this Bill. Therefore we have got to take the broad question. The Government consider that this Bill is the best method of obtaining the 100,000 men which they require. I will only observe in passing that 100,000 men really does not go very far in some of the offensives which we sometimes undertake. I certainly agree with the hon. Member who said it suggests considerations of larger policy rather than the mere method of obtaining men at the present time. Before we agree to this demand I think that we are entitled to ask the Government if they have exhausted practically every other source at their disposal? They have done nothing of the kind. For two and a half years, at any rate two years, I have raised in this House time after time the question, which was alluded to to-day, of friendly aliens in this country. I was told a year ago by the late Home Secretary that we had in England here—the larger number of them in London—over 30,000 friendly aliens belonging to countries fighting with us, who at the time were of military age. I venture to say that the figure should be a great deal more than 30,000; I would say myself 40,000. However, take the official answer and assume that it is over 30,000. Why, when our men have been making sacrifices, risking their lives, shutting up their shops and leaving their businesses have these 30,000 men been walking about our streets? It is a scandal, and neglect on the part of the Government is responsible for it.
  I know that delicate negotiations may have to take place with the Allies, but over six months ago we had a declaration on behalf of the Government that their policy was to call up those men, and when you are asking for 100,000 men who have been rejected as medically unfit, we are entitled to say, "What are you doing to get these 30,000 men, who are fit, to fight either in our ranks or in the ranks of the country to which they belong?" Before the Bill passes I hope we will have a definite statement on that subject. I understand that a Bill is necessary. When is the Bill coming in? When is it to be introduced? We are adjourning over Easter. That means that it will not be done for another month. Yet for two and a half years these men ought to have been taking their burden of responsibility. There are 30,000 whom I have given to begin with. There are other
  672
  sources of supply. I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend who addressed the House a few minutes ago, and who said, "Why is not Ireland got in at the present time?" I am not going into that question. It suggests a demand on Ireland for men while we deny Ireland's demand. Had we shown a little more foresight in times past, it is possible that recruits from Ireland would have been very much larger than they even have been. I say, however, in dealing with Ireland, that there are men in Ireland who ought to be in our Army at the present time. I allude to the Englishmen, Scotsmen, and, may be, Welshmen, who went over to Ireland eighteen months and two years ago, and are there at the present time. I had a letter yesterday from an eminent professor in Ireland who gave figures, very substantial figures, as to the number of young Englishmen over in Ireland at the present time who ought to be available for military service. I only ask the War Office: Have they inquired into that? Obviously, if there are any Englishmen who have gone over there during the last eighteen months, they ought to be subject to the operation of the Military Service Act. That is quite a distinct question from the question of no Conscription in Ireland.
  There are other sources as to which again there has been great delay. There is the source of Britishers living in Allied countries. French papers have often very strong articles, asking what the French Government and the British Government are doing, so as to secure these Englishmen who ought not to be exempt from military service. How many Britishers do the Government consider are in France at the present moment who have never been liable to military service at all? I understand that there is a considerable number. There are other Allied countries where, to my knowledge, there are large numbers of Britishers who ought to be taking their share in the War at the present time. Measures ought to be adopted to have a Proclamation to the Britishers in Allied countries, pointing out that unless they accept their responsibility and come and take their share, they will not be in quite the same position after the War as other men will be. I know cases where men have gone to British Consuls in different countries and asked for their passage to come home, and been refused. That is another way in which something might be done. Let the British Consuls

  673
  in all neutral and Allied countries have a free hand in dealing with these men. Let them have a medical examination there if they like, and these men could be dealt with. But all these sources of supply have not been tapped up to the present. There has been a lot of conversation and a lot of talk. We have never yet had any real action on the part of the late Government or of this. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to make it his business as far as possible to have no more time lost about it. It is about two years too late now. The result may not be as good as we were entitled to expect, but it ought to be done. Up to this moment there has been no direct appeal from this country to the thousands of our countrymen abroad, from which they might consider it absolutely necessary for them to return. I ask that that shall be made, and I have no doubt whatever that if done, it will find a ready response.
  6.0 P.M.
  Then there is another point. I would ask my hon. Friend, are we to do nothing with coloured labour at all throughout the War? Is the War to end with half a million coloured men available not only for the fighting line, but also to do work which would enable men to go into the lighting line. I know that we are using a considerable number in France at the present time. Why have we been so slow in using them? We never seem to have wakened up to the enormous character of the War. We ought to have had every available man from every corner of the Empire helping eighteen months ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) over a year ago, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Colonel Ward) raised this question in the House. They pointed out the delay that would take place, and that then it would be necessary to train officers in the language, and so on, in order to command these battalions. But up to the present time no real action has been taken to bring coloured men into the fighting line. We have not touched the fringe of the question yet. So far as India is concerned, there is certainly a great reservoir of men which ought to be tapped. I would invite my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to tell us how many coloured men we have got. He may say that he cannot tell us because of not giving information to the enemy. I do not think that matters very much. This bogey about
  674
  giving information to the enemy has been exploited far too much by both Governments. The Germans know to-day far more about our military strength and arrangements and intentions than most Members of this House. Therefore, let us know how many coloured troops we have got, how many are actually employed at present, how many are expected to be employed, and how many more my hon. Friend thinks will be necessary. When you are making the demands that you are making it is a very serious matter, for it often means certain death, whether the men who have been re-examined go on the field or not. To my knowledge men have been brought from the front who were of no further use for service of any kind. I had a case of my own only the other day, that of a young man of about twenty-three years of age, who returned from the field unfit for doing any further work, and it afterwards took me about three months to get him released. Before he was released he was examined by four or five doctors, and he was so exhausted at the end of the examination that I immediately sent him away for a month's rest, and it took him a month or more before he was capable of doing anything of any sort. The examination was of so severe a character that it was almost worse than anything the young man had gone through in France. This lad, in my opinion, should have been rejected. I put to my hon. Friend two things: The first is that he should go further than he has yet gone in reply to the demands of my hon. Friend behind me, and also give us an assurance that all the sources of supply have been properly tapped before proceeding with this demand under the Bill.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: I should like to say two or three words about the Bill. Examing it, as I think we all ought to do, on the basis that compulsory military service has been adopted by Parliament and the country, and, having been so adopted, it has got to be worked in the best possible way to secure the best possible results. Since the original Military Service Act was passed I have myself always taken up that attitude, and I look back and say, I think with truth and accuracy, that any suggestion I have since made has simply been in the direction of making the working of the machine more efficient. I want to look at this Bill only from that point of view. I would ask the Under-

  675
  Secretary for War if he thinks it sufficiently distinguishes between two entirely different kinds of cases? One kind of case I think is deserving of very little sympathy, and as to which probably the whole House would be willing, even at the risk of some disregard of previous assurances, to pass further legislation. The other class of case, I think, would be thought by everybody in the House as one which they would desire most anxiously to consider, and the interests of which we should all wish most jealously to watch over and guard. The two classes are these: On the one hand, we are told— we have been told it before, and I have some difficulty in believing that the numbers are really very great—that there are people walking about this country to-day who, though within the limits of military age, have none the less escaped the duty which the law of the land puts upon them, and of which they are physically capable, being in good dealth and strength, by means which are nothing short of fraudulent. Nobody can have any sympathy whatever with such persons. I do not know how many of them there are, or by what means they have escaped, but I think they ought to be dealt with, if possible, where they have escaped, owing to their own fraud or owing to some failure in the working of the machine. They ought, by some means, to be called upon to do their duty; at any rate, some means should be adopted to catch them, whether they have escaped by good fortune or mistake, or whether they have escaped by fraud.
  Take the other case, which I cannot help thinking a hard one, that of the man who came forward in the early days of the War and volunteered, whether under the Lord Derby scheme or otherwise, and who, though he was anxious to do his best for his country, was rejected on the ground of unfitness. I quite see, and I realise that the standard of physical fitness must deteriorate as the War goes on. That is well understood. Consequently, it was thought right, in the autumn of last year, to carry a second Military Service Act, which provided that men who had been medically rejected before the first Military Service Act none the less might be called on at any time before the 1st of September last year to be re-examined. There were many persons who received the pink form for that purpose, but in the course of the late autumn last year they were not called
  676
  up for re-examination because the military authorities at that - time thoroughly realised that the persons who had been rejected were so wholly unfit that they could not possibly be sent to the Army. These are the cases of men who wanted to serve, who were disappointed because they could not serve, and who were, under the first Military Service Act, put right outside the scope of it. Yet they are now to be put under the provisions of the Military Service Act. They were given the pink form of the 1st September last year, but the military authorities asked themselves what was the good of having these men who were no more fit at the end of last year than before and who could not be accepted. Is it right to treat these two kinds of persons, the fraudulent person who slipped his way out of the Act of Parliament and the man who did everything he could to serve his country, but who was, in the judgment of the military authorities at the end of last year a person who could not be considered fit for the Army—is it fair, I ask, that these two persons should be dealt with in the same way?
  Under this Bill you do so. Under this Bill a man rejected only last week will be none the less liable. A man who has been wounded twice or thrice and discharged from the Army because it was found by experience that nothing could be done with him comes under this Bill. The Under-Secretary for War says not for twelve months, but there is no such indication in the Bill. You have these two classes of persons—one the fraudulent trickster that everybody would like to see brought to book, and the other a man who, of all classes of the community, seems to me to deserve most consideration from the House of Commons. The Director-General of Recruiting has had this very point brought before him. He was asked in correspondence whether he did not realise the gross injustice that would arise unless a clear distinction was made in future legislation between those who received the pink forms and had them withdrawn when the authorities came to the conclusion that it was of no use to call the men up, and those rejected men who either had not received the pink form or else had received it too late. The reply of the Director-General of Recruiting, written in December of last year, was as follows:
  "I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter addressed to the Director-General of Recruiting

  677
  and in reply to inform you that the point you raise is appreciated, and will be borne in mind in any future legislation that may be proposed."
  I would ask the Under-Secretary, has it really been borne in mind? There is no sign of it whatever in this Bill, and it does seem to me a very serious thing that you should expose to disabilities the very class who have really done their best and are most to be pitied, while those who have escaped service by fraud or by mistake will be subjected to the same tratment. In the times in which we live, pledges seem to be so much piecrust, and assurances given in the most solemn way in most instances are treated as of not much account. I would like the House to hear what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the time when he was President of the Local Government Board and on the occasion of the last Military Service Bill. I would like Members to hear the assurances which were given on behalf of the Government by my right hon. Friend. There was a discussion as to what was the date before which the pink form ought to be served. The right hon. Gentleman was arguing that it ought to be a fairly distant date as he wanted to be quite sure that the War Office machinery would not be too hard pressed. I am reading from the 16th May, 1916, column 1455, of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "We all want that there shall be a time, and as early a time as possible, when all those men who have been medically rejected shall know that their cases have been revised and settled for all time—that is to say, those who are to be re examined, and called up for service in consequence, shall know what their duty is; and, on the other hand, those who are rejected again, will never again be harried and called upon to undergo a fresh examination."
  Apparently there seems to have been suspicion in the minds of some people, for the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "There is an impression, I know, that it is the intention of the War Office to keep on re-examining medically rejected men, and that a man who was medically rejected a year ago may not necessarily be medically rejected to day, and that a man medically rejected to-day may not necessarily he medically rejected in six months' time. That is an entire misapprehension. There is no intention whatever to renew these reviews of medical examination."
  I can recognise, as must any sensible man, that as the War goes on the standard of fitness must be depressed. I make no complaint of that; it is quite reasonable, and it is not unnatural, that the Ministerial authorities, if they find that the machine is not working effectively, should come to the House of Commons for further power to make it work effectively. Still, I do think that some better protection
  678
  ought to be given, and that people ought not to be harried when no good can come of it. There are people who, in many cases, have been wounded in the country's service, who had offered themselves in the early days of the War, and who got the pink form last September, but were afterwards told by the military authorities that it was no good their coming up because their condition was such that they could not do anything. The object we should have in view is to have machinery which will not produce the degree of depression, anxiety, and injustice which is involved in the wide terms of this Bill. The Government told us that they expected to get 100,000 men by this moans. Will they tell us how many will come from the different classes? For example, how many is it seriously thought are going to be got from those who have already received pink forms? I find it very difficult to believe that the standard of medical examination was so high up to September, 1016, that a new medical examination to-day will produce anything of the kind. There is the point made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just now addressed the House, that this House will hardly be doing justice to deserving members of the community who may be touched by this Bill, if we leave the thing merely in the realm of assurance from the Treasury Bench, and that there will have to be in this Bill assurances translated into the terms of the Bill in order that those who really do deserve protection in this matter shall feel that the House is doing what they can to protect them.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the Second Reading, said that the Government and the authorities had always realised that the important thing was to distribute properly the forces of the country between military service on the one hand and other necessary services on the other. I hope it may be so, but I am not quite certain, from the action of the military authorities and their agents, that they understood the necessity so. Nobody would imagine that the military authorities have been other than doing their honest best in the interests of the Army. That was what they were employed for, and what they do. I make no complaint of their having done it as thoroughly as they could. It is quite a different thing from trying to preserve a real balance between the different needs of the country. It surprised me to be told—as we were told — that it is only in view

  679
  of the recent submarine menace that the authorities fully realised how damaging to the total strength of the country in time of war it is to take from agriculture or from shipbuilding the men who are specially skilled in carrying on those occupations. That surely was a consideration that ought to have been borne in mind. It was never more true than to-day to say that the carrying on of this War by this country is not a simple question of getting any kind of men in any numbers into the Army. It is a question of securing the proper distribution of the man-power of the country as between the different kinds of National Service in time of war. I trust that we may hear that the method hitherto adopted has produced such a result, but I do not think that the past experience which we have had of the working of military service will justify us in allowing this Bill to pass as it stands without greater security being taken for those who would fall within its provisions, and who, if brought within it, would not thereby add one jot to the strength of the nation at this time.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTS: I rise in order to put a specific point before the Under-Secretary as to the working of this Bill. I accept the necessity for this measure after the statement of the Leader of the House. There are undoubtedly a great number of men in the Army who ought not to be there, and there are likewise a great number of men out of the Army who ought to be in the Army. The purpose of this Bill is, as far as it is practical to do so, to get into the Army at the present grave time those who are able to serve the nation. The point to which I refer is this: Many speakers in the Debate have emphasised the difficulties of the medical aspect of the re-examination under this Bill. What are the facts? The medical staff of the War Office is not adequate for the present position, and I hope that the War Office will carefully consider the suggestion made to-day, and on many previous occasions, that greater use should be made in future of civilian doctors. In connection with the re-examination there is bound to be a great deal of new work imposed on the medical staff of the War Office. The Leader of the House stated that the calculation was that about a million exemptions would have to be re-examined if this Bill were passed into law. What I should like to suggest is this, that in order to save
  680
  time and labour and to ease the medical staff in its gigantic task, would it not be possible and wise, in the first place, to arrange for a general review of those million cases by a specially appointed medical board for the purpose of excluding from the necessity of re-examination all those cases in which it is perfectly plain and clear that the men concerned could not in any way be taken to serve in the Army at the present time? I think it has been calculated that about 40 per cent, at least of this total of a million exemptions would be men who are quite unfit, and permanently unfit, to be of any real service in the Army. It seems to me if you were in that way to lessen the sphere or area of re-examination it would be a helpful arrangement, in view of the short-handed condition of the medical authorities under the War Office. I dimply put forward that suggestion for consideration, and if it is practical it would meet some of the difficulties which would be inevitably created by calling up a great number of men under this Bill who would undoubtedly be rejected, and would avoid unnecessary dislocation, hardship, and injustice. I hope the Under-Secretary will consider the matter.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I think the Government is to be congratulated in one respect in introducing this Bill. This is a Bill for repealing certain pledges that the Government gave only a few months ago. It usually happens that the Government breaks its pledges without even introducing a Bill, so that it is an advance, certainly, that if pledges are to be broken they are to be broken on the strength of legislation brought forward in this House. A very large number of pledges have been given, some of which were read to-day in the House. It seems to me that the Government theory about pledges is that when they wish to get something passed they give a pledge which makes the passing of that legislation more easy, and when that has been accomplished, and when they have attained what they wish, they no longer regard as sacred the pledges which they gave. I can assure the Government that they are creating a great deal of feeling in the country and in this House as to the constant breaking of understandings that have been given and pledged words that have been spoken. My own view is that a very large number of wholly unfit men have been passed into the Army. I do not believe it is the least

  681
  exaggeration to say that some 200,000 men unfit for military service have been passed by doctors and entered into the Army. Many of those men have since been discharged, without pension in many eases, and have been placed on the funds of voluntary associations which are expected to pay insurance benefits which they ought never to be asked to undertake to pay. The case has been raised of men who have escaped by means of fraud. Does anybody believe that the Army has not wide powers at present to deal with cases where there is a suspicion that men have used some form of fraud in order to get round the question of medical examination? What is involved in this matter is this: Some people do not seem to attach much importance to the question of the individual. I regard it as of great importance that in the cases you are going to deal with under this Bill you are imposing tremendous cruelty on the individual. In many cases the diseases of the men who have been examined are chronic diseases of the lungs, heart, and so on, and they have been given the most definite assurances by the Government, and by the recruiting authorities and by the doctors, that a man who is suffering from chronic disease, as of the heart, is a man so ill that there is no question of him being better in a few months later on. Now he has got to undergo uncertainty. The man may be in business and not know where he is, or in employment, or placed in a position in which no employer will take him on, because he does not know the moment he will be called up. I quite admit there are diseases that may be a good deal better six months later on, and there are Army doctors who are able and do discriminate between a temporary disease and something which is chronic. Look at the uncertainty of those men with chronic diseases, perhaps as to setting up in business, and as to what is going to happen to them. They are left in the dark, and is that really going to be defended from the Front Bench? Do they suppose the extra strength they are going to gain from military service is worth it? Hon. and gallant Members have told us about the number of unfit men in the Army. I heard the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Major Hamilton) say that those men were a drag on the Army. Having got them, they cannot get them out, or, with the red tape, it is most difficult to do so. Sometimes, when
  682
  they know a man is no use, it takes six months before all the various forms are complied with. Many of those men are assuredly going to break down in training. I know that the Army doctors have made many mistakes, but it is really difficult for the Army doctor with a tremendous number of men to examine and devoting five minutes to each of them. Is the Army doctor to be blamed for making mistakes? A man's family doctor would know far more about the man and whether there was any question of trying, by fraudulent means, to pretend that he had an ailment that he had not. The doctor dealing with the case in five minutes is not able to tell what a man's real physical condition is, and the result is that time and again the examination. is of a perfunctory character. Any number of men are passed in who ought not be passed in. Thousands are passing through whom the doctor has never seen and never will see again, and the position that arises in regard to many of these people is that you will not accept full financial responsibility for them in respect of pensions. They have been examined, presumably, once already and been rejected, and they are going to be examined again. If they are passed in the second time—and surely the doctors ought to be a little chary about accepting men who were rejected only a few months ago—are these men going to be allowed to receive a pension if they break down and are discharged? Having used up material which you ought not to have used, are you going to scrap them mercilessly without any recognition or pension? I think that is a vital question, and I am convinced that whatever may be said in this House, and whatever assurances may be given about greater care in this direction or in that, once we put the full power over these men in the hands of the military authorities the matter passes out of our hands altogether, and we have no longer any control over it.
  A great many of these unfit men are now serving in industries—and does anybody believe that industries can be drained to a much greater extent than they are already?—men who are working on land, engaged in food production, and so on. I can quite easily understand the constant and ever-widening demand that comes from the Army, but I would remind the House that you can swell the demand up to that point where you have very little economic power behind the Army left, and

  683
  I do not hesitate to say, without any reflection on the doctors, that in many cases these medical examinations have been very largely a farce. I am convinced that this constant breaking of pledges on the part of the Government is going far to discredit the military authorities and to discredit faith in Governments, and I hope we shall receive before the conclusion of this Debate a far more satisfactory statement than we have yet had from the Front Bench, and that any statement which is made will not be merely a pledge—we do not want any more pledges—but that we shall have any pledge which is given definitely embodied in this Bill with a view to seeing that you are not going to use unfit men recklessly and that the men you do accept and who are passed as fit by the doctors shall be fully recognised in regard to pensions, and payments, and so on.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: The hon. Member who has just spoken always makes a very strong case from his own point of view, and he has done so to-day, but I confess that his oratory would have more effect upon me personally—and I may say the same as regards the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon)—if I did not remember that they are, and always have been, opposed to the whole principle of compulsory service for the Army. If you start from the standpoint that it is an iniquitous invasion of our liberties and a wrong policy to pursue to take men compulsorily for the Army at all, then, of course, it becomes comparatively easy to pick holes in any such proposition as is now before the House, and I cannot help thinking that, if the policy recommended by the hon. Members, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, had prevailed at an earlier period, to-day the Germans would be in Paris, if not in London. Consequently all the persuasive eloquence that is expended from that standpoint appears to me to be altogether out of place when we are considering a method of making good gaps or shortcomings in the system deliberately adopted by this House and by the country. The last speaker, following the example of some others, has said a good deal about broken pledges. That is rather a threadbare subject, and if I wanted which I certainly do not, to indulge in old-world recriminations, I could recall broken pledges for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow was as responsible as anybody
  684
  in this House, and the breach of which was much more enthusiastically supported by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment than the giving of the pledge, and therefore I pass by all these questions of broken pledges with this remark alone, that, after all, if the doctrine of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken were to prevail, it would only result in this, that no Minister of the Crown, in laying the policy of the Government before the House, would ever dare to indulge in any prediction or prophecy, or even to make a statement as to what the intentions of the Government were in regard to the working out of their policy.
  Mr. ANDERSON: It would be much more honest.
  Mr. MCNEILL: That is the hon. Member's view. I do not think myself that it would be for the advantage of the House or the country. I listened very closely to the quotation from my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, which was read a short time ago, and personally I could detect no pledge in it at all. It appeared to be a mere statement of the views that were held at that time by the Government as to the working out of the policy which they were then laying before the House.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Never again!
  Mr. McNEILL: Their expectations in that respect have been disappointed, and their intentions have been changed, but I did not understand it as a definite pledge given by a Minister to certain classes in the country by which they ever considered themselves bound. I must say that I have a good deal of sympathy with the views of the two hon. Members who introduced this Amendment on the subject matter of the Amendment itself. My two hon. Friends, those Scotch twin stars who are always revolving round each other, each one the satellite of the other, laid before the House an objection to passing this Bill until they had extracted from the Government a pledge—another pledge, although they do not seem to think that there is much advantage to be attached to these pledges— that the Government will deal in a different fashion from what it has hitherto done with men who, when called to service with the Colours, reveal defects which have not been before detected, and who are practically broken in life, and are dismissed without pension or sufficient gratuity. I entirely share that view, and it is one which I hope they will continue

  685
  to press upon the House; but I think this is not the occasion on which to press it. I do not see myself that it is an occasion when we should put into practice a sort of perverted version of the old doctrine of "grievances before supply," because that is really what they want. There is no direct relevance between the two cases. I want to see a sound and effective and generous system pursued towards all classes of soldiers who fall or who are injured in the War; but because I desire to see that policy put upon a sound footing by the Government, I do not want until that is done to delay the Government in adding to the efficiency of the Army. My hon. Friend who introduced the Amendment appeared to think it was an occasion for a sort of bargain between the House and the Government in regard to getting men for the Service, and I was so struck by one phrase which he used that I took it down verbatim. He said:
  "When the Leader of the House comes to the House am] asks us to supply him with 100,000 men he ought to come with clean hands."
  It is not a case of supplying the Leader of the House with 100,000 men; it is not a case of supplying the Government with 100,000 men; it is a case of supplying the nation with 100,000 men, of supplying ourselves. It is not the Leader of the House who wants any more than any of the rest of us to beat the Germans. We want it ourselves, and the only function of the Government is, with the information which is at their disposal, to come down here and tell us what is the best way or the only way of getting the men, not for themselves but for us, and it is in that light altogether that I regard the proposal which is now before the House. The Seconder of the Amendment was, I think, a little audacious in the way of proposing an alternative. What was the alternative of the hon. Member? It was that we should give up the Salonika Expedition and bring 250,000 men from there. All I can say in regard to that, with the greatest possible respect to the hon. Member, is that I cannot accept him as a great strategical guide, and I cannot accept merely on his ipse dint the proposition that we should be better able to carry on the War if that particular branch of hostilities were abandoned to-morrow. I think that as long as the highest military authorities—
  Mr. PRINGLE: Who are they?
  Mr. McNEILL: Well, I do not include my hon. Friend among them.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Nor the Chief of the General Staff.
  Mr. McNEILL: As long as the highest military authority continues to regard that as an essential part of our military operations I think it is hardly an effective suggestion to come here and say to the Government that we cannot accept their plan for getting more men, because we should adopt the strategical proposal of my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) made a speech just now, and I am sorry he is not now in his place, and, as he always does, he made a very able speech; but there was one thing which I was unable to determine, and that was whether or not he was a supporter of the Bill or whether he was a supporter of the Amendment. At one time he appeared to support the Government proposals, and at another time he appeared to supper my hon. Friends opposite, but there was this noticeable proposition which he laid down: He said that, of course, we must accept it as an axiom in the progress of the War that the medical standard should necessarily be lowered. Well, I think that is probably true, but I do not think the Bill which is before the House rests upon the acceptance of any such proposition as that. I do not think it at all follows that the men who are to be got under this Bill are in any sense of the word medically unfit. A great many speeches which have been made appear to proceed upon the assumption that in a greater or less degree the men to be got under this Bill will be medically unfit. I do not understand that that will be so at all. All that the Bill says is that men may be taken now who possibly two years ago were medically unfit. Medical unfitness is not an incurable disease. It is quite true, as the hon. Member who spoke last said, that there are men who are or who may be incurable. You may have many of these men who are called up who will be medically unfit, but the only grievance they will suffer is having to undergo medical re-examination. Is it really to be held, as the hon. Member for Sheffield just now said in such very indignant language, that it is so very great a hardship and so great an iniquity that, at a time like this, men should be requested to submit themselves to medical examination in order to establish the fact that

  687
  they are not more fit for service than they were two years ago? I do not think that at all. On the other hand, it seems to me perfectly plain that there must be very large numbers of men who were perfectly rightly rejected—I do not say six months ago, but twelve or eighteen months ago— who may be perfectly fit to serve now without in any degree giving support to the proposition that the medical standard has been lowered. I understood from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill that the 100,000 men expected to be got are only estimated as the sound residuum after the examination has eliminated some 800,000 or 900,000 men who still will be unfit for service.
  Under these circumstances, surely the House has a much more clear-cut proposition to deal with than many of those introduced into the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon. I think it is quite likely that in reference to individuals and classes that there may be hardships. I think it is inevitable that there may be such in the working of this and other Military Service Acts. We are, however, up against this plain proposition with which the House is called upon to deal— that to-day the Government tell us that the recruiting for the Army is to a serious degree short of what it ought to be. By this Bill, as I understand it, any minimum deficiency will be or may be wiped out by bringing to the Colours 100,000 men fit for general service and also for service at the front. Why, then, under these circumstances, should this House hesitate? Is there any Member of this House who, if he clearly understands that 100,000 men are urgently needed for the Army for service in the coming months, and that by this Bill these men can be got, would hesitate to vote for this Bill, even if all the objections which have been urged on both sides of the House were substantiated and agreed upon? I for one am not prepared to allow myself to be moved by any of these considerations. One clear duty before me is to vote for the Bill which the Government have put before us. I go further. I regard this as only a very partial dealing with the subject. I cannot help thinking that the Government must have brought in this Bill as a more or less temporary measure in order to bring in these 100,000 men, knowing very well that we shall require further and more drastic legislation later to get a still larger supply. I earnestly hope that the Government will get the
  688
  Bill through before the Recess in order to supply the gaps that now exist, and that we shall not be back here very long after the Recess before we shall have some far-reaching proposals to supply the men whom everybody knows must be brought in in very much larger numbers if that decisive victory over the enemy is to be achieved within the next year or year and a 'half—that victory which this country is determined to achieve whatever disadvantage or hardship may be involved in getting the men.
  Mr. BOOTH: I rather think that there is really a more common-sense feature in this matter than that presented, at any rate, in the Debate up till now. This principle of renewed examination is a very common one in business life. I was rather astonished to hear a distinguished Member of the Labour party deal with this matter as being a hardship, because the Labour party have accepted it without a murmur in relation to cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act. A man, it may be, has been incapacitated by accident and is getting a pension from his employers. There is no doubt about the facts here. It has been admitted by the payments that have been made to the man. That he should be called upon periodically to be examined by a doctor has not been accounted a hardship or a thing to be complained about. It is practically unknown for a man to object to medical re-examination who is receiving some allowance from his employer. There is no difficulty in the case. You get two doctors, the employer and the man, and if they do not agree the case goes before a County Court judge or an official, and there is no difficulty, or problem, or anything requiring legislation. The principle has been accepted by both sides for years. To require such an examination is not taken as a reflection upon the man. The Labour party have never come here and represented that this was a grievance and a thing for which they would fight. The cases of injustice are exceedingly few. If that be so, if that was an accepted part of our business life in times gone by, why is the principle considered obnoxious when we are engaged in a life and death struggle with an enemy? I do not take it that this Bill will draft unfit men into the Army. If I thought that I should be bound to vote against it. I quite agree with the statement made that unfit men have been taken into the Army, because they have

  689
  come back into civil life and come upon the approved societies under the Insurance Act. A Bill is being introduced by the Government in order to meet this case, for it is admitted that this is a burden the societies should not suffer. That, however, is not the point. I cannot conceive that this Bill will be used now in cold blood to repeat former errors.
  We must remember that in every one of these cases the doctor will be on his guard. When previous cases came before him he could not pick them out; he could not pick out whether A, B, C or D required the one more examination than the other. He had to be guided by his own observation. He now has the previous records. The doctor might in previous days have made mistakes, and originally have brought in some men who ought not to be there. He will take great care not to make a mistake now, because he is reversing the previous decision, and has all the facts before him of previous examinations. I do not fear it at all, but I would ask my hon. Friends, who are against this Bill, to answer this: Do they not know that there is a considerable number of men in this country carrying exemption certificates who are fit to go into the Army! The number may be 5,000 or 500,000; it may be 50,000 or 150,000. What is their proposal to get these men into the Army? That is what I have been listening for in their speeches. Has there been any proposal? No one has denied that there is a body of men in this country that we may get. Has anyone proposed how to get these men into the Army? If, as has been suggested, the object of some hon. Members is to keep the Army as small as possible, I could understand their speeches and conscientious objections. They may take the view that we ought to have a small Army, a small victory, or a big loss. I can understand them in that case scrutinising every measure of this kind which attempts to get new soldiers. I know the hon. Member who moved and the hon. Member who seconded this Amendment is as sincere as I am in wanting to win this War. They accepted the national position at the outbreak of the War quite as calmly and as frankly as anyone in this House. I put this to them: You would not for a moment scrutinise a measure of this kind because you wanted to keep the Army small; therefore be careful of any Amendment which would delay the passing of this Bill, even of such an excellent kind as that put forward. Before
  690
  I can vote for such a proposition we must have an alternative plan, not only to get the men from Salonika, or even to get men from abroad, but to discover how you are going to get hold of this brigade or division, or whatever you like to term it, walking about with exemption certificates ! It is no answer to our queries and to the Bill for the hon. Member for North-West Lanark to say, "You can get 100,000 men from Salonika, or Egypt, or Mesopotamia."
  Mr. PRINGLE: What about raising the age?
  Mr. BOOTH: Even if I were in favour of withdrawing from the Balkans—which I am not—I am satisfied with the opinion that we ought to maintain our forces there. I should still want these men who are capable of military service who are walking about with exemption certificates that should be withdrawn. It would be our duty, even with the 250,000 men at Salonika, to raise by this Bill these other men for the West, because the warfare would be over sooner, and with less bloodshed. I venture to express a hope of a different character. I will be better pleased with this Bill if I am told that it is the first of a series which will apply conscientiously the principle of getting the right available men, wherever they are. It is painful to meet so many men of military age in our streets, and I am sorry to say that a number of these are in Government positions. There has been a great cry about combing out. I suppose this is one of the combing-out Bills. We want, however, someone to comb out the combers. There are combers going about who are entitled to all the prominence that can be given to them by those splendid cartoons in the London "Evening News." I hope to see a Bill dealing with these. I hope to see a Bill that will comb out the combers, and also one which will deal with that class of British citizens mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. I make this proposal to the Government with regard to those young Englishmen abroad: They are entitled to have notice that unless they class themselves with the young Englishmen at home, and report themselves to join the Army, their rights of British citizenship shall be withdrawn. It may be that we cannot go abroad with compulsory powers to bring them home, but I think we ought to give them notice such as I have suggested. I do not care if there are only 500. I say that any English-

  691
  man abroad shirking his duties merely by living in another place has no right to claim the protection of the Army or of the Fleet in a time of trouble.
  Mr. LUNDON: There are 5,000 of them in Dublin!
  Mr. BOOTH: No doubt my hon. Friend is doing his best to get them out?
  Mr. LUNDON:I have tried for the last twelve months to get the War Office to look after them, and they have absolutely refused to do anything.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. BOOTH: That is a melancholy fact. Doubtless the Irish Nationalist Members are doing their best to remedy this, and to make these young men feel uncomfortable. I am afraid some of them get anything but the cold shoulder when they walk about the streets of Dublin I do know that some of the Irish Nationalist Members have felt very strongly upon this point. They do not want their country made into a refuge for shirkers; that would be unfair and an injustice to Ireland. No doubt they haves enough of their own troubles. I sympathise with hon. Members opposite, and trust they will take every opportunity to get these men out. But in regard to those abroad, to whom I was referring, I say I should give them notice to come back, and make it clear that those who did not could not rely upon the protection of the Foreign Office, or the Army, or the Fleet to protect them as British citizens. I was saying, when I was interrupted, that it surely would be a melancholy thing if in years to come it had to be reported to this House that any of those shirkers were claiming their full rights as British citizens and perhaps involving our Foreign Office in a great deal of difficulty to protect them. But they are just the class that would do it. I, therefore, venture to ask the War Office whether this is the first of a series of measures. Are they taking up this matter in earnest? I shall not vote against this Bill because it is not bigger. I can quite understand they want to take one subject at a time, but I speak, at any rate, for those Members on this side who are determined that throughout this War they will not, under any circumstances, however good the grounds may be, vote against any request from the military authorities for help. There is a considerable body of opinion on this side,
  692
  and has been all through the War, whom nothing would induce to deny the War Office a request for men to support our Army at the front. In this case I think they are entitled to support, and to still more support, and I would rather criticise the War Office for not being bold enough. I do not think the Government has ever been bold enough in making its requests to the country, and the only criticism I foresee and the only dissatisfaction I can foresee, with regard to this measure, is that the people who come within its scope will say, "Why are you not dealing with the man in the other street who cannot be reached by this Bill?" That is the criticism I think you must fear, because so long as you are only clearing out one particular class, they have a ground of complaint for saying, "Why are you not doing this thing all round?" and if some of these men feel that they are carrying the burden twice, they are the men with whom I have most sympathy—men who have risked their lives and suffered severely, and who, having recovered in health, will be called upon to bear the burden and risk their lives again, when they see about them some men who have never been called at all. We heard the doctrine preached a year or two ago, "Every man once, and some men twice." In passing this Bill, which will call upon some of our gallant sons and brothers to go out again, when they thought they had done their part, I do ask for an assurance that we do not give them the grievance that we are leaving men out who have not been at all. If the War Office will give me that assurance, I will vote for this Bill with all the greater glee.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not want to say very much, but, as a Member who for a long time has taken a considerable interest in the question of the medically unfit, I would like to make a lew observations on this Bill. The hon. Member for St. Augustine's complained that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, left him in doubt as to what his attitude to the Bill really was. If it is any interest to the hon. Member, I can assure him that my observations will leave him in no doubt whatever as to how my vote will be given on this Bill. I do not suppose my reasons, however, will carry any weight with him. He criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe because he had always opposed Conscription. Well, I am in precisely the same position. In part I

  693
  oppose this measure for the same reasons that I have opposed all previous Bills dealing with compulsory military service. If we were arguing the general question of Conscription now, I could advance arguments conclusive to myself, though I do not imagine conclusive to the hon. Member and his Friends, that probably the military position would have been much better to-day if we had remained with our voluntary system. The hon. Member for St. Augustine's, replying to a remark made by the hon. Member for Lanark to the effect that the Leader of the House was asking for these 100,000 men, said that it was not the Government who were wanting 100,000 men, but it was the nation who were wanting—I suppose, who were asking for—100,000 men. If the nation wanted 100,000 men, we should not require a measure of this sort. If the nation had believed these men were necessary, they would have responded voluntarily, and long ago. I do not believe there is one man of military age in the country to-day outside the Army who is very anxious to be under military control. It is simply because the country does not accept the position put forward by the hon. Member for St. Augustine's that measures of this kind are necessary.
  I support the Amendment that has been moved from the benches opposite, but it is not my only reason for opposing this Bill, and I do not think, even from the limited point of view of the Amendment, that the case that has been made out is quite complete. My hon. Friends have asked that men who break down under military training or in military service shall be entitled to receive a pension, but there is another class whose position has never yet been mentioned, I think, in the course of this Debate, and that is the not inconsiderable number of men who are not discharged from the Army disabled, but who die before they are discharged from the Army, or who die very soon after their discharge, as a result of the hardship they have undergone while with the Colours. I have in former Debates on this question submitted many cases. I could keep the House here a whole evening giving cases of men who ought never to have been accepted for military service, men who never could have been examined, because it needed no doctor to know that they were totally unfit for military service, and who within a week, within a fortnight, within a month, have died in the Army. I have one case in my mind of a man who had
  694
  been discharged from the Yeomanry. He was called up under the Military Service Act. He was passed on a Saturday, went with the Colours, and was brought home dead the following Saturday. I have several cases of a similar character in my own Constituenecy. I had one case of a man who had been consumptive all his life. He had never done any work. He was taken under the Military Service Act, sent to the Colours, and in three weeks that man was dead. I have another case in my Constituency now. I have in my possession a pile of correspondence with the War Office, This young fellow was a stonemason. Last May he was called up under the Military Service Act and passed. In forty days he was discharged. He came home, went to bed, and has never since left it. His mother never received one penny of separation allowance, and he has never received one penny of gratuity or pension. Now, it is because we believe that the tens of thousands, nay, the hundreds of thousands of cases more or less similar to that are going to be enormously increased by the powers proposed in this Bill that we do so strenuously oppose it.
  In response to the speech of the late Prime Minister some sort of concession was announced by the Leader of the House. I confess I do not understand its full implication, but it did scorn to convey a sort of impression that the Government are willing to consider such cases as those to which I have just referred, and which have been mentioned in the course of this Debate. What is it worth? After all, this matter is in the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, and we know what his views are on this question, or, at any rate, we know what his views on the question were a week or two ago, and I would like to remind those hon. Members who may be influenced by what has been said from the Government Benches on this point during the course of this Debate that if anything be done to assure pensions for these men, or pensions for the dependants of men who are killed as a consequence of being called into the Army when unfit, if my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions still remains of the same opinion, then the acceptance of that involves his resignation. I hope before this Debate closes we shall hear something from my right hon. Friend. Now many who have spoken in support of this Bill have made the point that this Bill is only going to deal with men who were medically rejected eighteen months

  695
  or two years ago. It does a great deal more than that. Under that much discussed Clause of the Military Service Act the War Office could call up before 1st September every man who had been previously rejected within a period of something like twelve or fourteen months. It may be that there are cases where the pink form was not sent before 1st September. I believe there are such cases.
  I had a letter this morning from a man who lives in a town of Lancashire with a population of 70,000, and he says in that borough there are only three men who did not receive the pink form before 1st September last. What is this Bill going to do? This Bill is going to give the power to the War Office to call up every-man who was medically re-examined under that provision in the second Military Service Act, and who have to remember that those men who were medically reexamined under that Act had been examined at least once before, and in a vast number of cases not once, twice, or thrice, but many times. There is a man within this building who has a son who has been rejected six times, and if this Bill be passed the War Office will have the power to call upon that man to undergo a further medical examination. Many cruel and wicked things have been done in connection with the recruitment of the Army under the Military Service Acts, but it is cruel to call up men in that state of health, because that knowledge of their physical condition is a sufficient burden for those men to have to bear. It will be worse when this Bill becomes law, because these men are suffering actual torture as to what their future condition is going to be, and they know something of the perfunctory way in which the medical examination is carried out. Therefore I do not attach the least importance to the statement made from the Treasury Bench that greater care will be exercised by the military medical examiners in the future than in the past.
  Last August I raised this question on the Adjournment, and then the Prime Minister denied that unfit men had been taken into the Army, and he said that I had rendered a disservice to the country, because if my speech was reported in Germany it would convey the impression that the new British Army was composed of "crocks," and the Germans would arrange their campaign accordingly. The
  696
  Prime Minister on that occasion denied my statements, and challenged me to produce cases. Afterwards I produced the cases and sent to the War Office a big batch of them. I was promised that they would be investigated, but not in one single case did the War Office make any investigation. Every day I get letters from men who have previously been examined—and there must be in the Army records a statement of their physical condition—who have been rejected suffering from heart disease, and they are not likely to improve in six or twelve months, and yet our medical men every day are passing recruits for the Army who are suffering from heart disease and other organic disease. The House was much fuller when the hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) raised this question of the taking of unfit men, and in seconding his Amendment I called attention to what I have since been told was an incredible thing. A man in my Constituency whom I have seen, who was taken into the Army, has not a single finger on his right hand and has only a stump of a thumb. I have had that case before the War Office for two or three weeks, and it is still there. When we know from our own experience not one such case, not a hundred such cases, but thousands of them, how can we have any faith after eighteen months of this kind of thing that the War Office is going to reform its evil practices? As a matter of fact, we know that they will not. We are told that there are one million of these men, and that the Government expect to get 100,000 men from them. Well, we must be in a serious military position if, to save the Allied cause— [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"]—we have to take 100,000 men who are admittedly unfit—[An HON. MEMBER: "No!"]—Yes, admittedly unfit; because they have all been examined, and nearly every one of them more than once.
  Mr. BILLING: There are thousands who "bilk" their medical examination.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not know what the hon. Member means.
  Mr. BILLING: They used influence to get through their medical examination.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: How can the hon. Member make a statement like that; how does he know that that is so. Surely the Government must be acquainted with the facts, and under the Defence of the Realm Act that is a very serious offence indeed.

  697
  But why is it necessary for the Government to bring in a Bill to re-examine one million men to deal with the few cases of what my hon. Friend opposite calls bilking. But there is another aspect to the question. The Under-Secretary for War told us the other day that in seven weeks' time the Army Medical authorities had examined 1,500,000 men.
  Mr. MACPHERSON:I did not say in seven weeks. I said up to the end of 1916 and the beginning of 1917. I was referring to discharges from the Army in seven weeks.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I am glad the hon. Member has given that explanation, because the same impression was given to other hon. Members. Then there is the question of cost. I do not suppose that the Army doctors will examine all the one million men, although they will examine a large number, and, of course, there must the cost of re-examination, with the loss of time involved, and the loss of wealth in calling up all these men, I say uselessly calling up these men, for medical examination. One hon. Member told us that in his district, which is a large agricultural district, ploughmen and others are being called up for reexamination, and this means the loss of at least one day's work. I think it is admitted that at least 100,000 unfit men have been discharged from the Army, and it will not be denied that there are hundreds of thousands of unfit men. in the Army to-day who are simply an expense to the country. We are told that each soldier costs £300 a year, but I will take a moderate figure, and I will say that the cost of these men who, sooner or later, will have to be discharged from the Army as unfit is £200 a year. That is a tremendous waste of public money, and it is a matter which ought to receive consideration.
  I do not ask for pledges. I went very closely through the Debates on the first and second Military Service Acts, and I have learned something by the experience of the last twelve months. I was so innocent in the days of the first Military Service Act that I accepted certain pledges given by the Government, but not one of them has been kept. Not a single pledge which was made in order to induce Parliament to pass the Military Service Acts has been kept; therefore I ask for no pledges; and I do not want any pledges, because I have no faith that any
  698
  pledges which are given now will be kept more strictly than the pledges which have been given in the past. We shall seek to amend this Bill in Committee, and we want Amendments in black and white in the Bill itself. If the Government want men other resources are not exhausted, and, according to what the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill) said, he is looking forward to more Bills of this kind. I suppose he is feverishly anxious for the time when the age will be extended to include himself, and then he will be given an opportunity of showing his patriotism on the field of battle. I am quite sure my hon. Friend, even at his age, is physically far more capable of undergoing those hardships than a large proportion of the younger men who have been taken into the Army to-day.
  I say your resources are not exhausted. Who have tens of thousands of ministers of religion, most of them of military age, and they are the most patriotic people in the country. They are the people who believe in the righteousness of this War and in the righteousness of all war. Why should they be exempt? Are they doing work of such national importance that it is necessary they should be specially exempt? Why should they not undergo the hardships of trench warfare? Let all the resources be exhausted before the War Office comes here and asks us to conscript the kind of men it is proposed to take under this Bill. I will conclude by making a suggestion, and it is that the Government should repeal both the Military Service Acts and introduce and pass into law a short one-Clause Bill endowing the War Office with autocratic-powers to do just what they like. That will then give legislative sanction to the practices which the War Office have been carrying out for the last eighteen months. I promised to give my reasons for opposing this Bill, and I have done so. I shall vote against this Bill, and we shall endeavour to amend it in Committee. The Bill will pass, that we know, but I want to assure the Government that I am perfectly certain they will not help in the prosecution of the War by passing a measure like this. There are 1,000,000 men affected, and whatever their enthusiasm for the War was before, it will not be increased by the adoption of this Bill.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I think I am correct in saying that the criticisms that

  699
  have been passed upon this Bill as it stands have been very few indeed. The main criticisms have been directed towards the attitude of the Government in regard to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and seconded by the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle). This is a small Bill. It is admittedly a small Bill and merely a temporary measure. I note with very great satisfaction that when it was being impressed upon me as representing the Government that we should go on and get an even more comprehensive measure there was a good deal of general support in the House, and I am not surprised.
  Mr. ALDEN: You will not find it in the country.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I should like to know what part of the country my hon. Friend refers to. My hon. Friend knows that he cannot go into any part of his own Constituency and say, after the assurance which has been given from this box and on the responsibility of the Government, that 100,000 more men are wanted now, that it would not be in the national interest to have them.
  Mr. ALDEN: I can honestly say that it is not in the national interest that these medically unfit men should be passed into the Army.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend cannot really ride away upon that small point. I notice with satisfaction that so long as the Government pursues a vigorous policy they will practically get the undivided support of this House. If I may say so, most of this Debate is irrelevant. The Amendment itself is largely irrelevant. It is an Amendment which has been debated and discussed in this House appropriately upon the Pensions Act. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge), who is usually very courteous and knows this subject as well as any Member of the House, began to-day with a very virulent attack not upon this Government so much as upon the last Government. I defy my hon. Friend to say that the present Government has broken a single pledge. He began by attacking the practice of breaking pledges and then he went on ex misericordia to get the sympathy of the House by attacking the War Office on account of Class W Reserve. I should like again to state the real facts so far as Class W and Class P are concerned.
  700
  He knows perfectly well, and he admitted in the course of the Debate the other day, while the Department did make a mistake by putting disabled men into Class W, that we are now recovering ourselves. He admitted that we had so far recovered ourselves by putting these men from Class W into Class P as even to win his own gratitude.
  It is perfectly true that Class W is composed almost entirely, or it ought to be, of men who are sent back to civil employment with a lien upon their services if the time comes when their services are required. Class P is different. It is composed of those who have been disabled in the Service and who go back into civil life with a pension. I went so far as to promise, so far as Class W were concerned, that while we could not give them pensions we would guarantee the moment they left the Service that they would in any case get a week's wages and separation allowance for their wives and children until they got some civil occupation. Let me examine the contention of those who have been pressing the Government to accept this Amendment. It is a fact that this Government is the most generous of all Governments so far as pensions and allowances are concerned. It is admitted that we give a pension to a man who has been disabled in the Service. It is admitted that we give a pension to a man whose disease has been aggravated in the Service, and we give not meagre pensions, but substantial pensions. What is my hon. Friend's proposal which has received astonishing support from the most astonishing quarters? His proposal is that we should also give a pension to a man who is discharged from the Service even after twenty-four hours, and though any disease that he may have has not been aggravated by his service or has been acquired by him in the Service.
  Mr. HOGGE: I never said that.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: That is the point.
  Mr. HOGGE: If under this Act you re-accept a man who has already been reexamined and rejected, you must accept the responsibility of a pension in his case.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: That is exactly what I say. That was my reading of my hon. Friend's Amendment. I accept that statement of his case. If we are going to give a pension to the particular class of men my hon. Friend describes, every single man in the British Army will get

  701
  a pension for life, except the gallant fellow who has never been ill, and who has fought for two solid years in the trenches and has come back. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, you include everybody for a pension except the strong physical man, who has very likely done all the fighting at the front. Could my hon. Friend go to his constituency and justify that?
  Mr. HOGGE: I would be prepared to go to my Constituency and justify my Amendment. Will you come down and take the chair?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: There is not a single individual in the Army who would be excluded from a pension except the man who is physically fit and has done gallant service at the front. Are those men to come back after their gallant service and find that a pension has been given to a man who has been in the Service very likely only for a few hours, and who may have been dismissed from the Service for illnesses of this sort: "Unable to march on parade. Attended no parade; had no military training."
  Mr. PRINGLE: What about the doctors who passed these men?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: We have not been unmindful of these men, even although we feel that they have no claim.
  Mr. HOGGE: You are talking of the past.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: No; under the new Royal Warrant we have provided that these men shall be allowed to get a gratuity up to £150, and I do not think we can accept any further responsibility so far as these men are concerned. When a pension is given for an aggravated disease or for wounds, it is a flat-rate pension. I assume, therefore, that my hon. Friend would have a flat rate all round. If that is so, it would cost the country at least an additional £10,000,000 a year. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) asked whether, in regard to the men in this category, men who are discharged with an aggravated disease, or with a disease acquired in the Service, we would accept the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. I am not in a position now or at any time to promise that we could accept the Amendment, but I can give the House the assurance, which I think will satisfy my right hon. Friend the
  702
  late Prime Minister, that we are going to take every possible precaution, if men who have already been examined come up again for re-examination, that they shall be most thoroughly and carefully examined. I cannot go any further than that at the present time.
  Some attacks have been made upon the doctors who have been examining the recruits for the last few months. Since the passing of the Military (Service Acts the doctors in this country have been divided into two classes. You have got the Royal Army Medical Corps men engaged in the various theatres of war, and you have to rely upon the meagre supply of civilian doctors available for this purpose. It is true, as my right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that in one day during the heavy recruiting season you had no fewer than 300,000 men examined. I am not at all surprised that some doctors did make mistakes, but I would repeat the argument by which I attempted to reply the other day to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) and the hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield). You would not find a Harley Street specialist, looking back upon his medical prognoses and diagnoses, who had made less than 1 per cent. of mistakes. I can confidently say that out of all these 1,500,000 cases the doctors have not made mistakes amounting to more than 1 or 2 per cent. I think it is greatly to the credit of the doctors that they have performed the work to such great satisfaction.
  Mr. BILLING: If the mistakes of the doctors only amount to 1 per cent., would it not be possible for the Government to pay for those mistakes?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) for his speech. It went very much further than I expected him to go. He told us quite willingly that this Bill provided for the calling up again within a short time of men who were excepted from service because of fraud or fortune. These cases of fraud are very numerous, and so are the cases of fortune. The typical case of fortune might be described as the case of the men with enemy associations who at the very beginning of the War offered himself for enlistment, but who was told that he could not be accepted because of his enemy associations. The other cases are the cases of those who applied for admission to select corps, but who were

  703
  not admitted because they did not come up to a certain physical standard. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) raised the question of the provision of labour from other sources. I did assure the House some time ago, and I repeat the assurance now, that we have attempted in every possible way to utilise coloured labour. We are watching that source of supply with the greatest care and everything possible is being done not only to utilise that labour in all the theatres of war, but to see that the men are comfortably housed and fed. My right hon. Friend also suggested that we might get 30,000 men from the Allies in this country. I confess that does seem to me a very fruitful source. My right hon. Friend knows that we have done our best to negotiate with the various Governments concerned, and we are endeavouring to do so now. Had it not been for certain events taking place in one of our Allied countries, we should at the present moment have negotiated matters and have provided ourselves, so far as that country and other Allied countries are concerned, with the assistance of members of those Allies in this country for our fighting forces. I cannot go further than that just now, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that I will do everything I can in the matter.
  I have been asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waltham-stow whether this medical examination is to be a real one? I have consulted the authorities, and can give him the assurance that the medical examination will be a real one. The House will quite realise the enormous difficulties which we have had, and we frankly contess that men have been not only rejected from the Army, but included in the Army—it works both ways—because of the amount of work that the medical officers have had to do. We are hoping that we shall get for examination purposes in the near future, not individual civil practitioners, but boards composed of civil practitioners. I can give this assurance that very special attention will be directed to the case of any man who has been medically rejected and who comes up for medical re-examination again. A great deal has been said about the harassing attitude of the War Office so far as calling up these men is concerned. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walthamstow said he knew of cases
  704
  where, although the pink form had been sent, notice was given to the men that they would not be called up. That does not show that the War Office is anxious to harass anybody. It shows that we realised at that time that, though we were entitled to send the pink form to them, we could not profitably call them up. It did not show that there would be any danger in future that those who had been disabled would be called up again. The criticisms which have been passed except upon the points I have mentioned have not dealt with the main purpose of this Bill, and any suggestion that has been made can very well be debated. I hope that, in view of the enormous need which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out—it is an urgent need—of getting these men at the present time when this nation is in the throes of the most terrible war, that this House will grant this Bill a Second Beading now.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have listened with great attention to the very able speech of the Under-Secretary in the hope that he would make some answer to the very important questions which were directly put to him and the Government by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle). My hon. Friend did not confine himself to any small question of detail, but he asked point blank why, for instance, do you choose this method of adding to your resources in man-power, when, at the same time, there is an alternative method open to you of calling up all men over forty-one years of age, which, from many points of view, is preferable. I am not attempting to prejudge such an issue as that, but it does seem to me that this is a most important point, and that the House is bound to require from the Government a statement upon a matter of that character. After all, is it really better to compel the recovered invalids and recovered wounded who have gone back to their homes, who have taken up civil work, and who are reunited with their families, to go out to the front again, while, at the same time, you leave unmarried men of forty-two, forty-three, or forty-four, all men in full physical efficiency, utterly untouched by the scope of your military arrangements? It is quite impossible for the Government to burke an issue of that kind, and it ought to be quite impossible for the House to allow them to do so. This proposal which has been made by the Government is one

  705
  in regard to which we should take a very great responsibility upon ourselves if we did not assent to it. But an equal responsibility lies upon the Government. They are bound to show not only that their proposal in itself is a method of meeting the need, but that it is the best method of meeting the need compared with all other measures and efforts which may be open to them. Does not the House consider that the Bill now brought before them is, at its very best, an extremely partial means of meeting the needs? Does it not look like mere tinkering with the great question of man-power? I do not know all the possibilities which are open to the Government, but we ought to have received from the Leader of the House a broad survey of the resources available and clear arguments to show why this one has been selected in preference to the others.
  I am not a partisan of those who think that the difficulties of this country are going to be surmounted merely by allowing the War Office to sweep every available man in the country into their net. I have repeatedly said so. The task before us is to take only what is necessary and to take it in the best way. Is it not a fair conclusion that if, for instance, you include in the scope of your new proposals 300,000, 400,000, or 500,000 men over the age of forty-one, you would have to make a less severe scrutiny of those invalids and wounded men to get the necessary 100,000, and, in consequence, that you would not be led either into hardship to the individual or to undoubted inefficiency in the Service which would result when you take a man not really fit for service? I remember perfectly well in the days of the late Government, when there was one of those great crises on the question of compulsion, the Ministers came down to the House and asked us for power to send the old soldier or the wounded soldier comnulsorily to the front, while they refused to take compulsory powers to conscript the young married man. The House treated that proposal with great decision, and it was withdrawn almost immediately. This proposal is very similar in its character, because I say it is a cowardly thing to take a wounded man or a recovered invalid, a doubtful man, physically defective, and press him into the fighting line at this time, while, at the same time, you do not attempt to take a perfectly fit,
  706
  strong, healthy man who happens to be just over the age and who otherwise might be absolutely eligible and available.
  We have to ask the Government to consider this proposal as a whole. I am not going to oppose the Government on this measure, but I rise for this purpose: I want the House of Commons to insist upon discussing this question of man-power as a whole. What is the use of our dealing piece-meal with this question now, after all that has happened? I got up in the House a year ago and implored Parliament to pay attention to this question of man-power. I was thoroughly versed in the subject; I have studied it from the inside, and I have had practical experience of the Army. I pointed out the immense numbers of servants and men employed behind the line—employed in non-military duties—and that all those great fields could be drawn upon to maintain our manpower. The House took very little interest. There was no desire to take up these points. What do we get now? The Leader of the House says that a good deal has been done in this direction. He admitted we ought to have begun it earlier, but he said that a great deal has been done and is being done in this direction. But if the House of Commons had thrown itself into these questions at an earlier stage and had pursued them with resolute and untiring mental vigour, the Government would have moved earlier and you would have had large resources at your disposal which are not now at your disposal. The House abdicated its functions then. I say it is abdicating its responsibilities now. By all means let the Government have the power they are asking for, but I say we ought to insist on having a proper Debate and discussion on the Whole question of man-power.
  There are two vital questions—manpower and tonnage—on which our lives depend and our existence depends. Here are Members of the House, each with their constituents in thousands of little cottages and little homes, with families to whom they are responsible. The House is paying no more attention to these subjects in their great scope, paying practically no adequate attention to these questions. It is quite easy to let these matters go. In times of peace you can often let matters go and no harm comes of it, but in time of War you cannot shirk your difficulty. It always falls upon your head with absolute certainty. The clouds never blow over in war time. Everything that is

  707
  looking bad, has to be met and encountered or else disaster occurs. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am not attacking the Government on the question of a Debate in Secret Session. They have never said they would not give one. They have never taken a strong line against it— never! It is the House that has failed to ask for it with sufficient unanimity and energy. Why should the House of Commons neglect its duty in regard to these vital matters? The French Chamber do not do it. They insist upon Secret Sessions. They move in and out of Secret Sessions according to the convenience of debate and the needs of the situation, and when a Minister said he could not trust the Chamber in Secret Session, although he was a most important Minister, the storm of indignation was so great that the Minister was forced to resign. Why should the House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, as it is called, avow itself incompetent to discuss the matters upon which the lives and welfare of every one of its constituents and every fellow-countryman absolutely depend? I appeal most strongly to my right hon. Friend to promise us that, if the House so desires it, he will facilitate, after Easter or whenever the course of public business renders it convenient, a full Debate in Secret Session on the great questions of man-power and tonnage. Then we shall be able to see what our resources are, what our needs are, what our prospects are, with at any rate much more clearness than we can at present. Although there may be many facts and figures which the Government would not care to give to the House of Commons even in Secret Session, I am certain that we shall be able to express our own views and to hear from the Government the answers which they would make to those views in such a way as to enable the House to pass this great problem through its mind and take some fair share, some real share, of the responsibility for the grave matters entrusted to their charge, and for which their countrymen will certainly and rightly hold them strictly and straitly responsible.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend is certainly right in saying that the issue which is raised to-day by the presentation of this Bill does involve the whole question of man-power. In the few introductory remarks which I made I clearly indicated that that was the case.
  708
  I said also that the reason why this Bill was introduced was because, in our opinion, the necessary steps which the Government would have to take in order to secure the men which we believe must be found depend upon internal organisation, and we thought it was necessary, before dealing with the subject on the wide scale indicated by my right hon. Friend, that we should see what relief we can expect from the National Service scheme which has been put into operation. My right hon. Friend is perfectly right in saying that the Government have never refused to allow the House of Commons to debate these matters in Secret Session. We never have. We realise that the House of Commons has a perfect right to take that course if it so desires. There is much to be said in its favour, but from the Government point of view there is something to be said against it. For one thing, my right hon. Friend is right in saying that even in a Secret Session it would not be possible to give all the facts and figures which have led the Government to take the course they feel compelled to take in this matter. My right hon. Friend asks me to give a promise. I have given it already. I have said, on behalf of the Government, that if the House shows real desire for discussion—[An HON. MEMBERS: "How it is to be shown?"] I do not think it would be very difficult to find out whether there is a real desire.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Who is to ask for it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If there is a strong desire in the House I think the House would find some means of making it known. At any rate, the Government have shown no hostility, and they will be quite ready, after Easter, to consider whether or not it may be desirable to have a Secret Session. In regard to this particular Bill, my right hon. Friend, I think, exaggerates its defects. He speaks as if we were going, by this measure, to bring in an inferior— physically inferior— class of men. But precisely the same medical test will be applied to the million men over whom the Army authorities propose to take this power as are applied to all the men being recruited for the Army now. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that men drawn from this source will be inferior to those obtained under former Acts. That ought to be evident from the fact that the total number we expect to get from the million men

  709
  to be re-examined is something like 100,000. There will be no falling-off in respect of the medical test. We are dealing at this moment with the Amendment, which has relation to the pensions to be given to men who are taken into the Army. It was suggested by my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister that the Government might make some concession with regard to those men dealt with by this Bill who have already been discharged from the Army, but are again called up after undergoing the re-examination, and subsequently again discharged as unfit. Since my right hon. Friend spoke I have had an opportunity of discussing this point with the Departments concerned, and I think I can show to the House that that is a course which ought not to be adopted. We ought not to apply a different principle to the men we are raising under this Bill to that which is applied to those raised under previous Acts. Therefore, the course to be adopted in regard to the men under this Bill is the course which you must adopt in regard to all men who are brought in under the Military Service Acts. I should like to point out to the House this further fact, that it is not altogether a question of mistakes alone. However careful the medical examiner may be, I am told there are many cases where at the time the medical examination takes place, it is impossible to diagnose the disease from which a man may be suffering, and therefore it may be, without any fault on the part of the examiner, that men are passed who are incapable of doing military service.
  I wish the House to realise how the question stands. I should be very sorry to be the spokesman for a Government which took up an attitude which, in the opinion of hon. Members, was unfair to the men who are serving the country in this War. What has happened is this: At first, the principle adopted in regard to pensions, was that no man was to get any pension unless his disease was attributable to his military service. Of course, that left out a large number of people. This is not a new question, as my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister stated, it was raised during the time of his Government, and it was debated in this House. I heard that discussion, and it was then agreed by the Government that it was not fair to the men. Even though their disease was not attributable to military service, if it had been aggra-
  710
  vated by military service, and if the fact that they had served their country had made their case worse, then they also should be entitled to full pension privileges. These are the two stages of the question. [An HON. MEMBER: "Full pensions?"] Yes, originally it was proposed to give four-fifths, but it is now full, and the 80 per cent. proposal has been abandoned. These two stages left the men who did not come under either of these categories in the position that they received nothing. But that has been changed under the Royal Warrant. Men were entitled to receive a gratuity up to the extent, within the Warrant, of £100, but I myself, after listening to the Debate, agreed that the sum should be raised to £150.
  I wish the House to understand the principle on which the Government are acting, and have acted—both this Government and the previous Government, and it is not a principle on which we can go back. It is this. It is utterly unfair to the State to say that a man whose illness or disease is not due to, or accountable for, by military service should be left to be a permanent burden on the State, while the men who have actually fought and have given their services to the country get nothing. That is the principle we have laid down. If the House accepts that principle, there is one other consideration. I listened to the Debate on the Pensions Bill in regard to this matter, and I felt that there was a case, a real case from this point of view. It might be justly said by men who are either given the full pension or get only a gratuity—a very different thing—that under the Royal Warrant the people who pay the money— the Government—are to be judges in their own matter. There is something in the belief that there is a danger that administratively the Act will be so worked that men who ought to be given pensions may only get a gratuity. Obviously, I can make no definite promise. I have to consult not only the Department concerned, but the Cabinet. But I say, speaking for myself, I think it is a proper case, and I shall see that that case is carefully and sympathetically considered by the Government with a view, if they think there is a real case, of setting upon an independent tribunal, which would do nothing more than this—that in the case of men who may only get a gratuity and nothing more,

  711
  it will review the decision and come to a final decision whether or not they are to get a gratuity or a pension.
  Mr. THOMAS: All cases?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: All cases where a gratuity alone is given. I have already stated that it is obviously unfair that ft different principle should be applied to the men coining under this Bill, and to those who came in under previous Acts. I think I have shown that the Government, as I believe they ought to be, and as I think they have been from the beginning, are willing to consider the cases of the men. serving with every fairness, and to deal with any legitimate complaints that any of them who have had the misfortune to be rendered unfit through the services they have given to their country may have. I must add this. We cannot really make any condition of this kind a bargain whether or not this Bill is to be passed. There is no question, the House can imagine, on which the Government have a more direct responsibility than that of the way in which they are going to get the men who are deemed to be necessary in order to carry on the War. We say that this Bill is necessary for that purpose, and the House of Commons must take the responsibility if it refuses to assent to what the Government propose in a matter of this kind. At the same time, I am extremely anxious that the House and the country should realise that the sympathy which is felt in the House for these men is felt just as strongly by the Government, and that we are determined to give them everything which our duty to the State as a whole enables us to give them. I hope the House will be satisfied with the discussion which has taken place, and allow us now to come to a decision.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am sure the House will have heard with great satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the case of the soldier discharged with a gratuity, on medical grounds, is to be made the subject of independent re- view. But the other questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) does not seem to I have been fully appreciated and met. Still, as the matter can be raised again on the Committee stage of the Bill, I do not propose to deal with it now. I must, however, remind my right hon. Friend
  712
  that what was asked for is this: That the case of the soldier who has already been discharged from the Army on medical grounds is quite different from that of the soldier who has not already passed through the Army, and it therefore is deserving of special treatment. If a soldier who has served his country is discharged for sickness or wounds—and the medical authorities do not discharge them lightly—and if you now submit him to reexamination, and again take him for the Army, then the absolute responsibility for taking that man ought to rest on the Army. If we were mistaken in those circumstances, I do not think any case ought to be brought up against him hereafter that he was intrinsically unfit to serve the Army. He has proved that he was incapable of serving because he has been discharged from the Army. If that is the case which my hon. Friend raises on the Committee stage of the Bill. I for one shall be very happy to support him.
  Mr. HOGGE: After the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it would be ungrateful of me if I did not withdraw my Amendment, and although this is only an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman he himself and those of us who are interested in the welfare of the soldiers are particularly gratified to know that now there is a possibility of an Appeal Court being set up to deal with all cases of men whose disability is not attributable to service. We hope these men will have a right to take to an independent tribunal their case for a pension before they are dispossessed of all gratuity. If that is done—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will achieve that—a great step forward has been made in the matter of pensions, and I very warmly thank him.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  Mr. MOLTENO: I understand that a very considerable number of the men who will be affected by this Bill are engaged in agriculture, and, in view of the very critical condition of agriculture, very great anxiety is felt in regard to the time lost by these men having to attend for examination? Could any special provision be made to avoid any unnecessary delay of that kind?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Arrangements have already been made that no men will be taken before 1st May. But it goes much

  713
  further than that. I explained that one of the reasons for the need of this Bill is the fact that we are not allowing any men essential to food production to be taken away, and that policy still holds.
  Mr. THOMAS: Will you make arrangements to examine men in accordance with the period in which they were rejected before?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As far as possible.
  Mr. KING: Will a provision be put into the Bill to prevent men engaged in food production being taken, or is it only one
  of those pledges which, although made in good faith, cannot really be supported afterwards by Statutory power?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said all it is possible to say on that subject.
  Mr. BONAR LAWrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 18.

  Division No. 19.]

  AYES.

  [8.15 p.m.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Nicholson, William G. (petersfield)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Grant, J. A.

  Norton-Griffiths, Sir J.

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Barrle, H. T.

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Barton, William

  Gretton, John

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bathurst, Capt. Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pratt, J. W.

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Pryce_Jones, Colonel E.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Haslam, Lewis

  Radford, Sir George Haynes

  Billing, Pemberton

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel

  Bird, Alfred

  Henderson. Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bliss, Joseph

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Boyton, James

  Hope, James Fitealan (Sheffield)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Hope, Lieut.-Col. J. A. (Midlothian)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Home, Edgar

  Rowlands, James

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Salter, Arthur Ciavell

  Bull, Sir William James

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Johnston, Christopher N.

  Shaw, Hon. A.

  Cawley Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk, (Prestwich)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Shortt, Edward

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R.(Herts, Hitchin)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Aston)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Stanlcy, Major Hon.G. F. (Preston)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Layland-Barrett. Sir F.

  Steel,Maitland, A. D.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwork, West)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Swift, Rigby

  Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cralk, Sir Henry

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Currle, George W.

  McCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Touche, Sir George Alexander

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannon)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Watson, John B. (Stockton)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Dixon, C. H.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

  Finney, Samuel

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

  Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Beck.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  NOES.

  Anderson, W. C.

  King, J.

  Snowden, Philip

  Arnold, Sydney

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Thomas, J. H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Hudson, Walter

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thomas Richardson and Mr. Richard

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Lambert.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. J. Hope.]

  WAR PENSIONS BILL.
  Order for consideration as amended, read.
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Glasgow (Blackfriars Division), to be moved on re-committal."
  I move this in order to insert Amendments which have been practically agreed to. It will be remembered that there was a long Debate in Committee as to the amount of the expenses of the committees to be paid by the Government and by the local authorities. The original proposal was not favourably accepted, and we were very strongly pressed upon the matter. Picas were put forward on behalf of the poorer counties which it was said would be struck hard by having to pay half of the expenses which were required from them under the Bill as it stood. We discussed, first of all, the possibility of meeting the wishes of the House by a scale which would relieve the poorer counties, but we found that impracticable. We have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer two or three times' about it, and he in turn has seen the Treasury officials, and we now propose that instead of one-half the Government should find two-thirds of the cost, leaving only one third to be found by the local authorities. We hope that the House will now accept that proposal, because we think it is very generous having regard to the whole circumstances of the position. I will give a few figures which will show how the new proposals will work out. It will be remembered that I was asked the other night for figures as to how much it would cost and what would be the cost to the rates, but I could only give a few cases that had come to my knowledge. I have had some figures got out to show exactly how the payment of
  716
  one-third by the local authorities instead of one-half will apply to the rates. I will only give a few. I find that Kent county will pay £800 instead of £1,200, and the £800 will involve a charge of one thirty-third of a penny in the £. Worcestershire will pay £300 instead of £500, and that will represent one-eighteenth of a penny. Newcastle will pay £200 instead of £300, which will involve a charge of one thirty-sixth of a penny. With respect to the poorer counties I would point out that often their expenses are very small. Some of the hon. Members on the Irish benches were much concerned about the poorer counties in Ireland. I will give a few instances. Tyrone, which is one of the poorest, if not the poorest, has expenses only amounting to £25 a year, and this wall involve a charge upon their rates of one sixty-sixth of a penny. Nairn, the poorest county in Scotland, will pay to the extent of one-twelfth of a penny. The worst case of all is that of Hoxton in the north-east of London, and the cost there, largely I suppose because of the very poor property, will be one-sixth of a penny. One-sixth of a penny is the largest amount that will be paid by any local authority or any poor county throughout the length and breadth of the Kingdom.
  Mr. WING: Have you got figures for the county of Durham?
  Mr. BARNES: I am sorry to say I have not, but I think I remember something about Durham. The expenses there are rather high if my memory serves me right, and therefore they will have to pay something more than one thirty-sixth of a penny, but I feel sure it will be nothing like one-sixth. These figures have been got out to show the cases in which the counties would be hardest hit.
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  WAR PENSIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Administrative Expenses of Local and District Committees.)
    (2) The council concerned shall, at such times as the Local Government Board may

    717
    direct, submit to the Board an estimate of the administrative expenses proposed to be incurred by the local committee for such period as the Board may direct, and the Board shall consider the estimate, and shall, if and so far as they consider the estimate reasonable, approve the estimate, and thereupon there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament at such times and in such manner as the Treasury may direct, sums equal in the aggregate to one-half of the expenses incurred not exceeding one? half of such estimate as so approved, and the sums so paid shall be paid to the council.
    (6) Where in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section two of the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Expenses Act, 1916, the council of a county or borough or urban district have, before the passing of this Act, made, or hereafter make, payments towards the administrative expenses of any local committee or district committee appointed under the principal Act incurred in respect of the period before the passing of this Act, and the aggregate amount of such payments exceeds the one-half of the administrative expenses of the committee for such period, a sum equal to the excess shall, if and so far as the Local Government Board have sanctioned or may hereafter approve such expenses, be repaid to the council out of moneys provided by Parliament.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave, out the word "one-half"["one-half of the expenses"], and to insert instead thereof the words "two-thirds."
    Mr. HARDY: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has taken this matter up. Although I desired to sec the Treasury paying three-fourths, I am quite sure that the Committee generally will agree that the right hon. Gentleman has done all he can to meet us, and we should very gratefully accept the proposition he makes, that the Treasury should pay two-thirds, and leave one-third to be paid by the local authority. I should like to call attention to one matter which perhaps he may bring before the Statutory Committee, which body will now, I think, be more under his control, and that is that the local committees in the counties feel that if the demands that are being made upon them at the present time in connection with some of the circulars which are being sent down are con-
    718
    tinued, there will undoubtedly be a very large increase in the administrative expenses. Circular 30, in connection with records and cases, has been sent down requiring monthly returns and three-monthly returns and an enormous number of returns which, when sent from the local committees to the sub-committees, although there are a large number of voluntary helpers, will inevitably lead to paid assistants in all the sub-committee districts. If you are to have this paid assistance forced upon you in connection with demands made from the central office, undoubtedly the administrative expenses will largely increase, with a consequent higher demand upon the rates and taxes. As the Minister of Pensions has taken this matter up, I hope that he will take steps to see that no more returns than are absolutely necessary are required. I think the monthly returns represent an excessive demand, and I hope that some means will be taken to limit what must become a considerable source of expense.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to express regret that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment pressed upon him in Committee. He has fallen into the error of imagining that the speakers in this House always express the views of the House. He has forgotten that there are many silent Members, and on the occasion in question the silent Members were backing him up in the position which he orignally took up, namely, that this expense should be divided half-and-half between the Treasury and the local authority. He ought to have discounted, with his knowledge of affairs, a good deal of what was said on that occasion, because each of the hon. Members who spoke visibly and audibly spoke from a brief. They had all got some brief from their local authority. Naturally the local authorities were very anxious that the expenses of this measure should be taken off their shoulders and put upon the Treasury. I do not believe that the hon. Members who stated those views believed in their heart of hearts that it was wise that the local authority should have very little expense and that the Treasury should have most of it. As my right hon. Friend said, when he brought in this half-and-half principle, there must be a check upon the expenditure of local authorities. Every one of us who has had any experience of local authorities knows that if there is not a sufficient check on them

    719
    their expenditure is lavish and not as economical as it ought to be. I think that the idea was to stick to the half-and-half arrangement in most cases, but in the case of poor counties such as some in Ireland and in Scotland—I suppose there is no such thing as a poor county in England— there ought to be some prevision whereby the half payable by the county might be reduced and the balance borne by the Treasury. I hope that my right hon. Friend will remember in future that a majority of those who are silent in the House differ in view very often from those who speak.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "one-half" ["not exceeding one-half"], and insert instead thereof the words "two-thirds."
    In Sub-section (6) leave out the words "one-half" ["exceeds the one-half"], and insert instead thereof the words "one-third."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended in Committee and on re-committal, considered.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of Principal Act in London.)
    Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act. there shall, within twelve months after the passing of this Act, or within three months after the termination of the War, whichever shall be the earlier, be set up in the City of London and in each Metropolitan borough a district committee; and the London County Council shall, for this purpose, submit to the Statutory Committee any necessary amendment of, or addition to, the scheme made under the principal Act for the County of London: Provided that for this purpose the Minister of Pensions shall be satisfied that arrangements are made so that the existing organisation of the local committee for London is not unduly disturbed.—[Sir G. Touche.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir G. TOUCHE: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause is a variation of the Clause which I moved in Committee for the purpose of setting up district committees for the Metropolitan boroughs and the City of London. The position of the boroughs
    720
    in this matter has been generally recognised. It has also been recognised that the alteration which involves the setting up of these committees presents a great many difficulties. In the Committee stage the War Pensions Minister suggested that the spirit of the Clause should be accepted, and he authorised my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley to suggest that the advocates of district committees should meet the representatives of the London War Pensions Committee, and endeavour to agree on a Clause to be put down on the Report stage. On that understanding I withdrew the Clause which I moved in Committee. Since then we have met in conference. We found that agreement was not so easy. We came to an understanding on certain general lines. There was general recognition that there should be ample time to allow of negotiations for making any changes in the organisation and to allow borough councils, taking a large part in the work, to become better acquainted with it, and in particular that on the termination of the War changes would have to be made, and it was desirable to provide for these changes being made at no distant date. The question of the changes to take place on the termination of the War is one of the most important questions connected with what is now proposed. A great many of the voluntary workers are giving their services for the war period. They are working under high pressure. They will not be able to continue indefinitely, and many of them will probably fall off at the termination of the War. The nature of the work will also very largely change at the termination of the War. Therefore, it is desirable to proceed to establish the committee on a more permanent basis.
    The representatives of the borough councils at this conference expressed every desire to avail themselves of the services and experience of the voluntary workers whose services have boon of such great value. As a result we came to a provisional agreement last night. The terms of that agreement are set forth in this Clause. Substantially they are that the district committees should come into operation twelve months after the passing of the Act, or three months after the termination of the War, whichever should be the shorter period. That was accepted by the representatives of the borough councils and of the City of London, and it was to be submitted to-day to the London War Pensions Committee. I now understand

    721
    that that committee desire some modification of what we thought was practically agreed on. Instead of the period which is set forth in the Clause they want the district committees to be established within six months after the termination of the War. That, of course, is a very substantial alteration. I cannot say that I think that effect is quite given to the spirit of the Clause as originally moved. It is a great disappointment that this further change has been suggested, and I should like to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for South Paddington has to say on the subject. But, subject to that, and to the views of the Pensions Minister, I and those who are associated with me, have no alternative but to accept this Amendment, if an agreed clause must be reached. With the time limit even as modified, I venture to think it would have the effect of enabling the intention of the original Act to be carried out eventually, though not so soon as the borough councils would have wished. It was clearly intended that the borough councils should have these district committees, and I earnestly hope that even in the amended form this Clause, if accepted by the Pensions Committee, will serve to remove what is a real grievance, and that it will close a controversy with good will on all sides, and will stimulate the interests of the borough councils which hitherto were rather chilled and snubbed in this matter, and will evoke from them a newer and keener and more active cooperation in this important work.
    Sir E. LAMB: In seconding this new Clause, I wish merely to say that at this time it is unnecessary to argue the relative merits of district committees as distinct from local committees, but the City of London Corporation feel very strongly on this point, and while we are anxious to hear what the London County Council say in the matter, we do feel that we cannot let it go unchallenged. I hope, therefore, that the Pensions Minister will see his way to make, if not this concession, at least the concession in this sense. We are not standing out for actually the number of months mentioned in the Amendment. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is the principle for which we are contending, and that we are quite willing to concede the details. We want it to be distinctly understood that the City of London Corporation feel that they have a very real grievance in this matter, and that
    722
    they want it put right. We hope, therefore, that the London County Council will see our aspect of it as well as their own, and support us in our contention.
    Mr. H. P. HARRIS: I am not able to speak on behalf of the London County Council, tout only on behalf of the London War Pensions Committee. I was informed, however, by the Parliamentary agent of the London County Council that the Parliamentary Committee of that body met this afternoon and considered whether the Clause proposed by my hon. Friend opposite ought to be placed before the council before it is finally debated. Up to the present there has been no opportunity for the London County Council to be consulted, and the Parliamentary Committee do not feel that they can come to a decision themselves, without examination of the matter by the London County Council, and before the Minister of Pensions has finally decided to accept that Clause. The London War Pensions Committee met this afternoon and decided that they were willing to fall in with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend and that the spirit of this Amendment moved by my hon. Friend should be accepted:
    "The London War Pensions Committee are willing to agree to a Clause being inserted fixing six months after the War as the time within which this committee should be set up."
    They considered carefully the Clause which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington has on the Paper, but they are unwilling to agree to that. Their reason is:
    "No one can tell what the position will be twelve months hence. The War may still be raging, and the difficulties connected with the change may be greater instead of less. On the other hand, when the War terminates, a good deal of the work which calls for the services of a large number of voluntary workers will grow less or cease, and the appropriate time will have come to set up district committees to deal with the more permanent work connected with pensions and the case of disabled men. and remembering the rather uncertain duration of the War."
    They appreciate the desire for a definite period rather than depend on the uncertain duration of the War. No one can say which period will be the shorter, but it is certain that if it is prolonged the difficulty of finding volunteer workers will be an ever-increasing factor. Therefore I should be prepared to accept the Clause submitted by my hon. Friend, provided if he accepts certain words which would make it read as follows: "Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, there shall, within six months after the termination of the War, be set up in the City of London and each Metropolitan borough a district

    723
    committee," and then the rest of the hon. Member's Clause would stand as it is. I feel bound to point out that the London County Council, which is the body that made the existing scheme, has a right to be consulted. It has not been consulted, and I do not know what the Amendment may be, but it might be dealt with in another place. I entirely reciprocate what was said by the hon. Member for Islington, namely, that we should make sure of the good will of the borough councils in carrying out this work.
    Sir N. HELME: The suggestion that the term of twelve months should be dropped is one on which we may arrive at a friendly settlement. I submit that if twelve months were allowed to remain, and we inserted six months instead of three months after the termination of the War, we might have ground for a satisfactory settlement—twelve months from the date of the passing of the Bill, and not sooner than six months after the termination of the War, would give a reasonable time. I would, therefore, submit to the Minister of Pensions that he might accept the suggestion which I make, and which I venture to press upon him, and the matter might be further considered and dealt with in another place. The great object is to obtain a really friendly settlement, so that the whole difficulty may be removed.
    Mr. BARNES: I think we are approaching a friendly settlement, and that we may be congratulated on that fact. I am willing to fall in with the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite, but I would ask him to defer the matter for the present and withdraw his Amendment and allow the county council, who, I believe, are to meet on Monday to consider the subject. I hope my hon. Friend will fall in with that suggestion.
    Sir G. TOUCHE: I have had no opportunity of consulting those associated with me in this Amendment, but I realise from what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman that it would be well to withdraw it, and I certainly fall in with the suggestion he has made.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Administrative Expenses of Local and District Committees.)
    (1) The administrative expenses of any local committee, or of any sub-committee
    724
    thereof, established under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), to an amount not exceeding such estimate as is hereinafter mentioned, shall be defrayed by the council of the county, or borough, or urban district for whose area the local committee is established, and the administrative expenses of any district committee appointed under the principal Act shall be defrayed as part of the expenses of the local committee for the county in whose area the district is situate.
    (2) The council concerned shall, at such times as the Local Government Board may direct, submit to the Board an estimate of the administrative expenses proposed to be incurred by the local committee for such period as the Board may direct and the Board shall consider the estimate, and shall, if and so far as they consider the estimate reasonable, approve the estimate, and thereupon there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament at such times and in such manner as the Treasury may direct, sums equal in the aggregate to two-thirds of the expenses incurred not exceeding two-thirds of such estimate as so approved, and the sums so paid shall be paid to the council.
    (3) Every local committee shall at such times as the Local Government Board may direct submit to the council of the county, borough, or urban district by whom the administrative expenses of the committee are to be defrayed, an estimate of the administrative expenses proposed to be incurred by the committee for such period as the Board may direct, and from time to time submit supplementary estimates.
    (4) The expenses of a council under this Act, so far as not defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, shall be defrayed out of the proceeds of such fund or rate as may be directed by the Local Government Board:
    Provided that if a separate local committee has been established for any borough or urban district in a county the expenses of the local committee for the county shall be treated as expenses for special county purposes from contribution to which the borough or urban district shall be exempt.
    (5) For the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this Section the administrative expenses of a local or sub-committee or district committee shall include travelling expenses and compensation for loss

    725
    of remunerative time in the case of members of the committee or any sub-committee thereof calculated in accordance with Regulations made by the Minister of Pensions subject to the approval of the Treasury.
    (6) Where in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section two of the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Expenses Act, 1916, the council of a county or borough or urban district have, before the passing of this Act, made, or hereafter make, payments towards the administrative expenses of any local committee or district committee appointed under the principal Act incurred in respect of the period before the passing of this Act, and the aggregate amount of such payments exceeds the one-third of the administrative expenses of the committee for such period, a sum equal to the excess shall, if and so far as the Local Government Board have sanctioned or may hereafter approve such expenses, be repaid to the council out of moneys provided by Parliament.
    Sir N. HELME: I beg to Move, in Subsection (1), after the word "such" ["exceeding such"], to insert the word "approved."
    The Amendment may be regarded as a mere drafting proposal, but I think it would remove any uncertainty that may arise in the future as to the estimate upon which the arrangement is to be based. There would be no uncertainty whatever in the future if the estimate was approved, and the fact of correspondence would be no difficulty whatever.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): I accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to Move, in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words, "The council concerned"[(2)"The council concerned shall"], and insert instead thereof the words "Every local committee."
    This Amendment and two others which stand on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend are all concerned with the same point, namely, to make clear the method whereby the estimate will be submitted by the local committee to the local authority, and by them to the Local Government Board; and I think I had better make a statement in moving this Amendment. The Amendments are neces-
    726
    sary, because in the Committee stage the Bill was amended and left in a rather obscure position. The effect of the first Amendment is perfectly simple. It comes to this: The local committee will submit their estimate, and their estimate will go to the local authority, and the local authority can approve or modify it, and will forward the estimate so approved and modified, to the Local Government Board, who will finally approve of it. I quite agree that the Amendments, as they appear on the Paper, do not carry that out, and I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend, and I propose to move them in rather a different form. The first Amendment now stands exactly as it is on the Paper. The next Amendment will read, in Subsection (2), after the word "direct"["may direct"], to insert the words "and may from time to time submit for approval supplementary estimates, and the council shall within such time as the Board may direct, forward to the Board all such estimates, together with an intimation of their approval, or modify as they may think fit. "The effect of that will be to secure altogether the control of the local authority. The local authority will have the right to disapprove or modify. Subsection (2), with the Amendments inserted, will read," Every local committee shall at such time as the Local Government Board may direct, submit for approval to the council by which the administrative expenses are to be defrayed the estimate of the administrative expenses proposed to be incurred by the local committee in such a period as the Board may direct, and may from time to time submit for approval supplementary estimates, and the council shall within such time as the Local Government Board may direct forward to the Board all such estimates, together with an intimation of their approval, or modify as they may think fit, The Board shall consider all estimates so submitted and shall if and so far as they consider any such estimate reasonable, and the rest as it appears.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: I did not quite follow the words read out, and I am not quite sure whether they meet the objections of some local authorities. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary accepted in principle the contention that the local elected authority should have the right not only to criticise, but, if necessary, refer back the estimates of the Pensions

    727
    Committee. That was the object of my various Amendments. As far as I can gather from the rather complex wording of the latest Amendments that difficulty is met. I do want an assurance that the elected authority which is responsible for raising a portion of the money out of the rates, shall have direct control, and, if necessary, can refer back for consideration those estimates which they consider excessive. If we have an assurance that the words have that intention and will bring about that result I, for one, shall be satisfied. The wording does not make that quite clear even now.
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I think, when my hon. Friend reads this and the consequential Amendments, he will find that it is really perfectly clear. We are all agreed on the position. It is of great importance that Parliament should make the position perfectly manifest. The obligation of finding this money is placed on the local authorities, and, therefore, any estimate submitted to them must be submitted for approval and sent on by them only if approved or as modified by them. The Government Department, which is giving two-thirds of the money, has also properly the right of approval. The two sources of revenue, that as to two-thirds and that as to one-third, imply conscious approval of the authority pertaining to that portion. As long as that is made clear, I think we are all agreed. In my reading, the Amendments to be proposed make the matter perfectly clear. I want to put on record what we intend to have in this matter. We are grateful to the Government for agreeing, and I think we have now got it into line with the ordinary methods of local government in this country.
    Mr. HARDY: I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having considered, the suggestion I made in Committee. I am quite sure this is the right way now. I did not like the Clause as it was printed in Committee. It seems to me to be quite correct now, and I am perfectly satisfied.
    Mr. BARNES: Before these Amendments are passed I should like to give the assurance asked for by the hon. Member (Mr. P. A. Harris) as to the local authority having a controlling voice in regard to expenditure out of the local pates. I can
    728
    assure my hon. Friend, whether or not that appeared in the Clause before, it is in now.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2), after the word "submit"["submit to the Board"], insert the words "for approval."
    After the word "Board"["submit to the Board"], insert the words "the council by which the administrative expenses of the committee are to be defrayed."— [Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, after the word "direct"["as the Board may direct"], to insert the words "and may from time to time so submit supplementary estimates, and the council shall within such time as the Board may direct forward to the Board all such estimates, together with an intimation of their approval or modified as they may think fit."
    Sir R. ADKINS: I did not catch whether the words "for approval," which appeared in an earlier line, are applied to the estimates submitted by the committee to the council.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY: Is it quite clear that the words "such estimates" include both the original and supplementary estimates?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think there is no doubt that they do include both the original and any supplementary estimates.
    Sir N. HELME: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the suggestion that the words "for approval" might be inserted either after the word "submit" or after the word "estimates"?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is rather difficult to follow the words just now, but if they are necessary they shall be put in in another place.
    Sir N. HELME: When the hon. Member spoke a few minutes ago he used the words "for approval," but in the form of the Amendment just read out those words do not appear.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I put them in before, in the previous Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "the estimate"["shall consider the estimate"], and insert instead thereof the words "all estimates so submitted."— [Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Leave out Sub-section (3).—[Mr. Barnes.]

    CLAUSE 4.—(Alteration of Purposes for which Voluntary Funds may be Applied in Certain Cases.)
    Where any fund has been raised by voluntary contributions for the purpose of providing assistance in some specific form to disabled officers or men or to the wives, widows, or dependants of officers or men, and provision has been made for such assistance out of public moneys, the Minister of Pensions may, on the application of the trustees or managing body of the fund, after taking such steps as he thinks desirable for ascertaining the wishes of subscribers, make with the concurrence of such trustees or managing body an order authorising the fund to be applied to such other purposes for the benefit of disabled officers or men or the wives, widows, children, or dependants of officers or men as may be specified in the order, and on the making of any such order the fund may be applied accordingly.
    Mr. HARDY: I beg to move, after the word "widows"["or to the wives, widows"] to insert the word "children."
    This is merely a consequential Amendment upon the word "children" being inserted later on in the Clause. I think it ought also to govern the earlier part of the Clause.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We accept this.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Power to Chairman and v ice-Chairman of Statutory Committee to Sit in Parliament.)
    A person who holds the office of Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee shall not by reason of his office be incapable of being elected to or voting in the Commons House of Parliament.
    Sir H. DALZIEL:I beg to move to leave out Clause 5. I may say that through a misunderstanding this Motion was not made in Committee when my right hon. Friend made the proposition, and many of my Friends who are interested in the matter did not know that it was coming on at the particular time it did. My right
    730
    hon. Friend stated on the Committee stage that his only purpose in having this Clause was to provide for the project he had in hand that the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) should be associated with him on the Statutory Committee. So far as that purpose is concerned, I offer no opposition. Personally, I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for Dudley associated with this important Department, and I have little doubt he will do his duty there very successfully. He is one of the oldest Members of the House, and I am sure his appointment is very popular. But I want to know exactly what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions has in his mind. Is the hon Member for Dudley going to be Chairman of the Statutory Committee, or is he not? It would save a tremendous amount of speaking on my part if I knew exactly what the intentions are, but obviously my right hon. Friend has not yet made up his mind.
    Mr. BARNES: I have made it up, and I stated my mind the other night, and I have nothing to add to that.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Well, the words on the Paper do not give me the information for which I am asking, nor does the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the other night. He said he had a project that the hon. Member for Dudley was going to be associated with him, but he did not say whether he would be chairman or vice-chairman, and surely we are entitled to know that. I think the House ought to know where it stands in this matter, and I do not see the need for any mystery about it. Why should we not know what the position of the hon. Member for Dudley will be? My principal complaint is, first that we do not know exactly, and, secondly, that as it is drawn, this Clause permits both the persons who may be chairman and vice-chairman to occupy seats in this House. Does my right hon. Friend deny that? I think, if I read the Clause, any hon. Member who doubts will agree with me. The Clause says:
    "5. A person who holds the office of chairman or vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee shall not by reason of his office be incapable of being elected to or voting in the Commons House of Parliament."
    That is the chairman and the vice-chairman. The Clause says, "Neither shall be prevented from sitting in this House."

    731
    That is why I offer opposition. In the first place, I say one is sufficient, and I say that if the hon. Gentleman occupies that post—and I can conceive him occupying no other—it is quite unnecessary to bring in the vice-chairman. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales was chairman, and retired. There is a vacancy which has not yet been filled. The vice-chairman is Mr. Cyril Jackson. I maintain that this Clause as it stands at present gives authority to Mr. Cyril Jackson, as vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee, to sit in this House. To that I am opposed. I will oppose it in every possible way. In the first place, I object that a Civil servant should have the right to sit on that Bench with Ministers. Heaven knows that the Bench is crowded enough already—perhaps over-crowded! We have not yet gone so far as to bring in Civil servants and give them the right to sit on the Front Bench with their chief! There is another point. When Mr. Cyril Jackson's appointment was proposed in this House I was one of the few who criticised it, not because I had any feeling against him myself because I never saw him, nor do I know anything about him, but it was well known that he was a party organiser, and chairman of the Moderate party in the County Council. He afterwards retired, and got this post. That is past history. We were told that he was to be appointed at a salary of £l,500. The House accepted that. Then the House was told that as he was not taking any pension he ought to be paid £1,750. The House passed that with a protest. Here, however, you have a proposal to give him £400 a year more—for that is what it means. I think we ought to have some defence of this proposal before it is passed.
    An HON. MEMBER: The cost of living has risen!
    Sir H. DALZIEL: That may be so, but I maintain that we ought to have more information than we have yet got in regard to this Clause. If my hon. Friend can show me that the Clause does not do what I maintain it does do, I will listen with the greatest interest. I hope that he will be able to give me information on the varous points I have put. If I am not satisfied more than I am at present on the matter, I shall take the opinion of the House upon it.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to second the Amendment. I also would have raised this in Committee had I been present in the House.
    Mr. KING: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it necessary to have a seconder to an Amendment proposed by a right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I will take the Amendment without a seconder, and then call upon the hon. Member.
    Mr. HOGGE: As I cannot second my right hon. Friend, I may be allowed to support him. I should have supported this proposal in Committee, for a very obvious reason. I hope the House will remember what are the facts in regard to the Statutory Committee. There are two posts in that Committee—that of chairman and vice-chairman. One or other of these posts can have a salary attached to it, but not both. The Prince of Wales was made chairman, and Mr. Cyril Jackson was made vice-chairman with a salary of £1,750. I always thought it was a stupid arrangement that a Civil servant with a salary of £1,750 should be able to preside over a Statutory Committee appointed by this House for certain purposes; that is to say, that a man whose conduct the whole committee could always call in question should have the right, and has the right now, to preside over the meetings of the Statutory Committee. What we ought to have had was a sensible arrangement whereby neither the chairman nor the vice-chairman were paid, and whereby Mr. Cyril Jackson should have been the permanent secretary of the Statutory Committee, just as we have a permanent secretary for each of our particular Departments.
    The proposal in this Bill amounts to this: that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions desires, and naturally desires—as a matter of fact, is instructed by the Ministry of Pensions Bill—to keep in touch with the Statutory Committee and to co-ordinate its work. Obviously either the Minister of Pensions or the Parliamentary Secretary ought to be chairman of the Statutory Committee. Presumably the Minister of Pensions has sufficient to do at the Ministry of Pensions without taking upon himself the chairmanship of the Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary can quite easily do that.

    733
    I agree with my hon. Friend that the Member for Dudley, who is Parliamentary Secretary, is showing a very great devotion to this subject of pensions, and a very considerable amount of energy and ability in the matter. I presume that I am as keen a critic of the pensions administration as anybody. So far as I am concerned, there is no man I should more readily see in the chair of the Statutory Committee than my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. But at the present moment he enjoys a Ministerial salary. If he becomes chairman of the Statutory Committee he does not lose that salary, but retains the post of Parliamentary Secretary, and goes down and presides, as the representative of the Ministry of Pensions should preside, over the meetings of the Statutory Committee. If this Clause in the Bill is carried by the House you open the door to this possibility. I do not say it will ever happen, but it is possible. We could have in the House of Commons a Minister of Pensions and a Parliamentary Secretary, and a separate chairman and vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee. You could actually have four Ministers on that Front Bench dealing with the subject of pensions. The Pensions Minister would never dream of that taking place, but that is a possibility of this Bill.
    There is another possibility which ought to be guarded against. This is a purely impersonal remark, and I hope it will be regarded as such; but, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, suppose you have this Clause carried and put in the Bill and you have four men appointed. If these men ceased to be Members of Parliament they could still hold the other two posts as paid officials, and you would get two patronage posts for two men who might be in Parliament and lose their seats at any moment. That is an entirely wrong position. If my right hon. Friend will agree to the deletion of this Clause, I will put forward a suggestion with which, I think, we might all agree. That is that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley should at once succeed the Prince of Wales as chairman of the Statutory Committee and that Mr. Cyril Jackson should remain as the paid official; if you like, at some other time rearrange the secretaryship. That will content the House of Commons. We shall then know that the Minister of Pensions and his Parliamentary Secretary have got control of the two specific and principal parts of the pensions matter, and I think the whole
    734
    thing will be ended. I agree with my fight hon. Friend that this question raises a serious point with regard to a Ministry which is growing so large that, as has often been suggested in this House, they scarcely know each other and, in order to distinguish them from other Members of the House, it will soon be necessary for members of the Government to wear a brassard, or something of that sort, in order that we may know which is which. Here is a proposal to add another two. I hope what has been advanced by my right hon. Friend and myself will be sufficient to convince the Government as to the desirability of deleting this Clause.
    Mr. BARNES: I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy that there is no mystery attaching to this proposal in the slightest, and I am sorry if I gave the impression the other night that that was so. The sole and only object underlying the Clause is that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should be put upon the Statutory Committee either as chairman or vice-chairman. It was put in in that form because we followed the 1915 Act, which says that either the chairman or vice-chairman may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, such salary as the Treasury may determine. Therefore, without this Clause, if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary were appointed to either one of these offices, he might have to submit himself for re-lection. It is because of that doubt that the Clause is proposed. I can assure my hon. Friend we do not want to create any further paid offices. The Parliamentary Secretary would be unpaid if chairman, and he would be unpaid if vice-chairman. Therefore, there is ho additional £400 involved or anything of that kind. There is no further payment either to him or anybody else. I have not the slightest knowledge of Mr. Cyril Jackson's political ambitions, if he has got any. So far as I can judge, I should say he has not got any. The only reason for mentioning the chairman or vice-chairman is that that is the wording of the 1915 Act, and therefore we must make provision to safeguard the Parliamentary Secretary, either in respect of the one office or the other. I think there is some disability attaching to a Civil servant sitting in the House.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: This is overriding it.
    Mr. BARNES: We are quite willing to reconsider the matter, and ascertain whether or not it is open to that possibility. If it is, we will have the wording rearranged.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Take out the words "or vice-chairman." That would meet it.
    Mr. HARDY: I am very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he is willing to reconsider this matter, because when it was discussed in Committee it came rather suddenly upon some of us, and I was not at all satisfied when the Clause was passed. We should be extremely glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary as chairman or vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee provided the work was carried on in co-ordination with the Pensions Minister. We consider the matter quite apart from the personal side. This is really a serious precedent. In order that you may have one particular person in a particular office, you are going to put in a Clause giving for all time the right to two people to come to this House without re-election. It is really a serious precedent, and I think it is a Clause which has not been at all clearly worded, and the position of chairman or vice-chairman is left very uncertain. It certainly ought to be limited to one of the two offices, and for myself I hope the Government may find some other means of getting what they desire, rather than putting a permanent Clause into an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: This is not a personal question at all. On the contrary, it is a very great question of principle. I happen to know Mr. Cyril Jackson and his suitability for this position. I was on the county council with him, and, as a matter of fact, I was deputy-chairman when he was chairman of the council, and a more efficient and capable servant could not be found. But once having become a Civil servant, his position should be that of a Civil servant, and the representative of this House should be the chairman, and not junior to, and subordinate to, the paid Civil servant who represents this Department. I would suggest to the Pensions Minister that the proper and simplest course is to leave out the words "vice-chairman." That would meet the objection and criticisms of hon. Gentlemen, and make it clear that the paid permanent Civil servant is subordinate to a Member of this House.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I think the best way would be if my right hon. Friend would allow this Clause to go out for the moment, and bring up a considered Clause in another place. I cannot personally approve the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. My own view is that any one representative of the (Statutory Committee who desires to be in this House should be eligible to be in this House. But I do agree there is no occasion to have two representatives of the Statutory Committee as such, apart from obscure Members like myself, who happen to be members of the Statutory Committee, and hear what is good for ourselves in this House. But there is no occasion to have more than one representative in the sense under consideration.
    Sir N. HELME: I venture to press upon the right hon. Gentleman that that which has been expressed so generally could be met if he could allow Clause 5 to be deleted, and alter his Amendment on the Paper so that it would then read:
    "During the continuance of the present Parliament any person who is a Member of this House who is appointed to either of those offices shall not by reason of such appointment vacate his seat as such Member."
    I think that would fully meet the case, and provide a means of dealing with the matter in a way that is so generally approved in the House.
    Mr. KING: If we adopted the hon. Member's suggestion, it would mean that we should delete the Clause, and then add something to it. What we ought to do is to take the very good advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy and delete the Clause altogether. That is the only sensible and clear way of doing it, and I am surprised the House has not at once jumped to the position. The hon. Member began by saying there was nothing personal, and then he launched into an elaborate testimonial to a friend, one which I am sure was deserved. I know that Mr. Cyril Jackson is an admirable person in every respect. This is a personal matter, and the only way to deal with it is to leave out the Clause altogether. May I be allowed to rebut a charge that was made against me that I am a vegetarian. I assure the House that I am nothing of the sort, and do not intend to be as long as Lord Devon port allows me a little meat.
    Mr. BARNES: If we delete this Clause, there will be considerable difficulty, and we shall run the risk of defeating the object which we all have in view. We have to make up our minds whether the Clause is to remain, and, if so, in what form. I should be disposed to strike out the words "or vice-chairman," and then it will read, "a person who holds the office of chairman of the Statutory Committee shall not by reason of his office be incapable of being elected to or voting in the Commons House of Parliament."
    Sir R. ADKINS: Would not the effect of that be that if any person who is already a Member of this House was elected vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee, he would thereby lose his seat in this House?
    Mr. BARNES: I have an Amendment to cover that point.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Suppose Mr. Cyril Jackson was made chairman of the Statutory Committee, that would enable him to sit in this House, and undoubtedly he would still be a Civil servant.
    Sir R. ADKINS: May I suggest that the Clause should read "a person who holds the office of chairman or vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee, and who is not paid in connection therewith, shall be entitled to sit in this House." Suppose the hon. Member for Dudley (Colonel Sir A Griffith-Boscawen) was elected chairman or vice-chairman, or any other Gentleman sitting on the Front Bench, and they were paid in respect of their Ministerial functions, they should not be deprived of their right of sitting in this House.
    Mr. HOGGE: We really want the Law Officers here in order to be sure what we are doing. I do not see why this Clause should not go out altogether. The vice-chairman is paid, and he does all the work of the Committee, and therefore you cannot stop his salary. I see the Solicitor-General for Scotland on the Front Bench, and I hope the Minister of Pensions will appeal to him on this question of law. So long as the vice-chairman is paid, and he must be paid, there is no necessity for this Clause.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: What my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) said is quite true, and all we want to make sure of is that a paid Civil servant shall not sit in this House. If my right hon. Friend will assure us that
    738
    if any other alteration is found to be necessary he will put it in, I shall be content if he takes out the words "or chairman."
    Mr. BARNES: I think the best way would be to do what has been suggested.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have allowed this conversation to go on in order to enable the House to arrive at a decision. Would it not be more satisfactory to allow the Clause to read, "a person who holds the office of chairman or vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee shall not if he does not receive a salary in respect of that office by reason of his office be incapable of being elected to or voting in the Commons House of Parliament."
    Mr. SHAW: I do not know whether the question is personal or not, but there seems to be a certain personal element in it. Perhaps the difficulties would be lessened by the following words, "A person who holds the office of chairman, and who is a Member of the Commons House of Parliament, shall not during the continuance of the present Parliament, by reason of his office, vacate his seat." That covers completely the question of any Civil servant, and reserves the appointment of a Member of this House to that office.
    Mr. BARNES: We have already suggested a similar proposal.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the best course would be, first, to withdraw the Amendment in meeting the Clause.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HOGGE: Could my right hon. Friend not agree to take out the words "or Vice-Chairman?" The right hon. Gentleman knows that the post of vice-chairman is really the post of secretary of that committee, because he does the work and is responsible for it. It was stupid when the War Pensions Bill was passed to have made this arrangement, and we should have had a chairman and vice-chairman unpaid and a paid secretary, but the House decided to go in for a paid vice-chairman. Cannot my right hon. Friend take out the words "or vice-chairman"? That would settle the whole thing.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have to put some question to the House. If the hon.

    739
    Gentleman will move to leave out the words "or vice-chairman," the discussion can continue.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move to leave out the words "or vice-chairman."
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I thought that we had really agreed to put in the proviso that a person, if receiving a salary in connection with either of these posts, should not be eligible, and under a previous Act of Parliament a person in either of these posts might conceivably be receiving a salary. After all, the Statutory Committee ought to be allowed to exercise a free choice within the limits of the Act of Parliament which created them, and as we have already secured by the words which my right hon. Friend is prepared to move that any person receiving a salary as chairman or vice-chairman shall not be eligible to sit in this House, I would appeal to the House not further to curtail the rights of this committee in the choice of its chairman or vice-chairman. I would appeal to the House to allow the committee within those limits to do what it thinks best with regard to its own members, and to be content with the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, which makes it quite clear that no paid official of the committee shall be eligible to come into this House while he is still paid.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I really do not see why the House of Commons should be spending its time in considering the position of the vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee. It seems to me that we are endeavouring to legislate for somebody for whom the House of Commons is not called upon to legislate. The intention is that the chairman of the Statutory Committee shall not lose his seat because of the fact that he occupies that office without salary. That is the purpose. Why, therefore, begin to deal with the whole position of the vice-chairman? It is entirely unnecessary. Some time ago my right hon. Friend said, "Take out the words or vice-chairman," and I agreed. That has now been departed from. I suggest that the simplest thing would be to take out those words. We have not even yet been told who is going to be the chairman. If we had known from the beginning that the hon. Member for Dudley (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) was going to be chair-
    740
    man, the thing would have been more simple. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman takes out the words "or vice-chairman" and accepts the Amendment. That will be the end of the Debate.
    Mr. BARNES: Evidently that is the sense of the House so far as I have been able to gather it, and I will move to make the Clause read:
    "A person who holds the office of chairman of the Statutory Committee and does not receive a salary in respect of his office as such shall not by reason of his office be incapable of being elected to or voting in the Commons House of Parliament."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: After the word "committee," insert the words "and does not receive a salary in respect of his office as such."
    At end of the Clause, add the words "and if during the continuance of the present Parliament any person who is a Member of that House is appointed to that office he shall not by reason of such appointment vacate his seat as such Member."—[Mr. Barnes.]

ARMY (ANNUAL) ACT (1916) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This very short Bill is a measure to give formal authority to the billeting rates which have been in force since 1st December last. Early in December I announced that the billeting rates had been increased. The Army Orders carrying those rates into effect were laid upon the Table of the House at the earliest moment. The rates which are now current have been approved by this House in the Army (Annual) Act, which was passed a night or two ago, and the only object of this Bill is to give the formal authority of Parliament to billeting rates of which Parliament has tacitly approved already. I only introduce it in order that the formal authority of this House may be obtained. It is a very simple and formal measure,

741
and I hope that the House will allow me to take it through its various stages tonight.
Mr. KING: It seems rather a curious thing to bring new billeting charges into force in December and then only obtain the permission of the House for them in the following March. Of course, in these days, we are very thankful that the permission of the House should be asked for anything. We are thankful for the observance, at any rate, of that amount of Parliamentary control, and, even if it is after the event, it is worth something. I hope, however, that this will not be done frequently, and I hope that this will not be a hardy annual, like the Army (Annual) Bill itself. With that remark I shall content myself. Having given a warning, I hope I shall never have to repeat it again.
Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."— [Mr. Forster.]
Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE (DELEGATION OF POWERS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I bog to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
10.0 P.M.
I have to submit an extremely small and very definite administrative change in existing naval law. Prior to June of last year, under Section 58, Sub-section (10), of the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, the only person authorised, he being the senior naval officer present, to convene a court-martial on any person serving in the Grand Fleet was the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet. Of course, he had with him officers under his command who held the Royal Warrant authorising them to order and convene courts-martial, and in their time no doubt they had ordered and convened courts-martial, and in all human probability in due course they would do so again when once more in independent command. Nevertheless, there was only one senior naval officer present with the Grand Fleet and there-
742
fore all their functions in this respect were vested in him. Of course, that law never contemplated such an aggregation of ships as is to be found in the Grand Fleet. Therefore, Section 58, Sub-section (10), of the Naval Discipline Act, 1S66, sound as it was, imposed an unnecessarily heavy and unforeseen amount of administrative work on the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet. In May of last year Parliament amended this by passing a small Act, the Naval Discipline (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1916. That Act made it lawful for the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet to delegate his powers in this respect during the present War to the several Vice-Admirals in command of squadrons forming part of his Fleet. That was simply an act of administrative devolution, designed to relieve the Commander-in-Chief. I made it quite clear in asking for that devolution that it was the aggregation of the ships in one Fleet that made it necessary, an aggregation by no means foreseen or forecasted when the original Section 58 was passed. I made it quite clear that it was not an increase of crime that rendered it necessary. It would be most ungracious and ungrateful to suggest that. I say the same as regards the further devolution I am now proposing in this little Bill. When the devolution which the House gave us to the Vice-Admirals last year was before the House my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) put this to me, "Why not devolve upon all Flag officers? This will give power to convene courts-martial not only to Vice-Admirals but to Rear-Admirals." That was the proposition he put. Of course, such officers have held Admiralty warrants, have ordered and convened courts-martial, and would do so again, no doubt, when in independent commands I put the suggestion he made to the proper authorities, but it was thought desirable to restrict the devolution to the extent then proposed, namely, to the Vice-Admirals, and it was so approved by Parliament. I now come to ask leave to make this simple addition— to alter the words in last year's Act "Vice-Admirals" and "Vice-Admirals" "as the case may be to" Flag Officers "and" Flag Officer"' as the case may be. That is, we adopt the original suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone. The effect will be that we shall extend the process of devolution not only

743
to the Vice-Admirals, as we did last year, but to the Rear-Admirals, as he then suggested I am sorry he is not here, because he put it to me then and we did not see our way at the time to adopt it. We might have done it, then we should not have had to make two bites at a cherry. That is the sole purpose of the Bill, to extend the process of devolution from Vice-Admirals to Rear-Admirals. I would ask the House, as it is desired to get this Bill passed, to follow the practice we have just adopted and agree to its remaining stages being taken to-night.
Mr. WING: In proposing a Bill of this kind, I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to propose any increase of punishment.
Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, no!
Mr. WING: When Bills of this kind are brought forward, it is well that the sailor should know that. There is a sort of mysterious sound in the Naval Discipline Bill. It covers so many things that it would be well for the right hon. Gentleman to let it be known through the House in what sense there is an advantage for the men in this Bill. I take it that it is meant to allow the multiplication of courts in order to get quicker administration, by extending the powers to others than those who already exercise them. I am not opposing the Bill in any sense, but I desire to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of assuring the men of the mercantile marine and other portions and units which are added to the Navy as we once knew it, that it means no increased punishment of any kind.
Mr. KING: Perhaps, as I have read this Bill, and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Wing) does not appear to have done so, he will allow me to give him the assurance for which he asks. The Bill only amends a Bill we passed last year by changing two words. In that Bill the words "Vice-Admiral" and "Vice-Admirals" occur. Where those words occur you may now read, if you like, "Flag Officer" or "Flag Officers."
Dr. MACNAMARA: Not if you like.
Mr. KING: Well, we have got to read those words in. I tried to put it in the
744
gentlest form. This is a very small matter, and very easily done, but I think it shows that the Admiralty, though they are capable and wise cannot foresee twelve months ahead, not even when it is a very little Bill like this.
It only shows that if it consulted capable men like the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone and took his advice or the advice of other sensible men they would save themselves and the House a good deal of trouble and the country a lot of paper. Why, at least, 670 copies of this had to be printed for circulation to hon. Members alone, in addition to those distributed for the Vote Office. Let the Admiralty show a little more forethought and take the advice of people who have more time to look into these matters than the right hon. Gentleman has.
Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."— [Mr. J. Hope.]
Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
Dr. MACNAMARA: I think it right to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Wing) that the Bill has nothing whatever to do with increasing punishments. Its object is simply to give rear-admirals the power of holding courts-martial now possessed by vice-admirals and the Commander-in-Chief.
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."
Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes after Ten o'clock till to-morrow (Friday), pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.

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

NEW WRITS.
For the Borough of Oxford, in the room of Sir Arthur Annesley, Viscount Valentia (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
For the Burgh of Aberdeen (South Division), in the room of George Birnie Esslemont, Esquire (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Gulland,]

POLICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) (RETURNS OF CRIME).
Copy presented of Abstract of Statements as to Crime in counties and boroughs during the year 1915, furnished to the Secretary of State for the Home Department (including the figures in respect of the City of London and the Metropolitan Police District) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local
2
authority, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
City of Bristol
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MUNITIONS (HEALTH OF MUNITION WORKERS).
Copy presented of Interim Report by the Health of Munition Workers Committee (Industrial Efficiency and Fatigue) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts, the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts, etc., for 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DUCHY OF CORNWALL.
Account presented of the Receipts and Disbursements of the Duchy of Cornwall for the year 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 53.]

VOTE OF CREDIT (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT, 1915–16).
Copy presented of Appropriation Account of the sums granted by Parlia-

3
ment beyond the ordinary grants of Parliament to pay the expenses incurred for general Navy and Army Services, beyond the specific provisions made therefor by Parliament, for the conduct of Naval and Military operations; for measures 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 arising out of the existence of a state of war, in the year ended 31st March, 1916, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 54.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    RESTRICTED IMPORTS.

      PAPER.
      Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the inconvenience and loss to the commercial community that will be caused by the Order prohibiting the printing of catalogues, circulars, and posters after the 24th inst.; and whether, in view of the fact that the Order is made solely to effect an economy in the use of paper, he will weigh the advantages of paper so used with the paper now consumed in the printing of publications of a comic and serio-comic nature?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. George Roberts): I have no doubt that the paper restriction Order will cause a certain amount of inconvenience, but it has been issued in view of the urgent necessity for economising paper. As regards the second part of the question, I have already explained the difficulties of discriminating between different classes of publications in allotting paper for their use.
      Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the discontent caused by the regulations imposed on printers as to
      4
      how they shall use the stocks of paper allotted to them; and will he direct he Paper Restriction Committee to allot on a fair basis a supply of paper to each business house and allow it to make use of such paper without restriction?
      Mr. ROBERTS: If the hon. and gallant Member will let me know to what particular Regulation he is referring, I shall be happy to consult with the Royal Paper Commission on the subject.
      Mr. RUNCIMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that a monopoly of paper for newspapers would lead to a monopoly in the means of expressing public opinion, the Government have yet taken any steps to carry out the suggestion that stocks of paper for newspapers should be pooled under the control of the Paper Commission and distributed on an equitable basis between the newspapers of the United Kingdom in existence before the import of paper and pulp was first restricted?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Particulars of stocks held by newspaper proprietors have been collected by the Paper Commission, who have reported the result of their inquiries to the Board of Trade. The Report has only just been received, and it has not yet been possible to examine it carefully. There shall be no avoidable delay in announcing the Government's intentions in regard to the suggestion referred to by my right hon. Friend
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will fresh newspapers and new publications be allowed to come out?
      Mr. GINNELL: Yea, if they support the Government.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question to the Board of Trade.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will a circular be issued to Cabinet Ministers suggesting that no further capital should be placed in new newspapers?

      RAILWAY TRAVELLING (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
      Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider permitting children to travel at the old rates when they have to go

      5
      daily by train to school, if they can produce a certificate from the headmaster of the school that this is the only way they can attend?
      Mr. ROBERTS: I fear the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman cannot be adopted. I would observe, however, that no increase has been made in the rates charged for season-tickets, and that the issue of such tickets to day scholars at half-rates has not been discontinued.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      UNCULTIVATED LAND (COMPULSORY POWERS).
      Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if his attention has been directed to a recent article by Mr. James Long, a member of the Small Holdings Committee, showing how the Orders made this year under the Defence of the Realm Act with regard to the compulsory taking and using of uncultivated land for food production have failed to effect their purpose; and whether he will consider the desirability of bringing economic pressure to bear on those who are withholding land from use by taxing them on its selling value under the Defence of the Realm Act?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): I have seen the article referred to which misconceives the effect of the Orders. There is no necessity to put pressure on landowners in the manner proposed, as the Orders of the Board authorise the local authorities to enter forthwith on any land which is not being so cultivated as to increase, as far as practicable, the food supply of the country.
      Mr. WHITE: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that it is necessary to bring economic pressure to bear on those who are withholding their land for cultivation?
      Sir R. WINFREY: I am afraid I cannot enter into that matter in answer to a question.
      Commander WEDGWOOD: It is all for the benefit of the landowners.

      POTATOES.
      Major McMICKINGasked the Prime Minister whether the minimum guarantee of £6 per ton for potatoes
      6
      grown in 1917 will apply to earlies and second earlies; and whether, seeing that this class of potato is perishable, is unsuitable for keeping, and must be marketed day by day as raised, the farmer will, in the event of the price on rail falling below the guaranteed minimum, be entitled to claim the difference?
      Sir R. WINFREY: The original announcement issued by the Food Controller in consultation with the Agricultural Departments of Great Britain and Ireland referred to main crop potatoes delivered in sound marketable condition in quantities of not less than six tons. The modifications rendered necessary by the change from a contract to a minimum price are now under consideration.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will state the date upon which permits were made necessary for the exportation of potatoes from Ireland; the number of such permits issued since that date; why every day during that time permits have been obtained without question or investigation for lots of potatoes consigned to various English towns; whether secret fees are obtained for those permits; what purpose they serve except putting the Irish people off their guard; and what preparation, if any, the Department has made for the consequences of stripping Ireland of a sufficiency of food for the people?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): Permits for the export of potatoes from Ireland became necessary on 21st December, 1916. One hundred and forty-four licences have since been issued by the Department of Agriculture to potato merchants, in addition to licences for export of small quantities by and to private persons. There is no foundation for the insinuation that fees have been paid to the Department in connection with permits. They wore issued without charge on the Department being satisfied as to the circumstances of each case. As pointed out in reply to previous questions, the Department in granting permits for the export of potatoes, etc., have borne in mind the necessity for safeguarding the supplies required in Ireland for seed purposes and for food.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that private exporters of potatoes from North Wall

      7
      have been able to obtain permits by telephone without question or investigation of any sort?
      Mr. DUKE: That is not part of the matter on which I was asked, and I am not aware of the facts. If the hon. Member brings specific instances to my notice I shall be ready to account for it.
      Mr. W. THORNE: Does it mean that our Irish comrades are not prepared to share their potatoes with us?
      Mr. JOYCE: We have not enough to go round.
      Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member had better address that question elsewhere.
      Mr. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that Mr. Denniss, adviser to the Food Controller, has stated that there are about 150,000 tons of potatoes in Great Britain, and, except in Ireland, it means that there are sufficient potatoes to supply each individual with 3 lbs. of potatoes per head per week until May; if he is aware that some of the families of eight and nine in the East End of London have only been able to obtain 3 lbs. of potatoes in three weeks; and if he can make any statement with regard to a better distribution of the potatoes available?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. This estimate, which was made on the 8th March, was inclusive of potatoes requisitioned by the Army authorities and still in clamps on that date. These potato stocks are very scattered, and it is not considered likely that any machinery for an even distribution throughout Great Britain could be established in time to be reasonably successful or to warrant its creation.
      Mr. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that wholesale potato merchants trading in London markets are permitted to supply restaurants and fried-fish shops with potatoes to any quantity at the retail price of 1½d. per pound, £14 per ton; and that this practice, by causing potato merchants to reserve their supplies for restuarants and fried-fish shops in order to obtain the higher prices permitted, is operating to the disadvantage
      8
      of the greengrocer, who is unable to obtain adequate supplies for ordinary consumers of potatoes; and whether he will take steps to ensure a proper supply reaching the legitimate retail trader who supplies the ordinary consumer?
      Captain BATHURST: It would be permissible, under the Potatoes (Prices) Order, for a wholesale potato merchant, who also in the ordinary way of business sells potatoes retail, to supply restaurants and fried-fish shops at the retail price of l½d. per lb. It is possible that this may, to some extent, have the effect suggested in the second part of the question. I may, however, point out that potatoes served in fried-fish shops are normally consumed by the poorer classes, who thus obtain the benefit of them as fully as if they had been bought from a retail trader. It is eminently desirable that no potatoes should be served in such restaurants as are frequented by well-to-do people. As I informed the House on Friday, I believe that the best way of coping with the potato shortage is for those who can afford substitutes to abstain entirely from their consumption until the new crop becomes available.
      Mr. THORNE: Is the ½on. Gentleman aware that there is a very large number of fish shops in the East End of London which cannot get any potatoes at all?
      Mr. HOGGE: As my hon. Friend has referred to well-conducted restaurants, will he kindly explain why potatoes are served in the House of Commons?

      SUGAR.
      Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give a Return of the sugar of the 1916 crop purchased by the Royal Commission on Sugar, with the dates and other material particulars, similar to the Return given of the 1915 crop on 21st March, 1916?
      Captain BATHURST: I have been asked to reply. The Food Controller will arrange for the issue of this Return.
      Mr. BRUNNERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that retail tea dealers are losing their business owing to their inability to supply sugar with the tea they endeavour to sell?
      Captain BATHURST: No specific complaint of the character suggested in the

      9
      question appears to have reached the Ministry of Food. It is, no doubt, possible that in certain, exceptional cases customers have been induced to buy their tea from a shop which could also supply them with sugar, rather than from a shop selling tea only, but the Order recently issued by preventing conditional sales will obviate the risk to which the hon. Member refers.
      Mr. LOUGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the specific case of the Maypole Dairy Company, large retailers of tea, who could not get sugar, has been brought before the Food Controller?
      Captain BATHURST:I am perfectly familiar with the case, but so far the Sugar Commission have found it impossible to supply sugar to a sugar selling business which did not exist in the year 1915.
      Mr. HUDSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether there is three-quarters of a pound of sugar per head available weekly in the country; if so, can he say what steps are being taken to secure a fair distribution; and is he aware that the local co-operative society in Newcastle-on-Tyne has not been permitted supplies which work out at more than thirteen thirty-seconds per head of its members and their families?
      Captain BATHURST: As I have already stated in answer to previous questions, the issue of sugar by the Royal Commission for other than manufacturing purposes represents an allowance of three-quarters of a pound per head of the population. The appointment of a Committee to report upon the present distribution of sugar has already been announced. An additional allowance of 10 tons per week has lately been made to the Newcastle district on the ground of increased population, and I am informed that the Newcastle Go-Operative Society have received a substantial grant out of those supplies.
      Mr. HUDSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any difference is made between private traders and co-operative societies in regard to supplies?
      Captain BATHURST: No, Sir. As regards such additional supplies as these, the distribution is quite equitable, on the basis of previous supplies.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is this provision made in regard to any other munition areas where the population has increased?
      Captain BATHURST: Yes. In at least twenty-five cases where the population has increased, owing to munition works or for other reasons, an additional supply has been furnished.
      Mr. THORNE: Has that been done in the East End?
      Mr. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what is the position of the monthly wage earner who purchases his provisions for the month and must apportion his wages for the whole of the month, and at the same time keep in hand a little money to meet possible contingencies of sickness in the family; and what will be the position of the head of a family who will only get the proper amount of sugar per week and saving a small amount each week until the fruit season comes along to be used for the purpose of making jam?
      Mr. EVELYN CECILasked whether a person who keeps below his weekly allowance of sugar per head in order to obtain a sufficient supply of sugar for making jam in the autumn, and in one course uses his accumulated supply for the purpose, wall render himself liable to prosecution under the new Order against hoarding; and, if so, whether the Food Controller proposes to take any steps to avoid what would otherwise, be a distinct encouragement of waste?
      Captain BATHURST: The points raised in these questions will be borne in mind in the framing and administration of the proposed Order. There is no intention to interfere with the legitimate conservation of domestic supplies for such purposes as those mentioned in the last part of the question. The saving of sugar from the weekly voluntary sugar ration for domestic jam making is particularly commendable and will receive every encouragement.
      Mr. THORNE: I take it that that will-be when the people get their ¾ lb. per head?
      Captain BATHURST: The hon. Member realises the difficulties of distribution. The matter is now being investigated.

      WHEAT PRICES.
      Mr. GLAMBERTasked whether, having regard to the very high price of wheat, action may be taken to reduce the price of that product, thereby cheapening the price of bread?
      Captain BATHURST: The price of imported wheat is regulated by the Royal Commission on the Wheat Supply; the comparatively small supplies of homegrown wheat are not under their control. Imported wheat is put upon the market at a price which approximately represents what it costs to buy and bring to this country. The question of regulating the price of home-grown wheat is one on which the Food Controller will confer with the President of the Board of Agriculture.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Is it possible for the Government to utilise its practical control of the wheat market to lower prices?
      Captain BATHURST: Yes, Sir; and I have every reason to believe that they are exercising that control. I may add that a Committee has been appointed representing the Wheat Commission, the millers and the bakers in order to keep a watchful eye upon this matter.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Is it in the purview of the Food Controller or of the Wheat Commission?
      Captain BATHURST: The Food Controller has undoubtedly the ultimate control, but the matter is primarily in the hands of the Wheat Commission.
      Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while these matters are under the consideration of the Government the people are being bled white?
      Captain BATHURST: I hope that such observations will not be made in this House unless there is good cause for doing so. They are only calculated to cause unfounded panic, and thus interfere with the successful prosecution of the War.
      Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the price of bread to-day is 1s. a loaf?
      Captain BATHURST: I have realised that, and greatly regret it.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: At what price is wheat which is selling in Australia for 45s. a quarter sold when brought to this country?
      Captain BATHURST: I have already answered that in the answer to the first part of this question. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman takes fully into account the cost of the freight to this country.
      Mr. PRINGLE: It is not the case that this is worked on Government account?
      Captain BATHURST: There is a very high freight involved from so distant a part of the globe as Australia?
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my specific question as to the price at which Australian wheat is being sold here?
      Captain BATHURST: I must have notice of that question.

    MUNITIONS.

      EAST LONDON EXPLOSION.
      Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has any official information showing that, as mentioned at the inquest on the victims of the recent explosion in the Fast of London, Dr. Angel, the chief chemist of the factory, who lost his life in the explosion, was a German or at least of German origin?
      The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): I am glad to have an opportunity of denying the cruel and stupid rumour to which my hon. Friend refers. Except for the fact that one of his grandparents was an Italian, Dr. Angel was entirely of British birth and extraction. The rumour referred to in my hon. Friend's question is the more cruel in that the evidence of the surviving employés in the factory seems to show that Dr. Angel, had he wished to do so, could have left the factory before the explosion took place, and that he sacrificed his own life in order to warn others.
      Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions what method is being adopted for the purpose of paying compensation to the householders in the recent East End explosion; if he can state whether the people who had pianos in their houses have been informed that the claim for the loss of a piano cannot in any way be considered; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
      Dr. ADDISON: The Ministry is willing to pay all reasonable claims, and the assessors have been instructed accordingly. I am not aware of any statements such as those referred to in the second part of the question, but if my hon. Friend will give me particulars I will have inquiry made.
      Mr. THORNE: In the event of a dispute taking place between the assessor and the persons in question is there any court of appeal so as to get the matter properly adjusted?
      Dr. ADDISON: I think it is all in working order, and I will give my hon. Friend further information.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the wives and dependants of the men who have been killed will get compensation?
      Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of a question of that character. I hope provision will be made for them.

      GENERAL WORKERS UNION (SWANSEA DISTRICT).
      Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the Swansea district secretary of the General Workers' Union sent in an application to the manager of a certain tube works for an advance of wages in December last, when the Minister of Munitions refused to allow the matter to be considered; if he is aware that, in consequence of a protest from the union, they have allowed the management to consider the petition concerning men earning less than 50s. per week; if he is aware that thousands of wage-earners in the engineering and shipbuilding trades in the different parts of the country who are earning more than 50s. per week have received an advance of 12s.; if he can give any reasons why he is vetoing the claims of the men who are receiving over 60s. per week; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
      Dr. ADDISON: It is the fact that an application which was not a joint one from the firm and the men was received by me, as stated by my hon. Friend in December. In view of the fact that under the Local Conciliation Agreement the rates of wages had been established by arbitration as recently as November, I did not feel able to consider the application at that date. I have, however, recently indicated that I would give sympathetic consideration to a proposal to modify the existing bonuses of the men under the 50s. limit, both as to the amount and as to the limit of earnings. As regards the last part of the question the facts are that the increases obtained by the men over 50s. have varied considerably from less than 12s. to sums over 30s. In these circumstances it
      14
      seemed the right course to allow these cases to be dealt with by the machinery of the Local Conciliation Board.
      Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in connection with the management of these tube works in consequence of the embargo on the munitions workers, and will he consider the advisability of withdrawing that embargo, so-that there can be a reconsideration of the matter by arbitration or by being sent on to the committee?
      Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me further particulars? I have no knowledge of any embargo at all up to 50s. There is no embargo.
      Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is an embargo placed upon the men—that is to say, that none of the men receiving more than 50s. will be allowed to be considered by the management?
      Dr. ADDISON: If the hon. Member will read my answer he will see that I said that cases over 50s. have to be referred to the local conciliation board.

      PRISONERS OF WAR.
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) how many British prisoners are in the hands of the Turks; and whether, in view of the high death-rate prevailing among them and the hardships which they have to suffer, the Government will at once arrange with the Turkish Government a complete exchange of all British prisoners?
      Mr. J. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): In regard to the first part of the question, I am informed that, there are at present in the hands of the Turks 8,762 British and native prisoners of war, of whom 541 are officers. In addition to these, there is one officer and 3,079 rank and file still untraced. In regard to the second part of the question, a proposal is at present before the Cabinet for the exchange of 600 British and native prisoners of war in the hands of the Turks as a preliminary to a wider exchange subsequently.
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) how many

      15
      British prisoners of war are in the hands of the Austrians; and if the Government is taking any steps to effect an exchange of prisoners with the Austrian Government?
      Mr. HOPE: I am informed that the number of British civilians of military age who are interned or held under conditions approximating to internment in Austria-Hungary is about 200. The number of military prisoners is negligible. The Austro-Hungarian Government have accepted in principle the proposal made by His Majesty's Government to reduce the, military age limit to fifty-one years and to render males between the age of forty-five and fifty-one who are unfit for service in the field eligible for repatriation. There are, however, one or two points still awaiting settlement before the agreement is definitely concluded.
      Sir C. HENRY: Could the hon. Gentleman say how many civilian Austrian prisoners there are in this country?
      Mr. HOPE: Some thousands.
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether the Government is prepared to take steps to bring about an exchange, irrespective of age, of those civilian prisoners who, from ill-health or other disabilities, are incapacitated from military service?
      Mr. HOPE: An agreement for the mutual repatriation of British and German civilian prisoners of war, irrespective of age, who were regarded by their respective Governments as unfit for military service, came into operation in the summer of 1915. Nearly 500 British civilian prisoners of war have been repatriated from Germany under this agreement. On 6th November, 1916, His Majesty's Government made a proposal to the German Government which it was hoped would lead to the repatriation of a large number of British and German invalid civilian prisoners of war, but no reply to that proposal has been received. A similar agreement was concluded with the Austro-Hungarian Government in October, 1914, but hitherto very few British civilian prisoners of war have been repatriated under it.
      Commander WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister the total number of German, Austrian, Bulgarian, and
      16
      Turkish prisoners now in our hands, and also the total number of British. Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and Indian troops, now known to be prisoners in the hands of Germans. Turks, or Bulgarians?
      Mr. HOPE: In regard to the first part of the question, I am informed that there are in our hands throughout the Empire 55,.397 German, 16 Austrian, 763 Bulgarian, and 15,512 Turkish combatant prisoners of war. As to the last figure, that is according to the latest returns, but I have no doubt that they are very much under the mark at the present moment. In regard to the second part of the question, the reply involves so many categories and cross divisions that I propose to publish the answer in the OFFTCIAL REPOKT.
      Commander WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the total of British prisoners in German hands?
      Mr. HOPE: In German hands alone, speaking from memory, there are about 32,500 combatant prisoners.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS(by Private Notice) asked the hon. Member for Sheffield whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the announcement by the International Red Cross Committee at Geneva that the German Government has actually sent a large number of prisoners from the camps to the zone of the Armies; whether the Government has any further information on this point; and what steps they propose to take?
      Mr. HOPE: The attention of the Government has been called to the information referred to by my hon. Friend. It must. however, be verified before any decision on the subject can be taken.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
      Mr. O'GRADYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the Bramley (Leeds) Board of Guardians have deducted 8s. a week from the pension of E. E. Dickinson, late of the West Yorkshire Regiment, who is at present an inmate of the Men-ston Asylum, as the result of wounds and gas attacks inflicted while serving in the Army; whether this deduction leaves Mrs. Dickinson 18s. a week to maintain herself and four children; and, having regard to

      17
      the hardship thus arising, steps will be taken to prevent any deduction from the man's pension?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I understand that the object which the guardians had in view was to prevent cases of this kind becoming chargeable to the Poor Law. Such cases will in future be dealt with by the grant of an allowance under Article 6 of the proposed new Royal Warrant, and the wife would, during the period of her husband's detention in an asylum, receive an amount not less than the pension and allowance for children to which she would have been entitled had she been a widow.
      Mr. HOGGE: will that begin on 1st April or will it be retrospective'?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I imagine that it will begin on April 1st, but I should like that question addressed to the Minister of Pensions.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether the new scale of pensions applies to soldiers and sailors disabled in previous wars; and, if not, whether the Government propose to include them?
      The MINISTER OF PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; and as regards the second part, the question of the pensions to soldiers and sailors disabled in previous wars is, as was stated in reply to the hon. Member for Truro on the 12th instant, under consideration.
      Mr. HOGGE: When does my right hon. Friend hope to make an announcement on the subject?
      Mr. BARNES: I do not know. Considerations of time are the only obstacle.

      ENEMY ALIENS.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Homo Secretary what was the further evidence upon which the finding of the Advisory Committee recommending Glockler's internment was overruled; whether the deciison was that of the late Home Secretary personally or of one of his subordinates; and whether he will make inquiries as to the existence of a letter from a lady patient forwarded to a Home Office official by an official in
      18
      another Government Department regarding the case and asking that he should not be interned?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): The case was reviewed in August, 1915, on fresh evidence of Glockler's character and conduct. I am unable at this distance of time to ascertain whether the direction to exempt him from internment was given by the Home Secretary personally, but a Minister is responsible for all decisions issuing from his Department whether given by him or under his general authority. I am informed that no letter from a lady patient was forwarded by any official of another Department, but a letter of recommendation which appears to be signed by a lady patient was attached by the alien to his original application for exemption.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary who were the sureties for Glockler, the German dentist, and for what amount and upon what conditions were they bound; and whether he has evidence that during his exemption Glockler contravened the Defence of the Realm Regulations in more than one particular?
      Sir G. CAVE: The sureties were Mr. J. F. Duthie and Mr. Stephen Matthews. They signed separate bonds in the sum of £250 each. The bonds were in the usual form, the undertaking being that the alien enemy shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour towards H.M. the King and all his subjects, and shall comply in all respects with the provisions of the Aliens Restriction Act and Orders. The sureties further undertake to produce the man within twenty-four hours on demand by any constable. I am informed by the police that Glockler is not known to have committed any offence during the period of his exemption.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman or the police got evidence that during that period he was communicating with America with uncensored letters folded in a newspaper?
      Sir G. CAVE: No, I do not know that that came to the notice of the police.
      Sir H. DALZIEL:If he did not commit any offence, what induced you to require him to find sureties?
      Sir G. CAVE: I do not think it right that I should give my reasons.
      Mr. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether how many enemy subjects have been interned during his term of office and will he publish a list of such persons?
      Sir G. CAVE: The number up to 22nd March was fifty-one. The names are of no general interest, and I hardly think it necessary to publish them; but if my hon. and learned Friend cares to see them, I shall be happy to show them to him.
      Mr. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether he will give the public access to the list of registered enemy aliens kept at the Home Office?
      Sir G. CAVE: The registers of enemy aliens are kept by the police under the Aliens Restriction Order. The rule with regard to them is that the information which they contain is prima facie to be regarded as confidential, and is to be disclosed to inquirers only on adequate reason being shown.
      Mr. BUTCHER: Is there any reason why the public should not know the names of these registered enemy aliens?
      Sir G. CAVE: It is thought very desirable to get all the names registered and all possible information, and it was decided some months ago to treat the information as prima facie confidential.
      Mr. BUTCHER: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why this information is treated as confidential?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have just given the reasons.

      POLITICAL REFUGEES.
      Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether many alien friends now in this country claim to have come to these shores as political refugees, and claim exemption from repatriation on that ground; whether bond fide political refugees are recognised as being free from being returned to the countries from which they have fled; and whether the Advisory Committee on the Internment of Aliens or any other body will be entrusted with advising in such cases?
      Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the remainder of the question, I must refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Leader of the House on the 27th February.
      Commander WEDGWOOD: Are there any political refugees in this country who are not at liberty to return to Russia if they wish to do so, and can do so with public safety?
      Sir G. CAVE: I think not.

      IRISH PRISONERS.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary when Countess Marckiewicz will be allowed the facilities promised to the Irish prisoners; whether she will be allowed increased visiting; and if her friends will be allowed to supplement the prison dietary scale by sending in parcels of foodstuffs?
      Sir G. CAVE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to him on 21st February and the 7th instant.
      Mr. LYNCH: As this is the one lady prisoner, might not the rules be even strained a little so as to show her consideration?
      Sir G. CAVE: There has been some relaxation of the rule, but I cannot go any further.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary what the intention of the Government is regarding the places in which and the conditions under which the men deported from Ireland without charge or trial are to be compelled to reside and the arrangements for their maintenance and the maintenance of their dependent families in Ireland deprived of their bread winners?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to take this question. I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 21st instant.
      Mr. GINNELL: This is the second time the Under-Secretary of State for War has undertaken a question addressed to the Home Secretary. Will the Home Secretary be good enough to answer the question addressed to him? The first answer of the Under-Secretary of State for War was to the effect that it did not belong to his Department.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have got the answer here.
      Sir G. CAVE: This matter is under the charge of the War Office, and I asked my hon. Friend to reply to the question.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will not the Home Secretary reply to the latter part of the question, which the Under-Secretary of State for War expressly says does not belong to his Department?
      Sir G. CAVE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that part again?
      Mr. GINNELL: I beg to postpone this question until to-morrow for the Home Secretary.

      INDIAN AFFAIRS.
      Sir C. HENRYasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the appointment of a Parliamentary Commission for the purpose, after examination and investigation, of reporting to Parliament their views as regards the policy that may be recommended by the Government of the day in connection with Indian affairs?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As at present advised I do not propose to take this particular course, but the whole subject is being carefully considered by His Majesty's Government. Until that consideration is completed, I cannot make any further statement.
      Sir C. HENRY: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question of setting up Parliamentary Commissions on the Motion for the Adjournment over Easter.

      BLOCKADE POLICY.
      Admiral of the Fleet Sir HEDWORTH MEUXasked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet have, considered the present blockade policy of this country and arrived at a decision with respect to it?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir; the whole question of the blockade has been fully considered by the Cabinet with their naval advisers, and they are satisfied that the present blockade policy is right in principle and is being efficiently administered. The accounts which reach us from Germany through many channels confirm this view.

      FISHING INDUSTRY.
      Mr. SUTHERLANDasked the Prime Minister whether fishermen and those
      22
      closely associated with the fishing industry are to be regarded as engaged in an essential occupation?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The importance of the fishing industry has always been recognised, and it appears in the list of certified occupations, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a statement in regard to the case of the two conscientious objectors who were recently arrested and sent into the Army, named. Pett and Jones, and especially with regard to the charges against the agent and foreman of the settlement?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): The two men named have been arrested and returned to prison to complete the sentences passed on them by courts-martial and, at the end of their sentences, they will be recalled to military service. Their arrest was recommended, after full consideration, by the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors, because they failed to comply with one of the conditions on which they were released, namely, that they should work with diligence and fidelity in the employment found for them by the Committee. The only charges against the agent of which I am aware relate to his efforts to secure a reasonable standard of conduct and industry among the men working under him, and he has the entire confidence of the Committee.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Have any inquiries been made into any offence on the part of the foreman as apart from the agent, seeing that in this case charges were made against the foreman and not against the agent?
      Mr. BRACE: Upon the advice given me and from the reports I have obtained I should say that exactly the same charges were made against the foreman as against the agent.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Are the reports which the hon. Gentleman has just read the

      23
      reports furnished by the agent and the foreman—that is, by the person against whom charges are made?
      Mr. BRACE: When any complaint is made and before any action is taken a report is asked for from the agent or foreman or anybody else involved. If the Committee is not to have confidence in its officials, in whom can they have confidence?
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Did the Committee consider the charges made by these men before sending them in?
      Mr. BRACE: I am satisfied myself that there was ground for the recalling of these men, and I have no apology to offer on behalf of the Committee for recalling them.
      Mr. SNOWEN: Am I to assume, therefore, that these men have never been asked for their side of the question?
      Mr. BRACE: These men have sent their side of the question. We have heard all that they have to say. If the hon. Member will only raise the matter in Debate, I shall be glad to tell him that these conscientious objectors are not the angels he thinks they are, and that it is only with the utmost difficulty that a large number of them will do anything like reasonable work.
      Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Emanuel Ribeiro is still confined to Lord Derby's War Hospital near Warrington for conscience' sake; whether he is still being forcibly fed; whether he is in solitary confinement in a very cold bed room and has to stay in bed all day to keep warm; is he denied the visits of friends and not allowed to leave his room even to go to the lavatory; whether he is aware that he has a wife and five young children at home and whether, under the Military Service Act, he is entitled to complete exemption?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have now received a report on this case. Ribeiro is still in the Lord Derby War Hospital, and is being forcibly fed and occasionally forcibly washed. The room in which he is confined is not cold, but is heated by hot-water pipes. He stays in bed because he will not get up. He is allowed visits from his wife. He has no exemption from combatant service on conscientious grounds.

      EXEMPTIONS.
      Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will inquire into the case of a gardener of delicate health who, after being exempted many times, was finally ordered to report for service, and was ordered to Bristol to work as a bricklayer's labourer; and whether, in view of the repeated speeches of the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture and the Secretary for War, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have not any details as regards this man, but I will make inquiries.

      KINMEL PARK CAMP (ARREST OF SYDNEY GOODMAN).
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will order the immediate release of Sydney Goodman, at present detained at the guard room. No. 7 Camp, Kinmel Park who, while working on a farm at Bridgend, Glamorgan, and holding a certificate of exemption so long as he remained at that work, was illegally arrested on:50th December, and, after irregular proceedings at the Police Court, was handed over to the military authority, and having subsequently refused to obey military orders, has Leen courtmartialled and sentenced to two years' hard labour; and will he say what action he proposes to take with respect to the conduct of the military representative in committing this illegal act of arrest?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries have been made into the facts of this case, and as it appears that Goodman was in possession of a certificate of exemption at the time of his arrest, it has been decided to return him to Army Reserve "B." As Goodman was handed over by the magistrates he is properly in military custody. It is not, therefore, proposed to take any further action in this case other than to release Goodman from military service and relegate him to Army Reserve "B."
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Am I to understand that the Under-Secretary admits that this man was illegally arrested by the War Office or the recruiting officer, and if so is it proposed to take any action against the officer for illegally arresting this man?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: As far as the War Office is concerned, he was properly handed over to us by a Civil Court.

      UNIVERSITY AND PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS.
      Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware of the hardship entailed on youths of eighteen who are about to sit for university and professional examinations being called to the Colours; and whether he will arrange for such calling up to be deferred in those cases where proper proof is furnished until after the examinations have been held?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I realise that there may be hardship in individual cases of youths of eighteen who are called to the Colours, but these youths are urgently required for military service, and, as my hon. Friend will realise, there are few oases now of men joining the Army in which some hardship is not involved. To make individual exceptions for boys taking examinations would possibly mean injustice to other possible candidates whose cases were not submitted. The matter would seem to be one for adjustment by the authorities responsible for the examinations, rather than for the Army Council. Though, of course, application can be made to tribunals to grant exemptions on those grounds, the military authorities would not, for the reasons above stated, be prepared to refrain from opposition to such application.

      SUBMARINES (PETROL).
      Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, on submarines returning to port, the petrol remaining in the tanks and unfit for further use in the submarines, is made full use of for purposes of land service?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Cases have not come under notice in which petrol is returned by submarines as unfit for further use afloat.
      Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether in most cases this petrol is not pumped out into the water, and whether it could not be easily discharged into barges or other floating receptacles and further use made of it?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I will certainly do that.
      Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman also inquire as to the "M.L." boats, and see that they empty their petrol into tanks when they come in?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I will look into that.

      ROYAL NAVY (ACCOUNTANT BRANCH).
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any of the recommendations made by the Thursby Committee with regard to the accountant branch in the Navy have been carried into effect; and, if no action has been taken, will he explain the reason for the delay?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Several of the recommendations made by the Thursby Committee have been carried into effect, and the remainder will be considered on the termination of hostilities.

      NAVAL WRITERS (PROMOTION).
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the advisability of promoting naval writers to the position of assistant paymasters during the War and permit them to retire when peace is concluded, if such a course be considered necessary; and whether this reform could be introduced under conditions similar to those adopted in the case of men promoted from the ranks of the Royal Marines?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: As to the question of promotion, this has for some time past engaged, and is now engaging, the attention of the Admiralty. At this moment I cannot carry the matter further. Permission to retire on the termination of hostilities is, however, not contemplated, nor could such a course be proposed, though the Regulations framed provide for optional retirement at the discretion of the Admiralty at the age of forty, and all those likely to be promoted to assistant paymaster will have reached that age. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that they will wish to retire.

      ENGINEER-LIEUTENANTS (ROYAL NAVY).
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a few weeks ago eight chief artificer-engineers

      27
      Royal Navy, attained the rank of engineer-lieutenants, with seniority ranging from 1912 to 1916, and four artificer-engineers, not chiefs, were promoted to engineer-lieutenants, their seniority ranging from 1909 to 1915; and, if so, will he take an early opportunity of explaining how it, happened that a statement was made recently on behalf of the Admiralty to the effect that it usually takes ten years for artificer-engineers, Royal Navy, to become engineer-lieutenants?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not state that it usually takes ten years for artificer-engineers, R.N., to become engineer-lieutenants. I did state, in reply to my hon. Friend on the 14th instant, that it usually takes ten years for a chief artificer-engineer, R.N., to become an engineer-lieutenant, R.N., and that statement is correct. I may add that recently, however, in order to meet the requirements of the Fleet, a strictly limited number of engineer warrant officers. R.N., with superior qualifications, recommended from the Fleet, were advanced to the rank of engineer-lieutenant specially. Eighteen of such promotions were made, eleven chief artificer-engineers, and seven artificer-engineers being selected, the seniority of the former ranging from 1st October, 1912, to 1st October, 1916, and of the latter from 1st April, 1908, to 15th November, 1911.

      BRITISH, ALLIED, AND NEUTRAL SHIPS LOST.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ships reported lost, including British, Allied, and neutral, between 19th February and 25th February, inclusive?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The total of British losses was given in the weekly return, published by the Admiralty on the 1st March. The Allied and Neutral losses were not included for the reasons stated by my right hon. Friend when he introduced the Navy Estimates on the 21st of last month.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say what the number of British losses amounts to in that week?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: They have been published, and my hon. Friend has access to the figures.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: I have not.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I will certainly give them with pleasure. I have not them with me. If I had known the hon. Gentleman was going to ask for them I would have brought them.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: I do ask for them.

      BLAST-FURNACEMENS WAGES.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that about ten weeks ago the general secretary of the National Union of General Workers sent a petition to the blast-furnacemen's managers in the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire area for a 20 per cent. advance; if he is aware that, on Tuesday, 6th March, a local conference was held at Nottingham under the conciliation board rules governing the men's wages and failed to come to an agreement: if he is aware that it was mutually agreed to send the case to arbitration; if he is aware that on Wednesday, 7th March, a letter was sent both to the Minister of Munitions and the Board of Trade asking them to appoint an arbiter; if he is aware that up till the present time no arbiter has been appointed; if he is aware that these delays in settling wage and industrial questions is causing dissatisfaction in the minds of the wage-earners throughout the country; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
      The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Hodge): I regret there has been a few days' delay in dealing with this matter, but it is now in hand. and an arbitrator has been appointed.

      PARLIAMENT (PROLONGATION).
      Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister whether and, if so, when he proposes to introduce a Bill for prolonging the life of the present Parliament?
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister if he can give the intentions of the Government with respect to the life of the present Parliament?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government intend to introduce a Bill to-morrow to prolong the life of the present Parliament for a further term.

      EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether and when he will give a day for the consideration of the Motion regarding the exchange of civilian prisoners standing in the name of the Member for South Nottingham?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it would be advisable to give a day for this purpose, but the subject can be discussed on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill to-morrow.

      ARRESTS AND DEPORTATIONS (IRELAND).
      Mr. GINNELLasked (1) the Chief Secretary for Ireland, having regard to the number and character of Mr. J. J. O'Kelly's engagements, and the esteem in which he is held by the leading men in the ecclesiastical, literary, professional, business, and political life of Ireland, whether he believes the unnamed informer at whose instance that gentleman has been deported without charge or trial for unspecified offences for which one so occupied could have neither time nor inclination; if so, will he specify one act or circumstance in Mr. O'Kelly's whole life giving colour to the informer's allegations, whatever they are; and will he institute the most searching form of trial he pleases to test the issue between informer and victim in this case; (2) whether the arrest and deportation of Mr. J. J. O'Kelly, without charge or trial, was because he is secretary of the Society for the Preservation of the Irish Language, a purely literary body, which has been publishing an annual volume of Irish literature and has undertaken a scheme for writing the whole history of Ireland in modern Irish based on the baronial divisions; whether the material for the annual report of this society, taken from Mr. O'Kelly's house by the military last May, will now be returned to him and (3) whether the arrest and deportation of Mr. J. J. O'Kelly, without charge or trial, was because he is vice-president of the Gaelic League, and a member of and constant attendant on its four most active sub-committees, namely, the Oireachtas committee, which holds an annual festival extending over a week, and is devoted to the revival of the language, literature, social customs,
      30
      songs, stories, music, art, pastimes, and industries of Ireland; the finance committee, the publications committee, and the committee charged with education and organisation; and whether all these activities are now held to be illegal?
      Mr. DUKE: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to his question on the 14th March.
      Mr. GINNELL: Which of these activities, if any, are illegal, and for which of them is this gentleman deported without charge or trial?
      Mr. DUKE: I did not express the opinion that any activity is illegal, and I have not suggested that the gentleman named has been deported in respect of any of the matters which are mentioned—quite the contrary.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the part of the question asking how it is possible for a man engaged in all these activities to be at the same time a breaker of the law?
      Mr. SPEAKERcalled on Mr. Devlin.
      Mr. GINNELL: On a point of Order, Sir. There are three questions of mine.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I understood that 69 and 70 were postponed.
      Mr. GIN NELL: There is No. 71.
      Mr. SPEAKER: Severity-one is the ninth question on the Paper.
      Mr. GINNELL: I have asked only seven.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The other two are postponed.

    NATIONAL SERVICE.

      APPLICATION of ACT TO IRELAND,
      Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary whether he can now give the names of the officials appointed to carry out the National Service Act in Ireland and explain the methods which it is proposed to adopt?
      Mr. DUKE: The Director of National Service for Ireland is Mr. Patrick J. O'Neill, Chairman of the Dublin County Council, and Mr. S. W. Strange, formerly in the office of the Board of Works, has been appointed secretary. It is hoped to carry out the work with the assistance of local committees and a small staff of

      31
      organisers of labour, and Mr. O'Neill hopes also to have the assistance of a central advisory committee.

      VOLUNTEERS.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE(by Private Notice) asked the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), as representing the Department of National Service, whether the Director has said that he is calling for 500,000 volunteers, and whether this figure may be accepted by hon. Members and others who are taking part in the National Service campaign as an accurate statement of the demand for labour which the Department has been created to meet?
      Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The 500,000 in question was a round figure which the Director gave as being sufficient to meet needs which he knew to exist at that moment. It was not intended to represent the limits of our needs, and if the prospective demands for labour which have been reported materialise, there is no doubt that the figure will have to be very considerably extended.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the mention of any figure must necessarily be misleading, as more than half the men who are asked to volunteer are actually engaged in the National Service: and will he ask the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle to refrain from mentioning any figure whatsoever in future?
      Mr. BECK: I will represent that to my right hon. Friend.

      RACE MEETINGS (MOTOR CARS).
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the number of motor cars which were used in conveying passengers to the National race meeting, held at Gatwick on the 21st instant, which included a number of high-powered private ears, many of which were quite new, and to the consumption of petrol on that occasion, estimated at some 2,500 gallons; and whether he will take immediate steps to prohibit the use of motor cars for race meetings at the present time, when the needs of the country call for the most rigid economy in rubber, petrol, etc.?
      Mr. ROBERTS: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I have seen a statement in the Press to the effect of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is not proposed to prohibit the use of motor cars at the very limited number of race meetings which are now permitted under circumstances which I explained on Monday last to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, South. I may, however, say that no new licences are now being issued by the Petrol Control Committee for the supply of petrol to private cars which are not used for purposes of national importance.
      Mr. MILLAR: Is it to be understood that petrol can be used in unlimited quantities for the purpose of race meetings by those who at present possess sufficient supplies?
      Mr. ROBERTS: Petrol is under very sharp restrictions.
      Sir C. HENRY: Why not abolish race meetings?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet should give notice of that question.
      Commander WEDGWOOD: is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the same time that petrol is being used in this way the London General Omnibus Company has had to take buses off the streets of London?
      Mr. BILLING: Is attending race meetings work of national importance? May I press for an answer?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question. It is a debatable matter, on which everyone can form his own opinion.

      CASUALTY DEPARTMENT, WAR OFFICE (HOURS AND WAGES).
      Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware that more than one hundred members of the Board of Education Office and British Museum are employed on overtime work in the Casualty Department of the War Office, Alexandra House, Kingsway, at the wage of 1s. 6d. per hour for twenty-four hours per week, and that the same work is performed by lady clerks and male clerks in the same department at half the scale paid to the Civil Service helpers; if the-majority of Civil servants who start to work

      33
      overtime at four o'clock each day in this Department are young, fit, and active men of military age, classified as fit for many of the categories now being called up to rejoin the Colours; why those men' are allowed to remain in civil employment, having regard to the fact that their work can easily be performed by ex-Service men, male clerks unfit for Army service, and lady clerks; if he is aware that temporary clerks, supervisors, and others over forty-one years of age who have worked with satisfaction since the establishment of the Casualty Department in Alexandra House and not classified for general service are being called up by the military authorities for military service; and whether any action will be taken to prevent such treatment of temporary civilian clerks over military age as against the privileges granted to Civil servants?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Over 100 Civil servants from other offices are employed at Alexandra House on overtime. Only slightly over a third of those employed are drawing as much as 1s. 6d. per hour, and in such cases are entitled to it under the regulations governing the employment of the class of the Civil Service to which they belong. Some of the Civil servants on overtime are doing the same work as temporary clerks and lady clerks, but others are doing superior work. The majority of the Civil servants employed in this manner are over military age, medically rejected or discharged; none of the remainder are exempted from military service on the ground of their work at Alexandra House, but for the work done at their own offices. I believe some temporary clerks over forty-one are being called up under the Military Service Acts, and as they can be replaced by temporary clerks or by women, I do not propose to ask for their retention. I may point out that a temporary clerk holding a supervisory post cannot be replaced by a permanent civilian who is only working overtime. The Department is dealing with the Civil servants of this branch in precisely the same manner as the temporary clerks in the matter of military service.

    AIR SERVICE.

      DEFENCE AGAINST ZEPPELINS.
      Captain BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Under-Secretary for War (1) whether, on the night of or the morning
      34
      following the recent air raid in Kent and elsewhere on Friday, 16th March, any Zeppelin approached within a radius of 10 miles of a certain aerodrome the name of which has been privately communicated to him; whether the aerodrome referred to is included in the number of Home defence stations which have been officially mentioned as being provided with means, aerial and other, of attacking Zeppelins by night; if so, whether he can explain to the House how it was that during the recent raid above mentioned no aeroplanes were ordered up from this particular aerodrome, although it was brilliantly illuminated during the raid so as to be conspicuous from above for a distance of many miles; if he can give any information as to how many fully trained pilots there were on duty available at this aerodrome station on the night in question; if he will say whether these pilots, as well as those on duty at the Home defence stations in the neighbourhood of London and elsewhere, had all been trained to make use of the methods of attacking Zeppelins which have proved to be successful; if not, if he can give an assurance that observers who had been so trained were available at these different stations on the night in question; whether there was a sufficiency of suitable aeroplanes and pilots in actual readiness to take up such trained observers at the stations concerned; and (2) whether the Home defence squadrons in the neighbourhood of London and elsewhere, including East Kent, are now after two and a half years of menace up to their official strength both in pilots and equipment; whether these squadrons are fully equipped with thoroughly efficient and adequately armed aeroplanes; and whether the pilots in such squadrons given the responsibility of flying at night have been fully trained in the successful methods now adopted for the destruction of Zeppelins?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The distribution of aircraft between the various theatres of war and for Home defence is the subject of constant review, and is determined in accordance with the military situation. It is not considered to be in the public interest to give any information as to this distribution. Only pilots trained to night-flying are employed on that duty, and all available nighty flying pilots are always ready for duty, and are sent up as the situation demands.
      Mr. BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the complete scheme suggested by his predecessor is in working order?
      Mr. MACPHERSONindicated assent.

      JUDICIAL PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY (RECOMMENDATIONS).
      Captain BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether the recommendations of the Judicial Parliamentary Air Inquiry, presided over by Mr. Justice Bailhache, have been carried into effect; whether any of the aeroplanes in which our airmen are sent up to fly at night are still of the same type, if not actually the same machines, as those which have been condemned in France as unsuitable for the purpose owing to their liability to engine troubles; if he can say whether any of the aeroplanes now used for night flying in Great Britain are of the type known amongst airmen as dud machines or machines with Royal Aircraft Factory engines with twelve cylinders such as have been condemned in France; and whether any of these machines and engines are still in use in France?
      Colonel CRAIG (Treasurer of the Household): My hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Air Board {Major Baird) has asked me to reply to this question in his absence. The answer to the first part of the question is that the two major recommendations of the three contained in the main Report have been substantially adopted. The answer to the second part is in the negative; to the third and fourth parts that it is not understood to which type of aeroplane the hon. Member refers, but as regards the engine which he mentions that he is incorrect in stating that it has been condemned in France. This type of engine is now in use in France and elsewhere, and the reports upon it are satisfactory.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the engines now being used in France are considered to be satisfactory? If so, can he account for the fact that I have received a letter sent by a young officer who was killed—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must wait until the Parliamentary Representative of the Air Board is here.

      BOULOGNE-SUR-MER DEFENCES.
      Captain BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether the French Government or the British authorities in France are responsible for the air defence of Boulogne-sur-Mer and other places in the neighbourhood?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Arrangements have been made for the air defence of Boulogne-sur-Mer and other places in the neighbourhood. It is not in the public interest to give information as to the zones of responsibility of the French and British forces.

      BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (DUTY ON SUPPLIES).
      Mr. DALRYMPLEasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether British prisoners of war in Switzerland are charged duty on foodstuffs or clothes which may be sent to them from this country; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to have this hardship removed?
      Mr. HOPE: I am informed that supplies sent to British prisoners of war interned in Switzerland appear to be subject to the same imposts as other imports into that country. Having regard to the courtesy of the Swiss Government and people in receiving prisoners of war for internment, I do not think we can ask for a remission of the duties in question.

      QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
      Mr. GINNELL: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland Question No. 71? You have miscounted, Sir, on a previous occasion. If you count from the beginning you will find that that is so.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the hon. Member has had more than his share. No. 69 is the eighth question. Nos. 70 and 71 are superfluous.
      Mr. GINNELL: I have not put 69. I have postponed it. I have only asked six questions. I beg to ask Question No. 71.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I have told the hon. Member that he has got more than his fair share on the Paper. Therefore I cannot put his last question.
      Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to ask whether the clerks at the table cannot be instructed not to take any more questions from any one Member as soon as they have got eight questions from that Member?
      Mr. SPEAKER: It is not always easy owing to the manner in which questions are sent in, and the fact that questions are sometimes put off from one day to another. It really rests with me. It is part of my business to go through the questions every day, and I am responsible if I call a Member improperly.
      Mr. GINNELL: I understand that I am entitled to ask eight questions and I have asked only seven.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I have already pointed out that there are ten questions on the Paper. I called by mistake the ninth question. I am not going to call the tenth.
      Mr. GINNELL: I have asked only six questions.

    STRIKE OF ENGINEERS.

      PRODUCTION OF MUNITIONS
      Mr. W. THORNE(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information regarding the serious strike of engineers at Barrow-in-Furness?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The strike appears to have taken place on Wednesday last, but it has been difficult to ascertain the cause. We gather, from reports of mass meetings which the men had on Thursday and Sunday last, that the cause of the trouble is alleged cutting of time allowances for work done under the premium bonus system. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on Friday last held a conference of the representatives of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and other allied trades. As a result of that conference, the representatives of these trades sent the following wire to the men on strike in the district:
      "The executive representatives of the allied engineering unions disapprove of the stoppage of work at Barrow, and instruct members to resume work immediately; the matters in dispute to be referred to the Minister of Labour, who agrees to have the question of alleged cutting of premium bonus time allowance considered and settled within seven days after resumption of work. The award to be made retrospective."
      This telegram was approved by my right hon. Friend, and he desires me to
      38
      say that the offer contained in this telegram is still open to the men. I need hardly say that this interruption of the production of munitions of war is looked upon by the Government with the utmost gravity. Stoppage of work at this time, when other methods of settlement of disputes are open to the men and the employers cannot be too strongly deprecated. We desire to support the request of the men's leaders, as expressed in the above telegram, and urgently appeal to them in the nation's interests to resume work at once, when their complaint will at once be dealt with and a settlement, we hope, arrived at, within the terms of the promise contained in the above telegram.
      Mr. THORNE: Will the notice of the Minister of Labour be called to the necessity of summoning to the anticipated conference, if held, not only delegates from
      the craft unions, but also from the labour unions that will be affected?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I will put that to my right hon. Friend, but I gathered in conversation with him that he is hopeful that the course suggested will be followed.
      Mr. O'GRADY: If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Arbitration Board that any person has been guilty, as alleged, of cutting prices, will that person be punished?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That will be most carefully looked into, and I may say, on behalf of the Government, which considered this question this morning, that any cutting of rates would destroy the whole value of the system which has been adopted.

      ROYAL NAVAL DOCKYARDS (WAGES).
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the, recent awards of additional war increases in wages as the result of arbitration by the Committee on Production on the applications of the Federated Shipbuilding Employers and the Federated Engineering Employers, and of the Allied Trades Unions in the private shipbuilding and engineering industries: and what consideration he proposes in consequence to give to the workmen in the Royal yards?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. We have bad the awards in question under consideration, and have decided that for all workmen engaged in the Royal dockyards at home a further war bonus of 5s. a week will be granted as from Sunday next, 1st April. For male apprentices, youths, and boys, the amount of the new war increase will be 2s. 6d. a week. Time rates will therefore be so augmented. Piece prices will not be altered in consequence of this new war bonus, but piece workers will receive the bonus as an addition to their time rates.

      HOME DEFENCE (MOBILISATION).
      Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware of the rumours which were current in various parts of London of an invasion having taken place in Scotland, and also at Lowestoft, and whether any information of that kind has been obtained?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have heard a great many rumours of that kind, but I have not been able to find out that there is any foundation for any of them. As far as I have been able to gather, if it is possible to state any source of those rumours, they are due to the fact that our Home Defence Forces were told to be ready for any emergency, which often happens, but the emergency in this case created unusual commotion.

      Infantile Death Rate.
      Mr. O'GRADYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the simultaneous decline of the infantile death rate to the lowest on record, namely, ninety-one per 1,000 registered births, and of the number of children vaccinated to the lowest number since vaccination was made compulsory by Act of Parliament, will be inquired into so as to ascertain how far the two data explain one another; and, if not, whether he has any other explanation of the cause of the decreasing infantile death rate?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: There is no foundation for the suggestion that the decline in the infant death rate is due to the decline in the number of children who are vaccinated; the lower death rate is not confined to districts in which vaccination is
      40
      neglected, and at least one-half of the infants die before the age at which vaccination is usually performed. The decline in the infant death rate is no doubt due to a number of causes, one of the most important of which is the valuable work which is now undertaken by local authorities and voluntary agencies for attending to the health of mothers and infants.

      Arrest of Young Women (Bow Street Prosecutions).
      Mr. D. MILLARasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the case of two respectable young women who were arrested by a police constable and charged at Bow Street Police Court on 21st March with having been guilty of insulting behaviour by stopping and speaking to two men in the street; whether the police magistrate, Mr. Graham Campbell, expressed himself as satisfied that the police had made a mistake in arresting the girls and discharged them, stating that they left the Court without a stain on their character; whether it was proved that the girls had been accosted by the two men in question; and whether he will issue instructions to the police that they should in future exercise more care in such cases and make a point of arresting the men who accost women in the streets instead of arresting the women spoken to?
      Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, the women said that two officers asked them the way but they did not suggest that they had been improperly accosted. The magistrate who heard the case informs me that while mistakes are possible, especially in the very subdued light of the streets at night, such charges are rarely ill-founded, and that the police discharge their difficult duties in these matters with great care and discretion. Men who are seen by the police to molest women are arrested, and the magistrate tells me that such eases come before him frequently.
      Mr. WATT: Does not this case show the police evidence is very unreliable?
      Sir G. CAVE: It shows nothing of the kind; it shows that the magistrates are very careful.
      Mr. W. THORNE: What is done with men who solicit women?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have answered that question. I have said that men who are seen to molest women are arrested.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are not the police instructed always to presume that the women are guilty?
      Sir G, CAVE: No such instruction is needed. No policeman would make that assumption.

      Education (Ireland).
      Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to take any steps to improve the condition of education in Ireland; and if, when large grants are promised to make English education more efficient, he will consider the necessity of taking some steps to improve Irish education, both primary and secondary?
      Mr. DUKE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The proposals with regard to English education will afford an opportunity for reconsideration of some questions relating to the Irish system, and I hope to be able to discuss this matter with the Minister of Education and my other colleagues as well as with Irish educational authorities in connection with the proposals my right hon. Friend is now formulating.
      Mr. O'DONNELL: Who are the Irish education authorities to be consulted?
      Mr. DUKE: I thought the hon. Member probably knew more than I knew myself. There is a series of educational authorities in Ireland, some of them independent and some of them semi-independent. No consultation would be complete which did not ascertain the views of all.
      Mr. O'DONNELL: Is there any Irish education authority that represents or is elected by the people in Ireland?
      Mr. DUKE: No, I am sorry to say there is not.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    Mr. DILLON: Will the Leader of the House state the business he proposes to take to-night in the event of the Resolution on the Paper being passed? And will the right hon. Gentleman also state what business he proposes to take before Easter, and on what day he proposes to take the Easter Adjournment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I had intended to make a statement on the Resolution which is on the Paper, but, if it is desired that I should make it now, I am ready to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, until Easter, Government business be not interrupted under the Provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In submitting this Motion, I may say that the Government have every hope that it will not be necessary to ask the House to sit often, or perhaps at all, after eleven o'clock. To-night we only propose to take the first two Orders on the Paper. I know that it must be a very great inconvenience to the House for the Government not to be able to state exactly the business they mean to put through before Easter, and also the length of the Adjournment. The House will understand that at a time like this it is very difficult to make with precision arrangements in advance. For instance, I intimated last week that we hoped to take to-morrow the Agricultural Bill. That Bill, as the House knows, is an extremely complicated one: it has already been before the Cabinet, but it is so complicated that we have not yet had time to pass it, and it may be that we shall not be able to introduce it for a day or two.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: What is it about?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It has everything to do with the production of food. As to the programme of business, I hope to be able to tell the House definitely to-morrow, or on Wednesday, what we propose to take in the way of business, and also the date and length of the Adjournment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend, in moving the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule until Easter, has given no reason for doing so. The only reason he gave was that he hoped that it would not be necessary to put the Motion in force, and that to-day only the two first Orders on the Paper are to be taken. I would like to point out to my right hon. Friend that the course he proposes to adopt is an extremely unusual one. So far as I can make out, there has been no such Motion made since 1894, and in 1894 there was a very similar Motion made in the middle of March. In that year, and at that period of it, there was a considerable amount of controversial business going on, and, therefore, I do not think it can be considered a precedent. The only other precedent I have been able to find out was in March, 1889, when the Twelve o'clock Rule, as it was then, was suspended for financial business. May I point out to my right hon. Friend that he has got all his financial business, or, rather, he will have done so to-morrow, when he will take the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. When he has got that he has obtained all his financial business. It is not necessary to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to consider the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which is exempted from it, and therefore the precedent of 1889 was for financial reasons, and in regard to those reasons there is no necessity at the present time. The precedent in 1894 had reference to the very exceptional Budget of that year.
    4.0 P.M.
    I would point out, further, that the Government are in the very exceptional position of having got the whole time of the House. Hitherto every Government has had to give up Tuesday and Wednesday after eight o'clock, and every Government hitherto has had to introduce controversial business. We were told at the beginning of the War that controversial business which had no relation to the War would not be introduced. I had the pleasure of walking behind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he was leading the Opposition on this side of the House, to the Lobby, he was so angry with the then Government for introducing a controversial measure, and putting the Home Rule Bill on the Statute Book. Under those circumstances, as my right hon. Friend still holds that it would be wrong to introduce controversial business under

    57
    those circumstances, I fail to see what is the reason for introducing a Motion of this sort. I have already shown that the Government are in an exceptional position because they have not to give up Tuesday and Wednesday afternoon; they have not to take controversial business; their financial business is practically all cleared off; the Army (Annual) Bill is not subject to the Eleven o'clock Rule; therefore I can see no object for this Motion, unless there is something behind which we do not know, and that the Government are intending to introduce some controversial legislation, or to force something through the House of Commons which ought not to be done. On Friday a Motion was taken to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, which was a very unusual thing to do as Friday is a very inconvenient day. I find that not only did they move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, but the Vote was actually taken. I never remember a Vote being taken on the same day as Mr. Speaker is got out of the Chair, and especially on a Friday, without any notice being given. I see that on Thursday a Bill was taken through all its stages. I do not object to the Bill—I dare say it was very harmless—but surely it is not right, when, as far as I know, the Government is only there to carry on the War, that all these measures should be pushed through in a way whereby the House of Commons is unable to have that control over the proceedings which it ought to have. I really think if we are to maintain the privileges of the House we ought to insist that the Government does not do these things until they can show a good reason. I hope that the Government will reconsider their determination, or, if not, that the House will take some steps on the Motion.
    Mr. DILLON: The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) has stated quite truly that this proceeding is almost without precedent. In years when previous Governments were faced with fierce opposition and had to struggle to carry through this House most contentious business they never resorted to the practice of suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule, or Twelve o'clock Rule as it used to be, before the Easter Recess. That was a measure always resorted to at the end of the summer, and not taken usually until the
    58
    beginning of the early days of August. In all my experience of the House of Commons I have never heard of a Minister proposing a Resolution of this kind without going into a somewhat elaborate justification for the proposal and giving full reasons. It is always a contentious Motion, and, so far as my memory carries me for thirty years or more, the Minister in proposing the Motion in the early days of August made an elaborate justification and explanation of why he wanted the Motion, and explained fully the business he was going to sacrifice. Whenever this Motion was proposed it was accompanied by what was known as the "massacre of the innocents," and the Minister gave a list of the Bills he was going to throw over and the business he was going to ask the House to put through before the end the Session. We are here in a Session when there has been practically no contentious business, and no strenuous opposition of any protracted character. We have here a totally new departure, and the Minister comes to the box and proposes this Resolution without giving one solitary reason, or attempting to give a solitary reason why he asks for it. Not only that, but he deliberately refuses to do what all his predecessors have invariably done, that is to state categorically and clearly the amount of business which he asks the House to get through under this power which he demands. Therefore, I say that this Motion is absolutely without precedent, and it is made at a time when the needs of the Government are less than in normal times.
    There was one remarkable statement by the Leader of the House when he was making this Motion, and as to which I would like to ask an explanation. He stated, or, rather, I think it was in reply to a question, that it was the intention of the Government to introduce to-morrow a Bill to prolong the life of this Parliament. Why does he propose to introduce it to morrow? Why is it to be introduced, it may be a contentious Bill, before the Easter Recess? I fully expected that in his speech in proposing this Resolution he would give us some explanation of the sudden decision of the Government, because certainly none of us anticipated that a Bill to prolong the life of Parliament would be introduced to-morrow. Something must have occurred to induce the Government to arrive at that sudden decision. I think the right hon. Gentle-

    59
    man owed it to the House to explain what were the grounds and the arguments and the reasons which had induced the Government to introduce the Bill before Easter, and thereby to increase the work that will have to be got through. I think it is very unfair to the House for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that to- morrow or the day after, when no Debate can arise, he will make his statement as to the business which he proposes to ask us to transact before Easter.
    I do not for a moment intend now to make any appeal to the Government or to inaugurate any Debate on the question of the Irish settlement, but I am entitled to ask the Government whether there is to be announced to the House something more definite before the Easter Recess on this subject? I certainly expected from the Leader of the House some information on that point. We stand now in a very extraordinary and peculiar position. We listened here in silence on these benches the other night to one of the more remarkable Debates that ever took place in the House of Commons, not inaugurated by us—we had said our say—but inaugurated by English Members. The Leader of the House on that occasion announced, an announcement which I may say was of portentous significance, that the Government had decided on their own responsibility to attempt a settlement of the Irish question. I do not know whether the Leader of the House and other responsible Members in the House know or appreciate the terrible significance of that statement. The moment that statement was made I say every hour that is lost is adding to the difficulty of settlement. It is not for us, it is not our business, to press the Government on this matter, but I feel bound, from a deep sense of responsibility as to what the situation in Ireland is, to warn the Government that if they allow the Easter Recess to pass over without any indication of whether they are in earnest or not in that announcement that difficulties will arise every day, and every hour that passes is beset with fresh difficulties, and that they will have in all probability done what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House pointed out in his speech and find that, by that announcement, they have made the situation worse than it was before. Once the Government committed itself to this task in its own initiative, I say that it is their bounden duty not to
    60
    allow the grass to grow under their feet, but to hurry matters as quickly as possible and place their proposals before the people of Ireland and before this House. I must say that it is most extraordinary, when now on this Motion the whole course of business before Easter ought to be surveyed, that the Government have given no sign of whether it is their intention or not, having taken up this question of an Irish settlement, to allow the Easter Recess to come and go without any further sign of what their proposals are. In connection with that matter I want to say this: Last July, in another great and critical hour, proposals were made which brought us, as most people thought, within a very short distance of a settlement of the Irish question, and it was quite possible that a settlement by agreement would have been arrived at had it not been for the delays, the intolerable delays, by which the people of Ireland were exasperated and all their hopes destroyed. I warn the Government if they are going to engage in a policy of delay, after having made that statement in this House, and allow week after week to pass without something being done, they will repeat the fatal and disastrous blunder of July with consequences which may be still more disastrous.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has appealed to the Government to make a statement with regard to their new Irish policy. As one who is anxious for the settlement of this matter, I hope the hon. Member will not persevere with that request at this moment. As he has rightly said, every hour lost now is dangerous to the situation. But I think I may take the responsibility of saying that not one hour has been lost, not one minute has been lost, since the Debate on Thursday in regard to the matter with which the House is so much concerned. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister has been devoting every minute of his time to it since the Debate on Thursday, and I believe has given his attention to it up to the early hours of this morning. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will not persevere for a statement at present. The request for a statement of the business to be passed before the Easter Adjournment is quite another matter. I am perfectly sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has no other desire in this matter than to consult the convenience of the House. I must admit I do not think his reasons

    61
    to-day for asking for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule were totally convincing, and certainly not convincing as to to-night, because he does not require it. So far as I have observed the progress of business during the last few weeks, I have seen no desire, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with this, to delay matters unnecessarily in oppositon to the Government. We have also got to remember that but for a mistake on the part of the Government, whereby a Consolidated Fund Bill was required and an extra Vote of Credit, there would have been no difficulty whatever in regard to Government business before Easter. I am sure the Leader of the House has no desire to have a Division on this matter, and as there is an obvious desire to assist the Government in all quarters I suggest to him to hold over this Motion until he, is able to produce overwhelming evidence that such a course is necessary. Personally, I do not think it is necessary. If my right hon. Friend will adopt the policy of the late Government and wait and see on this occasion, I think he will probably find it will not be necessary to make the Motion which he now proposes.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps it will shorten discussion if, by leave of the House, I saw a few words. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) told us that this Motion was put down solely for the convenience of the Government. As a matter of fact, that was not our reason. We thought it would be for the convenience of the House not to be tied to stop precisely at eleven o'clock, and the Motion was proposed, not for the Government, but for the House of Commons and for the conduct of business. It is quite true that it is unusual at this stage, and that the general course, when a Motion of this kind is necessary, is to take it for two or three days. I am not sure at all that the House does not think that, on the whole, it would be a convenience, but I have no desire whatever to have any disagreement, and least of all a Division on a question which is not of vital importance either to the Government or to the conduct of business. Therefore, I rise at once to say that I will withdraw the Motion, and if it becomes necessary later on it will be more convenient, I think, to cover the whole ground than to he doing it day after day. In postponing the Motion I recognise one of the argu-
    62
    ments of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and that is that it would be right that the House should have some opportunity of expressing its opinion on the business to be taken when a Resolution of this kind is moved. Obviously they cannot do that when we are asking them to give us a blank cheque without telling them what is the business. For that reason I am not going to press this Motion; but I should like to say, since the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dillon) has raised it, that it is precisely the Irish question which is one of the things that have made our course uncertain. We do not know whether or not it will be possible to make a statement before Easter. We shall certainly make it if we can, and I may add—and I am sure the House will agree with this—that we have a full sense of our responsibility in this matter, and that there will be no delay that we can avoid. But perhaps the House will agree with me that the disadvantage of delaying last year arose chiefly because the time was lost after the decision was taken. I am not at all certain that there is the same risk of delay before the course proposed to be adopted is laid down, and in any case I would remind the House that at the time I made that statement on behalf of the Government, I asked them not to press us unduly, but to give us a little time to look into the thing, so that when we do take action, we shall take it, at all events, with the knowledge that we are taking the course which seems to us best, after giving it the best deliberation we can. I withdraw.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  WAR PENSIONS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  WAR PENSIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Administrative Expenses of Local and District Committees.)
    (1) The administrative expenses of any local committee established under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), shall be defrayed by the council of the county, or borough, or urban district for whose area the local committee is established, and the administrative expenses of any district committee appointed under the principal Act, shall

    63

    (a) if the area for which the committee is appointed is a single administrative area, be defrayed by the council of that area; and

    (b) in any other case, be defrayed by the councils of the boroughs and urban and rural districts wholly or partly included in the district for which the committee is established in such proportions as may be determined by the Local Government Board.

    (2) The council or councils concerned shall, at such times as the Local Government Board may direct, submit to the Board an estimate of the administrative expenses proposed to be incurred by the local or district committee for such period as the Board may direct, and the Board shall consider the estimate, and shall, if and so far as they consider the estimate reasonable, approve the estimate, and thereupon there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament at such times f and in such manner as the Treasury may direct, sums equal in the aggregate to one-half of the expenses incurred not exceeding one-half of such estimate, and the sums so paid shall be paid to the council or distributed amongst the councils liable to defray the expenses in proportion, if there is more than one council, to their several liabilities.
    (3) The expenses of a council under this Act, so far as not defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, shall be defrayed out of the proceeds of such fund or rate as may be directed by the Local Government Board:
    Provided that if a separate local committee has been established for any borough or urban district in a county the expenses of the local committee for the county shall be treated as expenses for special county purposes from contribution to which the borough or urban district shall be exempt.
    (4) For the purposes of this Section the administrative expenses of a local or district committee shall include traveling expenses and compensation for loss of remunerative time in the case of members of the committee or any sub-committee thereof calculated in accordance with Regulations made by the Minister of Pensions subject to the approval of the Treasury.
    The CHAIRMAN: In regard to the first Amendment on the Paper in the name of
    64
    the hon. and learned Member for South Lanark, (Mr. Watson), to leave out Subsection (1), I understand that it provides the first part of a proposal to lay the whole charge on the Exchequer which is carried out by a number of subsequent Amendments on the Order Paper. Of course a proposal of that kind goes beyond the Money Resolution under which the Committee is bound to act.
    Mr. WATSON: One Amendment proposes a payment of two-thirds instead of one-half of the expenses incurred, and that is an alternative to the purpose of this first Amendment, which is to exclude the county councils and the local borough councils from any liability at all.
    The CHAIRMAN: I was not referring to the question, which will come later, as to what part is to be assumed by the Exchequer, but it appeared to me that this proposal to leave out Sub-section (1), which is followed by another one to leave-out Sub-section (2), was in effect, if carried, to put the whole of the burden on the National Exchequer.
    Mr. WATSON: A part of it may fall on the funds at the disposal of the Statutory Committee under the principal Act.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so. I have gone into the matter as well as I can, and it seems to me that the effect of the Amendment must be to throw the whole charge on the Exchequer.
    Mr. WATSON: Primarily these expenses of administration would fall on any funds which the parties who incur them have at their disposal, and the Statutory Committee have funds at their disposal. They may be limited in amount, but in so far as that liability is relieved by the Exchequer, that would be done by an express provision as is suggested later on. My purpose is to relieve the shoulders of the county and local borough councils, who have nothing to do with either of the bodies I have already mentioned.
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. G. N. Barnes): The Statutory Committee -have no funds for this purpose at all. They have certain funds at their disposal apart from public funds, but those funds are earmarked, and are mostly for naval purposes. I therefore suggest. Sir, that the effect would be exactly as you have ruled.
    Mr. WATSON: May I refer to Section 2, Sub-section (3), of the principal Act, the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, under which the Statutory Committee was set up? It says:
    "Any expenses of the local committee, except so far as they may be paid by the Statutory Committee, shall be paid out of funds at the disposal of the local committee."
    The CHAIRMAN: I must deal with this matter in a broad sense. The funds of the Statutory Committee are in effect Exchequer funds. It would be impossible to divest the county councils of the whole of the expenditure without violating the, Money Resolution, under which we can only authorise the assumption of part of the expenditure by the Exchequer.
    Mr. CURRIE: Might they not be voluntary funds?
    The CHAIRMAN: No, I think not. The same thing applies to the next Amendment, if I read it rightly, in the name of the hon. Member for the Lancaster Division [in Sub-section (1), after the word "local," to insert the words "or district"] which appears to be part of a series of Amendments on the Paper designed for the same purpose, namely, to put the whole charge on the Exchequer.
    Sir NORVAL HELME: In view of what you have said, Sir, I will not move my Amendment.
    Mr. L. HARDY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) after the word "committee" ["Expenses of any local committee"], to insert the words "or of any sub-committee thereof." I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill thinks the words "local committee" cover any sub-committee of the local committee, but it is very desirable that it should be clearly stated who are to bear the expenses. It is very desirable to remove any doubt as to whether the local committee covers also the expenses of any sub-committee thereof, which, of course, includes the disablement committee.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The Ministry of Pensions is quite prepared to accept these words. We thought, and I still think, that they were covered by the Clause as it stands, but in order to make it quite clear we are prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, after the word "Act"["as the principal Act"] to insert the words "to an amount not exceeding such estimate as is hereinafter mentioned."
    The object is to make it perfectly clear that a local authoriety will not be liable for anything beyond half the amount in the estimate. As the Bill originally was drafted it looked very much as if in a case of the estimate being exceeded the whole of the excess would fall on the local authority. That was never the intention of the framers of the Bill, but we wish to make it perfectly clear that in each case the half-and-half principle will prevail and that the local authority will only be liable to pay one-half of the amount of the estimate.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The CHAIRMAN: That decision, I think, covers the next Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough [after the word "shall" to insert the words "subject as hereinafter provided"].
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: My Amendment, Sir, has a very different purpose. It is largely a drafting Amendment consequent upon an Amendment further on the Paper to insert a new Sub-section (2), which introduces a rather important question of principle. I do not know whether it would be more convenient to explain the purpose of my Amendment now or at that point?
    The CHAIRMAN: I misunderstood the object of the Amendment, but the hon. Member will not be ruled out later on, either when his second one is reached or on an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Ashford Division (Mr. L. Hardy). I am proposing to call that Amendment, and I do not think the insertion of these words here will be necessary in order to allow the matter to be raised.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Do you not think it necessary, Sir, to have these words in if the other Amendment is accepted?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so Supposing this other Amendment were accepted, the Bill would have to be reviewed by the Government draftsmen for the Report stage, and it ismore convenient where possible to raise the matter on the specific Amendment rather than on a mere verbal one leading up to it.
    Mr. O'SHEE: I intend to move an Amendment, not on the Paper, providing a scale under which the Treasury should distribute the expenses of the committees, and these words "subject as hereinafter provided" will be necessary in order to enable me to move my Amendment. I want these words inserted in order to override the estimate, by making the estimate subject to a proviso hereinafter contained.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is asking me now to rule on something I have not before me, even in manuscript, but surely his point can be raised when we come to the words "one-half" later on in the Clause.
    Sir N. HELME: The Amendment in my name, to leave out the greater part of this first Sub-section and a part of Sub-section (8), and the subsequent Amendment, were put down to give the Government an opportunity of considering the question of adopting a scale that may be arranged by the Treasury when a per capita grant may be made instead of the estimate that is now before the House.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must deal with the effect of the Amendment as it stands upon the Paper. The hon. Member now refers to another one which would appear to throw the whole cost upon the Exchequer. The next Amendment to which I have to refer is that of the hon. Member for South Lanark (Mr. Watson). That also is covered. Clearly again in this case, if the hon. Member's suggestion were carried out, it would mean that the whole of the charge would be imposed upon the Exchequer; therefore, it goes beyond the Money Resolution.
    Sir N. HELME: There is the system of payment, as I have just said, on a per capita basis which might be made to the Treasury, so following the precedent which has been set in regard to other Departments which have recently been erected.
    The CHAIRMAN: That can be argued on the specific point of the payment of one-half to which we shall subsequently come.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to move to leave-out the words,

    (a) if the area for which the committee is appointed is a single administrative area, be defrayed by the council of that area; and

    68

    (b) in any other case, be defrayed by the councils of the boroughs and urban and rural districts wholly or partly included in the district for which the committee is established in such proportions as may be determined by the Local Government Board,

    and to insert instead thereof the words,
    "be defrayed as part of the expenses of the local committee for the county in whose area the district is situate."
    This Amendment was put down to meet the objections of some local representatives who, when the Bill was framed, feared that these two Sub-sections (a) and (b) might be contrued in such a way as to land the district committees into having to pay twice. That is not our intention. Therefore we propose to meet the difficulty in this way. There is another reason why we want to strike out these two Sub-sections. Many of these district committees cover a number of local bodies; some of them, or one of them at all events, cover as many as half a dozen local bodies. Some of them strike across local government boundaries. Therefore to collect for the district committees would be a very elaborate and cumbersome business. We want to avoid that, and we do so by striking out the words I have suggested and inserting the others. The idea of the Amendment is one of simplification.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HARDY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (I), to insert,
    "(2) Every local and district committee shall annually in the month of March submit to the council of the county, borough, or urban district liable to pay the administrative expenses of the committee an estimate of such expenses proposed to be incurred by the committee during the ensuing twelve months, and may, from time to time, submit supplementary or revised estimates."
    I move this new Sub-section really with a view to recover for the county, borough, or urban district councils their right to have some say upon action in connection with the increase of rates by the local committees which have been set up. As everybody knows, the education committee of the county has come to the county for its estimate, and it is desirable that these local authorities should have

    69
    the same say in connection with this matter, or at all events should have the right to demand an estimate from these local committees. I think that is a very reasonable request. It was, I think, discussed on the Second Reading, and I hope the Government will see their way to grant it in this form or any other form that may be suggested, as there are other Amendments on the Paper which deal with rather the same point. All that I wish to do now is to secure that the matter shall not be simply dependent on the action of the local committee, and that the council, or the local authority, which is the authority providing the money—or one-half of the money eventually—at all events should have the right to have an estimate submitted to it, and the opportunity of discussing and of having some power over the local committee.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS:I hope the Amendment is going to be accepted. I have an Amendment lower down on the Paper that amounts really to the same thing, though it is put in another form. I think it should be generally accepted that if the local authority is to be responsible for part of the expenses of administration that it should have some control over the details of expenditure. To put on a local authority the burden of finding one-half of the cost of administration, and arrange that they should only be the conduit pipe for the budget, is not quite satisfactory. I think there is a good deal to be said for some of the suggestions that have come from one or two Members, that the whole of the expenses should be borne by the Government. On the other hand, I am rather inclined to recognise the principle of devolution of administration. If authority is to be devolved on the local committees it is imperative, if a real interest is to be taken, that they should find some of the money out of the local rates. Of course, these committees are largely nominated by the local authority. Once, however, the committees are nominated, they work largely on an independent basis, and it is conceivable—I do not say it is probable—that some of these committees might be tempted to launch into an extravagant system of administration, to go in for expensive buildings, engage numerous clerks, and pay salaries quite unnecessary for the work to be done. So that, not only in the interests of the ratepayers, who have to find one half of the money, but also in the interests of the
    70
    Treasury, it is very important that the local authority should be able to criticise, and, if necessary, refer back any portion of a Budget put forward by these committees. Therefore, I support in principle the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Ashford Division.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We quite accept the principle that the local committee must submit an estimate, and, if necessary, that there may be a supplementary estimate. I should be disposed practically to accept the Amendment as moved by my right hon. Friend opposite. I think, however, if he will look at his Amendment, and the Sub-section which follows, he will see that as a matter of drafting they will really go very badly together. I am, therefore, going to ask him whether we can accomplish the same object in a different way. There is one point of difference between our views. He lays down that the estimate should only be presented in the month of March. We would prefer the wording of the hon. Member (Mr. P. A. Harris), making the period such times as the Local Government Board may determine. We think we can accomplish this matter better by asking my right hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and to allow us to insert the words that I shall read to follow Subsection (2). They will read as follows:
    "(3) Every local committee shall at such time as the Local Government Board may direct submit to the council of the county, borough, or urban district by whom the administrative expenses of the committee are to be defrayed an estimate of the administrative expenses proposed to be incurred by the committee for such a period as the Board may direct, and may from time to time submit supplementary estimates."
    That, I think, gets over the drafting difficulty. It substitutes the time preferred by the Local Government Board for the specified month, and it also makes provision for the time for which the estimate may run, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, and also for the bringing up of supplementary estimates. I think that probably meets my right hon. Friend's case.
    Mr. HARDY: I think they do, so far as I can follow their meaning, though it is very difficult at the moment to take in their full meaning. If I withdraw my

    71
    Amendment in favour of these words, I hope we may be able, when we see the words in print, to reconsider the matter on the Report stage. The only difficulty I can see is that it is necessary, so far as county councils are concerned, that these estimates should go in in March with all the other estimates of county expenditure. March is the month when the estimates are presented for all the other committees, and it is very desirable that that month should be preserved for this particular committee as well as for the others. I do not like giving up the month of March. So far as I understand, there is no real or very good reason why that could not be accepted. Another period might suit the urban districts better; I cannot say.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The reason we want the substitution is that we want to get on with the work at once. On the other hand, I think my right hon. Friend may be quite certain that if the matter is in the hands of the Local Government Board they will, as a general practice, choose that period of the year which is convenient to the county councils.
    Mr. HARDY: I only wanted just to raise the question. I am quite willing to accept the words put worward.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I think we must reserve to ourselves time to consider on the Report stage the words read by the hon. Gentleman. So far as we can gather at the moment, they seem quite clear, and seem to me what we desire.
    Mr. WATSON: I am only speaking so as to be helpful, which is all I want to do at any time, but I have an Amendment which proposes to alter the words at the beginning of the following Sub-section. May I explain what my difficulties are, in order that the Government may consider them? As the Bill stands at present, and as I read Sub-section (2), the authority which is to make up the estimate, which is to be the basis of the payment by the Treasury and the council, is the council or councils concerned. In other words, it is not the body that is going to spend, but it is another body altogether—the council of the county, or borough, or urban district. It is now proposed, in addition to that estimate, to have another estimate. There is nothing said about supplementary estimates in that case as the Bill stands at present, but it is proposed to have another estimate to be pre-
    72
    pared by the local committee—I assume for themselves and the sub-committees as well—to be submitted by them to the council of the county, borough, or urban district. Therefore, you have two sets of estimates. So far as I am personally concerned—and I propose to give effect to this view by that Amendment and consequential Amendments—it seems to me that the proper persons to make the estimate in the first instance are those who are going to incur the expenditure, namely, the local committee. It is quite true that that alteration would not ensure that the estimate would go before the county council for checking, but it would go before the Local Government Board for checking, and I should hope the county council would be content to rely on the Local Government Board, or, in the case of Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland. If they are not so content, it is quite easy to make that estimate to be checked by both. But is it not rather a complication to have, in the first place, one estimate made up by the local statutory committee, with the supplementary estimates later on, and then annually an estimate by the county council or other council concerned? The two, at least, ought to correlate to each other. I should have thought it would be better to pass the estimate for correction through the hands of the county council, borough or urban district, and then, when checked by them, pass the same estimate on to the Local Government Board for final approval. I am only suggesting this to the hon. Gentleman so that he may consider it before the Report stage, in order that the matter may be put on the most useful and economical basis. I certainly do not want to press any Amendment later on. I only want to get the matter clear.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. We only want to make this thing quite clear and practical. What we want, first of all, is the local committee to make the estimate. They are the proper people to make it, as they know what their expenditure is likely to be. Then they submit that estimate to the local authority, who have to pay one-half, and the local authority, after criticising it and, may be, altering it, according to their knowledge of local circumstances, send it to the Local Government Board. That would apply in the case of either the original estimate or supplementary estimate. But I can give

    73
    this undertaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that if the Committee cares to put in these words I have read, and our intention is not obviously clear after they are inserted, we will reconsider the question on Report.
    Mr. H. P. HARRIS: I am so glad to get the question settled who is to pay the administrative expenses of the local committees that I do not want to look a gift horse in the mouth. But I wish to point out that local committees are in rather a difficult position because they may have on one side the Ministry of Pensions or the Statutory Committee urging them to undertake certain branches of administrative work, whereas, on the other hand, the local council or the Local Government Board may say it is very expensive, and that they are not willing to accede to it. The truth is that the arrangements now provided in this Bill are unsatisfactory from the point of view of principle because, after all, the cost of any administration depends on the policy behind it. Now the policy of the Pensions Committees will be decided either by the Committees themselves, or the Ministry of Pensions, or the Statutory Committee. The local authorities will have no power to revise the decisions on questions of policy, and therefore they will not get any really effective control. I think we shall have to accept this arrangement for the time being in its amended form. At the same time, I do think difficulty may arise later on, and it may be necessary to graft the pensions administration more directly upon the local government organisation. I want to make that observation as a sort of caveat.
    Mr. HARDY: After the statement of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, I still think it would be better to put in the words before Sub-section (2) of the Bill. Then we should have the fact that the estimate is submitted by the local committee and sent to the county council, and after that we want inserted that the council send on that estimate to the Local Government Board. It seems a better sequence. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
    74
    "Provided that nothing in this Act shall make it obligatory on any council to bear any expenses under this Act unless such council has set up a local committee under the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 1915."
    We have objected altogether to the principle laid down in Clause 1, because we believe, as stated in the Debate on the Second Beading, that this ought to be a national, and not a local, charge. But, in view of the decison to which the Government came to retain Clause I in the Bill, it has been necessary for us to seek to include what safeguards we can in this Bill, so that local authorities will not be compelled against their will to pay charges of bodies over which they have no control whatever, and in connection with which they have not got the appointment. Under the 1915 Act it is the local county council who appoint these committees. But in a good many cases in Ireland, for reasons into which it is not necessary for me to enter now, the county councils have not considered it necessary to appoint these local committees. There is a Section in the Act of 1915 which provides that where the county councils do not appoint the committees, the Statutory Committee here in London has the power itself to appoint local committees over the heads of the county councils. It is in Subsection (3) of Clause 2 of the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 1915:
    "If within such time, not being less than one month, as may be allowed by the Statutory Committee, the council does not frame a scheme or such a scheme as the Statutory Committee approve, the Statutory Committee may themselves frame a scheme which shall have a like effect as if it were framed by the council and approved by the Statutory Committee."
    I think it is a sound principle to lay down, even in local finance, that where there is no power of appointment, and no power of control, the local authorities shall not be asked to bear these expenses, and it is with a view of avoiding what would undoubtedly lead to serious friction in the administration of this Act that I am moving this Amendment. I am sure that where these committees do not exist, as is the case in several counties in Ireland, the Government will not make it impossible to work this Act smoothly by appointing these committees, and then compelling the counties to bear this extra burden. When we come later to the con-

    75
    sideration of Clause 1 I shall have a few words to say with regard to its retention in the Bill, but my object now is to secure that, so far as it concerns Ireland at any rate, this Bill shall raise the least possible friction, and that the Statutory Committee shall be enabled to work in harmony with the local county councils throughout the country, because it is perfectly, certain that if they ask these councils to bear charges in connection with these local committees, which may be appointed from here, there cannot be anything but friction and ill-feeling, which it is most desirable in an object of this kind to avoid.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not think the hon. Member will really expect us to accept this Amendment, because what would be the effect of it? Those counties in Ireland which have set up committees, and which are working the Act—and, I am bound to say, working it very well—would have to pay, whereas those counties which have not done anything under the Act, which have refused to set up committees, would not have to pay. That is really a reductio ad absurdum, I quite understand the hon. Member wants to exclude from the payment as much of Ireland as he can, and if he cannot exclude it all, owing to the decision which the Committee have already come to, he now wishes to apply his proposal to those particular parts of Ireland which have not set up committees. That would be putting a premium on the counties not setting up committees, and the Ministry are most anxious to have these local committees set up on the most popular basis. For us to put a premium on those particular counties is the very last thing to which, I am sure, the hon. Member can expect us to agree. There are only six counties in Ireland which have not set up local committees, and I would put it to hon. Members from Ireland whether they do not think that those parts of Ireland which are working the Act—by far the larger portion—would be very seriously annoyed if they found that parts of Ireland which have refused to work the Act were excluded from having to pay the contribution? For those reasons we cannot possibly accept this Amendment.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. O'SHEE: I reside in a county in which no committee is set up, and I represent a county in which a committee has been set up. I want to say that the reason a committee was not set up in the
    76
    county in which I reside was because members of the county council anticipated that, if they set up a committee, the very proposals that are now being made in Clause 1 of this Bill would be made, namely, that charges for carrying on this committee would be paid out of the rates of the county, and they consider all these matters in connection with pensions of soldiers and sailors ought to be a State charge, and not a local charge. The county which I represent has set up a committee, and, as I understand it, the expenses of the committee hitherto have not been charged on the rates at all. But for the first time by this Bill you seek to make a charge on the rates for a portion of the expenses of this committee—the very thing that was anticipated when the objection was raised to the setting up of these committees in those counties where they are not set up. They will be asked eventually to pay out of the local rates part of these expenses. I want to ask the hon. Baronet how he proposes to carry on under this Bill in those counties which have not set up committees'? How will the provisions of this Bill operate there? How will he get estimates from those counties? If they have no committees the counties will submit no, estimates, and neither will they pass any. They have refused to appoint committees because they anticipated that this demand would be made on the local rates. There is no provision in the Bill for enforcing the Bill in those counties where no committees have been set up, and, although this measure may call upon them to submit estimates, how can it be expected that the county council will do so? Further, I would like to know what procedure is provided for getting the money in such cases. I see none laid down in the Bill. I would urge that the proper course is to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend and not to make this obligatory, because the purpose of the Bill is to make it obligatory on the counties to pay this expenditure, and, in the absence of any procedure to enforce it, the obligation must be of little effect.
    Mr. HAZLETON: It is very difficult to understand the principle on which this Government acts from day to day, and, after hearing the statement from the Treasury Bench that they do not want coercive measures to be adopted, I submit they are making a great mistake in not agreeing to a proposal of this kind, which would

    77
    promote the smooth working of the Bill in Ireland. In a number of districts in that country they have already set up these committees, and the policy of the Government should be not to coerce the other districts and thereby make this Bill unpopular by imposing the burden on the rates, but to induce the remaining districts, of their own free will, to set up committees. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, you cannot work Clause 1 of this Bill, even if you pass it as it stands. In those counties where the councils consider that the committees are not necessary you will not get estimates from the county, and the councils will not pass the estimates; they will simply refuse to consider them. There will then be a deadlock, and the result will be a good deal of friction. I do hope the Government will give way on this point and not impose this unpopular burden upon counties which do not think it necessary to set up these committees.
    Mr. WING: May I ask what the effect is on the welfare of soldiers and sailors of the non-acceptance by certain counties of these duties? Are soldiers suffering from the neglect to set up these committees, and have there been any complaints of such neglect on the part of soldiers in counties where there are no committees— soldiers who consider that they have a right to the protection of the authorities of the districts in which they live?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Perhaps I may answer that question and tell my hon. Friend what happens in cases where no local committees are set up. There have only been a few such cases in Ireland, and there was only one case in England. Formerly there were voluntary associations, like the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, which performed the work undertaken by Statutory Committees and local committees, and, where local committees are not set up, they are continuing to carry on that work. I do not say that they are not doing the work well. I believe they are, and we are very grateful to them for it, but we think the proper way is to do it by means of local bodies with local representation on a democratic basis. We much prefer that, and we think it is better for the soldier and the sailor. We regret very much that it has not been done in certain counties in Ireland.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (.2), leave out the words "or councils"["the council or councils"].
    Leave ou the words "or district"["or district committee for such period"].—[Mr. Barnes.]
    Mr. WATSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "one-half"["one-half of the expenses incurred"], and to insert instead thereof the words "two-thirds."
    I really put down this Amendment in the hope of making a more successful appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Pensions Minister than was made on the Second Reading. I still maintain very strongly the feeling that putting any of this liability on the local rates is bad in principle. I am still convinced that it will arouse a great deal of feeling in the various localities. I am also convinced it will prevent a number of people serving on the local committees, and that, to my mind, will be a most regrettable result. The feeling might be, however, somewhat modified if the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the greater part of the burden shall fall on the shoulders of the State. I think to make it half and half is to be unfair to the type of county or borough to which I referred the other day, the type which has sent out, in proportion to population, a larger number of soldiers than other boroughs or counties which, being close to great manufacturing centres, are perhaps called upon to supply more workers at the munition factories. The districts I refer to are generally, I will not say in the wilds of Scotland, but are the more sparsely populated portions, such as Inverness-shire and further north, and undoubtedly a policy of this kind, which calls upon them to pay half the burden, will be felt very severely. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to apportion it a little more fairly by agreeing that the State shall pay two-thirds instead of one-half. He will thereby recognise that the State has a greater duty in this matter than the locality. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter? I believe if he will share the burden in the way I have suggested it will prove more acceptable to localities, and will make the Act work much more easily.
    Mr. HARDY: I beg to support the principle of the Amendment. I think my hon. Friend, however, would have done very much better if he had accepted an

    79
    Amendment lower down on the Paper, providing the State shall bear three-fourths of the burden. We have a definite precedent for that in connection with recent legislation, the Government having already consented to apply that proportion in connection with venereal diseases, and matters of health. This is a question which more nearly concerns counties than urban districts, and I do hope that the Government may be induced to follow their own precedent in this case.
    Mr. WATSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment in favour of the other Amendment referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. D. MILLAR: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "one-half," and insert instead thereof the words "three-quarters."
    I associate myself with the arguments which have been already presented to the House in regard to the necessity of the State undertaking a very much larger share of the burden than it proposes to do under this Bill. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman might have originally more regard to the analogy of the Insurance Commissioners which has not yet been considered by the House. In that case the whole of the Grant is provided by the State itself and granted to the committees themselves for administrative expenses. The analogy is pretty complete, because you have insurance committees made up of the same kind of representatives as you have placed upon the pensions committee, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider that when he is adjusting a Clause in regard to the amount of the administrative expenses to be shouldered by the State. There is a very strong argument in favour of the State undertaking the whole of the burden, but if the Government are not-prepared to go that length I urge that they should accept this proposal. Surely it would be sufficient if the locality had an interest in the matter of at least one-fourth. One has to keep in mind that the local committees have no real control over the expenditure, and they are not directly represented in the matter, and in those circumstances they should not be asked to shoulder a large proportion of the cost. I strongly urge that the right hon. Gentleman should accept this Amendment,
    80
    and it might be desirable to divide the House if the Government are not prepared to agree to this proposal I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet this point.
    Mr. HARDY: This is really a county matter, and the experience we are gaining every day clearly proves this. A very large number of local sub-committees are required to work large country districts, and in all these cases after this work has gone on so long, and now that it is becoming a statutory business it is necessary to supplement voluntary help with paid State assistance, and this is required in small places to deal with the-matter. Inevitably we find our expenses going up, and they are expenses which we are not able to control, because we are bound to carry out the work which is dictated from London. The pensions authority in London is getting more and more control over these matters, and they are passing out of the control of the local authority, and we have never been able to ascertain a clear definition of administrative expenses. Surely this is a case which the Government ought to treat on as generous lines as they have treated other similar matters where State assistance is granted. It is very necessary that some contribution should be made by the county in order to keep up their local interest in the expenditure, but now that the whole of the original programme of the Government has been reversed and the State has accepted responsibility for the provision of money in connection with pensions, we should also have a reversal of the principle of these administrative-expenses, and I think we are very moderate in asking that only three-quarters of the expense should be borne by the State.
    Mr. MORTON: I understand the matter we are now considering is whether the Treasury shall take over three-fourths of the costs of administration as against the proposal that it should be one-half. I think it is better to accept what you can get rather than nothing at all. I decline to accept three-quarters, although I know there is a strong feeling in Scotland that the State should provide the whole of the cost. If, however, the Government will not give way, it will be best to accept what we are going to agree to. I would like to know if there will be any future stage of this Bill when we can discuss the matter and get a further answer to my question?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I do not follow the point raised by the hon. Member.
    Mr. MORTON: I want to know if there will be any other stage of this Bill at which we can take a direct vote as to whether the Treasury can pay the whole of this money or not?
    The CHAIRMAN: It cannot be done at this stage or any other stage unless a new Money Resolution is passed.
    Mr. MORTON: We desire to make this Bill as complete as possible, and, as far as I am concerned and representing a Scottish county, I know that they are strongly in favour of the State paying the lot, although they would prefer the State paying three-quarters rather than one-half.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: At an earlier stage of this controversy I had something to do with suggesting the half-and-half method as distinguished from the original plan by which the whole cost was supposed to be put upon the locality. Whatever may be the result of this Debate, or the final form in which the Bill becomes law, all persons concerned with local government naturally prefer to have half the cost paid by the Government rather than none at all. At the same time, now that the matter has very considerably altered, and as the original idea of calling upon local funds to provide these funds has largely gone, and as the responsibility of the central Government is more fully realised, I do not think I am inconsistent in saying, now that I know that, a final division of financial responsibility in the form of three-fourths by the Exchequer and one-fourth by the locality would be universally appreciated and would undoubtedly recognise the fact that the national character of these services has been very greatly insisted upon by all kinds of people in all parts of the country. While I am personally debarred from pressing this Amendment as I should do if I had not pressed for half-and-half instead of nothing, I cannot now by my silence allow it to be thought that I do not appreciate the great weight of what has been said in support of this Amendment, and how much I wish the policy of the Government might allow it to put this measure on the same lines as those dealing with venereal diseases and other problems. I am sure that there is no danger of the local authorities being slack in their administration if the Government accepted this proposal.
    Mr. CURRIE: The feeling in Scotland is very strong against placing the cost of this pension work on the rates. There is a feeling that the rates have so often been associated with other ideas that we wish to keep altogether separate from the relief of local soldiers. I am very much enamoured with the principle of dividing the expenditure in any case, and I should have been glad if the Treasury had brought forward a more elastic suggestion to meet this case, because circumstances in one county may differ very much from those in another county. If the Treasury are unable to do anything of that kind. I think on the whole I would rather have a three-to-one division of the-cost than a half-and-half division.
    Sir N. HELME: The proportion of half-and-half has come about in consequence of negotiations between the representatives of county councils, but the Association of Municipal Corporations-was not consulted upon that point. I cordially agree with the principle that it is the duty of the Government to provide largely for the working of this Act, and speaking on behalf of the Municipal Corporation Association, as they were not a party to the half-and-half arrangement, I think I am perfectly justified in pressing for three-quarters to be adopted instead of a smaller proportion.
    Mr. SHEEHY: Those of us who represent county constituencies in Ireland will not be content even with this proposal, because you are now trying to place upon them certain expenses which up to the present time they have refused to bear. It should be remembered that both in Scotland and in Ireland quite different provision is made with regard to this measure. The part of the county which I represent is practically depopulated, and we shall be called upon to provide a committee which will have to bear half these expenses. I hope this Amendment will be pressed to a Division, and I shall support the proposal which asks for the smaller share. I think the Treasury would have a full guarantee for the economic working of the Act if the county councils were asked to bear one-eighth of the administrative expenses instead of one-fourth. That is why I shall support the Amendment now before the Committee.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I think the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill must begin to realise that there is a very strong sentiment in every portion of the

    83
    House in favour of the Amendment. I must differ from my hon. Friend from Ireland (Mr. Sheehy). We are not so overburdened with wealth in England that in many parts of our constituency the burden will not press as heavily upon our ratepayers as upon the ratepayers of Scotland and Ireland. On the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister of Pensions put forward the plea very strongly that it was necessary to have some charge on the local authorities to avoid waste and to ensure that everything went on proper economical lines. That principle can still be supported by the adoption of the Amendment so far as it is necessary, but I do not think it is necessary at all. The State having taken the pensions over broadly in the latter development of the scheme, it ought also to take over the entire administrative expenses. We think that the principle of making the local authorities feel, if there is any undue waste or extravagance, that they will have to bear their share of it will be entirely met if they contribute one-quarter instead of one-half. I sincerely hope that the Government realise the strong feeling there is in the House. Everyone knows from his correspondence that there is a great deal of feeling in the constituencies in the matter, and I sincerely hope that the Government will see their way to concede the principle of this Amendment and to be satisfied with charging one-quarter upon the local authorities instead of one-half.
    Mr. BARNES: From the point of view of the Government, I much regret the chorus of attack made upon our Bill in this matter, but even now I hope to have some chance on the floor of the House for the Bill as it stands. After all, this is a very small matter as compared with the money going to be circulated through the agency of the committees. Just let me give a figure. I think I am right in saying that somewhere about £72,000,000 per year is now being distributed throughout the country in the way of separation allowances and pensions, and when our new Warrant comes into operation in a few days' time they will be at the rate of an additional £26,000,000. Therefore, in round figures you have being distributed through the agency of these committees in the various areas throughout the country £100,000,000 in separation allowances and pensions.
    Mr. MORTON: That is during the War only?
    Mr. BARNES: We are dealing with the War now, at all events. There is on the one hand £100,000,000 being distributed through the agency of these committees, and that is what might be called Government money. I know, of course, that the money is collected from the districts before it gets back to the district, but it is collected according to wealth or the lack of it—that is to say, much of it comes from rich districts and a small amount comes from poor districts. Then when it is distributed the great bulk goes to poor districts and a small amount comparatively to rich districts. On the one hand you have this £100,000,000. What have you on the other hand? We have no official estimate of the amount of money involved, but in visiting committees recently I have made it my business to make inquiries and to ascertain as far as I could just what was involved in these administrative expenses. The last place I inquired about was Cardiff, which I visited on Saturday. I found that a penny-rate in Cardiff amounts to £4,000, and the committee's expenses at the present moment are at the rate of £500 per year. Therefore, the total cost to Cardiff is one-eighth of a penny, and, if the Bill is passed in its present form Cardiff will be asked to subscribe to the expenses of the committee one-sixteenth of a penny on its local rate. Is that a large burden? Is that a burden any district throughout the whole country, however poor, could not bear?
    Sir GODFREY BARING: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an instance of a small country town in a rural district?
    Mr. BARNES: Yes, I do not seek to put Cardiff forward as a typical case. It may be a comparatively rich district, and there may be something to be said for a sort of scale. I have heard of one poor county to-day, Inverness, where a large number of men have left to go into the Army, where they have not the advantage, as some of the southern counties have, of having munition factories and all sorts of war expenditure, and where they may be pretty hardly hit by the half-and-half principle. As a rule, there is a large amount of Government money being spent in the counties in addition to these separation and pension allowances. Therefore, it seems to me that the amount of money

    85
    necessary to distribute these separation and pension allowances is so small as compared with the amount of money involved that I am rather surprised and grieved to find so many of my hon. Friends demanding that the Government should pay even more.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman finished what he was going to say about Cardiff?
    Mr. BARNES: Yes; I have nothing more to say about Cardiff.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Could he say how much Cardiff has received?
    Mr. BARNES: I could not. I have only made inquiries as to the expenses of these committees. Belfast I was told was spending at the rate of £1,250 a year, and Manchester, which is the largest expenditure of which I have heard, £4,000 a year. On the other hand, Dudley, represented so worthily by the Parliamentary Secretary (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Bos-cawen), spends at the rate of £1 per week. Several other boroughs are very thrifty and spend very small sums indeed.
    Mr. HARDY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an instance of any counties?
    Mr. BARNES: Yes; Lancashire spends at the rate of £1,500 per year and Leicestershire, which is a fairly populous and large county, does the whole business for £600 per year. Let us take an average throughout of £700 per year. I think that would be about the figure. If you multiply £700 by the number of committees, 300, you get somewhere in the region of £200,000 as the total cost of running these committees. The Bill asks that the local authorities should pay half—that is, £100,000 on the one side and £100,000,000 on the other. It is like paying a penny in order to get £i. I do not think that is an extravagant demand. We are told that the Government do more in regard to other things. It was stated that the Government pay three-fourths of the amount of money in regard to venereal diseases, but I wonder if the hon. Member who said that is aware that the amount of money in connection with venereal diseases is not merely the cost of running the Bill, but is the whole of the expenses —doctors, and the whole lot of them! The thing, therefore, is not analogous. Mention was also made of the insurance committees, and it was said that the
    86
    Government pay the whole cost of the committees. That is quite true, but, on the other hand, the Government have control, and that is the difference in the two cases. I do not want, and I feel sure that the great majority of this House does not want, a bureaucratic machine run by the Government and the money paid through paid officials.
    Mr. HOGGE: You have control. The locality has not got control.
    Mr. BARNES: I should say that the locality has the control. Each and every one of these 300 committees set up throughout the length and breadth of the country is under the control of the local administrative authority. They have a majority on them, the estimates have to be made to them, and those estimates are passed on in turn to the Local Government Board. Therefore, the whole Bill is based upon the association of the local authorities with the national expenditure. It is a principle to which I attach very considerable importance. If you have the whole amount of money going from the Government, you must have a bureaucratic machine and the Government paying the money, as it now does in regard to the insurance committees, through Government officials. If you are going to cast the whole of the burden on the Government, that is what is going to happen. On the other hand, we want the local authorities throughout the length and breadth of the country to be associated with the payment of these pensions and separation allowances, so as to get the human touch as between those who pay the money and the recipients. It is for that reason that we want a certain proportion of the money paid by the Government and the other portion paid by the local authority.
    Sir G. BARING: I have listened to, and I think the Committee have listened, with some disappointment to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has made, because during the whole of this Debate not one single word, until the right hon. Gentleman rose, has been said in favour of the Government plan. I am on this question a whole-hogger. I believe the whole charge, or nearly the whole charge, ought to be placed on the Government. I know that the almost universal opinion in the localities is that this question of pensions is a national charge, and should come as far as possible out of Government funds. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the case

    87
    of Cardiff. It is very rich and populous. Then, as a county instance, he gave Lancashire. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had given us an instance of an agricultural county like Devonshire, a portion of which I represent, or a small and poor county like the Isle of Wight, in which I reside. There the ratepayers and the representatives of the ratepayers are viewing with very great concern the enormous number of additional new duties which are constantly being placed on the local authorities. We are practically reaching something like a breaking strain in this matter. Hardly an Act of Parliament is passed without throwing an additional financial burden or an additional burden in the way of public business on these local authorities, and the administration of all these Acts leads to a constant and growing charge on the local rates. I cannot help hoping even at this late stage that the right hon. Gentleman will make the offer of considering the whole matter before the Report stage, and perhaps bringing up a proposal for a sliding scale or something of that kind. If he cannot give us an assurance of that character, I very much hope that my hon. Friend will go to a Division, and I am quite sure that he will receive a very large amount of support from all parts of the House.
    Mr. HOGGE: There is only one point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech with which I want to deal, and upon which I think we ought to be clear. The Minister of Pensions said that there was a considerable amount of local control; in fact, he said that we had local control. No local war pensions committee existing in this country has any local control. The whole control of these committees is in the hands of the Statutory Committee. No local war pensions committee anywhere, for instance, could give an illness grant without the approval of the Statutory Committee, according to its Regulations as printed.
    Mr. BARNES: May I point out that the illness grants have nothing at all to do with this matter. We are providing for the cost of giving illness grants.
    Mr. HOGGE: Exactly. I am pointing out that the local war pensions committee could not give an illness grant-without the approval of the Statutory Committee. It is the Statutory Committee's work that they are doing in the
    88
    localities. That is all they are doing, and the human touch which my right hon. Friend so much desires lies in the fact-that is where the fallacy arises about local control—that the local authority, either the urban or the county council, has the selection of the local war pensions committee in so far as they must choose the majority of its members. That is the sum and substance of any local control that lies in the local war pensions committee. My right hon. Friend is not fair to himself, with his knowledge of the pension, seheme, when he gets up and tries to get us to withdraw our demand because we have local control. There is no such thing as local control, and my right hon. Friend knows it. He knows perfectly well that if he were not Minister of Pensions he would not put up that argument and that either he or the Parliamentary Secretary would be able to knock the legs from under that argument inside two minutes. The point that emerges is, is it worth while my right hon. Friend holding out for this-provision in the Bill for so small a sum of money as £200,000? He has told us that his maximum estimate for administering this portion of the charges is £200,000. I would remind the Committee that that charge is a diminishing one, that the bulk of the work in connection with pensions will fall in those years in which there is the greatest number of wounded and that as the pensions are settled and the schemes agreed to there will be less and less administrative work to do in the various localities. For the sake of that £200,000, is it worth while dividing the Committee? Is it worth while, in the middle of a great war, introducing a controversial subject of this nature? Why not let us be unanimous about it and put-the whole upon the State? It is a very small sum. Let us make the gift to the soldier and his dependants complete and be very glad to obtain the co-operation of the localities through their public men and bodies in administering the pensions which we provide for them.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): My hon. Friend the-Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) is an undoubted authority on pensions. Possibly I may be considered an equal authority on the doings of the Statutory Committee and on the actual working of the Pensions Ministry. He said that the Pensions Minister put up an argument which nobody could support when he said

    89
    that the local committees did act with a Amman touch and that they have local control. My hon. Friend denied that the local committees have local control. I sit on these committees and have sat on them constantly. I do not think there is anybody who will say that my action as regards pensions have been other than human, or that my control has ever been other than human control. I want the Committee to consider that it is these local committees who make the recommendations. Those recommendations come up by the hundred to London. They are recommendations constantly made for pensions, grants, and allowances, where those pensions have been turned down by the War Office, or Chelsea, or the Admiralty. They generally recommend pensions on a most liberal scale, and very often the full pension which Chelsea or the Admiralty have refused. Where comes in the human touch? There comes in the human touch! That recommendation coming from the local committee is nearly always adopted by the Statutory Committee.? Take another class of case. Now that you have a now Royal Warrant, there is to be an alternative pension, based on the pre-war income enjoyed either by the disabled man or the widow. Who is going to make all the inquiries as to the pre-war income and as to whether or not an apprentice, when he received full wages, would have supported his mother?
    Mr. WING: The pensions officer.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: No, the local committee. That is whore the human touch comes in. My right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister has put up a very great argument, showing that the local committees will have the control and will still have the power to recommend, that their recommendations will be taken, and that hundreds of thousands of pounds will be given in pensions, because the administration granting the pensions is largely to be entrusted to these local committees. In exchange for those powers, what is asked of the locality? I have been as great a champion of the ratepayer in this House as anybody who ever sat in it, and I cannot help thinking that it is a very good price to pay for the enormous powers these local committees are going to have that they should be asked to pay one-half of the total administrative expenses of the committee. The Mover of this Amendment said that this provision would cast a very heavy burden on the localities.
    90
    I would point out that the very heavy burden would also be on the Treasury. Let me take the case of London. What is likely to be the total administrative expenses of the local committee for London? At the outside, £20,000. A rate of 1d. in the £ in London produces £180,000, therefore, as only one-half of the expenses, that is, one-half of £20,000, will have to be met by the ratepayers of London, the most they can be possibly be asked to subscribe as their share of the administrative expenses would not be a halfpenny or even a farthing in the £, but one-eighteenth part of a penny. Millions of money will be coming to London, but they would buy their right to make recommendations and bring the human touch into our pension system very cheaply at the expense of only one-eighteenth of a penny in the £ to be paid by the ratepayers. The hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division (Sir G. Baring) asked what would re the effect in certain agricultural counties. So far as I have had to agree to any estimates at present—I can remember cue or two, although I do not happen to have the figures with me—I recollect very well that the total administrative expenses for Wiltshire were £1,000, while in the cases of Somerset and Worcestershire the amount asked for was £1,100.
    Mr. WATT: What rate did that represent?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I cannot answer that except in a most general way. I particularly asked the chairman of the county council what effect that would have on the rates, and he said that practically it would only be a small fraction on their rates. If the county expenditure is £1,000, or £1,100, or. £1,200, or £1,500 the amount asked for is very small indeed. In conclusion, let me say that if feeling in the Committee is exceedingly strong, my right hon. Friend undoubtedly would approach the Treasury and ask, at all events, in any case where the rate raised was likely to be at all burden-some to the community, that the Treasury might make some other arrangement. Perhaps he might go further and ask the Treasury to reconsider the whole matter and pay either three-fourths or the whole of the expenditure. I can only say what my right hon. Friend might do. He said he would not ask for the whole. I hope he will not ask for more than one-half. Nobody has taken a keener interest in this question than I have, or been more

    91
    desirous that the human touch should come in. Nobody has been more keen and anxious than I from the very first that these local committees should have great responsibilities, particularly with regard to training, treatment, and matters of that-kind. I believe that if the Treasury does give way and finds three-fourths or perhaps the whole, what we shall put upon us, whether we like it or not, is some kind of system such as we have in regard to old age pensions—pensions officers, pensions inspectors from the Treasury, and general interference in the work and the liberty which the local committees have now. I cannot think that that would be a change for the better. For my own part, looking at this, not from the Treasury point of view, but from the point of view of what is desirable in the interests of our soldiers and sailors and in the interests of a humane system, I do not think we can do better than accept the present proposal, so long as the local committees enjoy the privilege of making recommendations, which undoubtedly will and must be listened to by the Pensions Minister.
    6.0 P.M.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY: I differ from most members of the. Committee in that I agree with my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench and think it desirable that the local committee should pay a certain portion of this expenditure. For that. very reason I would appeal to him to accept this Amendment. The history of the Sybiline books is one which ought to appeal to hon. Members. We began with one-half. Then one hon. Member proposed two-thirds. That was withdrawn, and another hon. Member proposed three-fourths. Then another hon. Member proposed seven-eights, and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) made a great appeal for the whole. Judging from what I have heard of the Debate, if my right hon. Friend really wishes that local authorities should pay any portion of this expenditure he would be wise to accept this Amendment as a compromise, if you like to call it so, and take his one-fourth. From what he has told us, the actual amount of money required is not very large, but he will establish a principle, and at the same time he will take a quite sufficient portion of money from the local authorities to obtain the result he requires, namely, that they should have a certain interest in the matter. I therefore appeal to him very
    92
    strongly indeed to take this three-fourths-There is another reason. One object is that the expenses of the local authorities should not be too large. The right hon. Gentleman has complete control over the estimate, and the local authorities cannot bring forward an unreasonable estimate because there is full power in the Bill to check it. Therefore, I think a fourth would be sufficient to put upon them, and I appeal to him very strongly that he should accept- this proposal and end the discussion.
    Sir J. M'CALLUM: I rise for the purpose of supporting the Treasury on account of the principle involved. It is not a matter of money with me at all, but I am anxious that tender, human sympathy should exist in the administration of this fund, and I do not think you will attain that by simply looking at it from the standpoint of whether the local rates should be exempted or not. Anyone who has safe on a school board or a town council will know that where part is paid by the Government and part from the local rate these funds are in a healthy condition. May I appeal to Members themselves who know something about our local politics and our local associations? If the local authorities have a share of the expense they will take a practical interest in everything that is being done, and those in our localities in whom we are specially interested are more likely to be dealt with with fair play and justice, looking at all the pros and cons of the question, whereas if the administration is to be centred in London I am perfectly certain that what many of us desire to see carried out will utterly fail. I am sorry to differ from my Friends, with whom I usually agree, and it has been very hard work for me to oppose them, but. after all, principles must he upheld.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: Principles no doubt are things to be upheld, but I find it a little difficult to understand how it is that the hon. Baronet finds nothing to offend him in the proposal by which the Treasury is to pay half the expenses of the local committee, but finds his sense of principle entirely shocked by a proposal to pay three-fourths. I do not look on this as a matter of principle at all. I ask the Pensions Minister, if he is going to take the matter up further with the Treasury, as I understand he is, whether he will not give a little more attention than at

    93
    present seems to have been given to the case of the agricultural counties, and more particularly to the poor agricultural counties, because I do not think anyone listening to the Pensions Minister's speech the other night, or to his speech to-day, could help being struck by the fact that his attention seemed to have been almost entirely centred upon the great, wealthy, and populous boroughs and certain counties, such as Lancashire, which are, I believe, both populous and wealthy. It is all very well to say that in Cardiff an eighth of a penny will raise so many thousand pounds and in the City of London a sixteenth of a penny will raise, for all I know, £1,000,000.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Less than that.
    Mr. LAW: Whenever I see the right hon. Baronet. I feel that the City of London must be indeed fabulously wealthy. It is obviously no answer to say to a county or district which has a difficulty in raising a rate for a certain purpose that another district or county has no difficulty. There are certain unions in the agricultural counties in Ireland where a penny rate raises no more than £50, and I believe there are certain counties where a penny rate over the whole county will raise no more than £200. It is all very well to say that in those counties the expenses will be small in proportion. I do not think that necessarily follows at all. On the contrary, where you get a populous borough, where the administration is centred in a convenient place, it is much cheaper relatively than in a large and scattered county, where members of local authorities have to meet under circumstances which I described the other night. Therefore, I hope the Pensions Minister will give careful consideration to that aspect of the matter. I understood that at any rate he might consult the Treasury further in the matter, and that he might either press upon them that they should accept this three-fourths Amendment or even that they should pay the whole of the charge, or failing that, as I understood him, that the Treasury should at least give very special consideration to the case of counties or districts where the valuation was of such a character as to make the charge fall heavily upon the district. I hope we may at least take it that the latter suggestion is really going to occupy his attention, and I take that as something in the nature of a pledge. If
    94
    the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of local extravagance, why can he not pay three-fourths of the charge, subject, in the first place, to his control over the estimate, and subject, if he likes, to a maximum of permitted expenditure which might very well bear some relation to the number of dependants? I do not see that there is any insuperable difficulty about that suggestion, though I can quite imagine it is not altogether a very easy thing to arrive at an exact figure. At any rate, it is quite clear that the argument of probable extravagance on the part of the committee is no answer whatever, nor do I see in the least why the human touch should be lost because the Treasury is paying three-fourths instead of a half of the expenses. I do not think that argument can be put forward seriously, and unless the right hon. Gentleman has some better argument than that, I feel that we must really press this proposal.
    Mr. MILLAR: May I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? I am sure after listening to the Debate he must realise that the feeling of the Committee is very strongly indeed in favour of the Amendment. The two chief supporters of the Clause as it stands have spoken from the Front Bench. We have had one speech from the hon. Baronet (Sir J. M'Callum) in support of it, but I rather think this speech was more directed to the principle that there should be some contribution made directly by the district concerned. I should like to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a strong ease made out for reconsideration of this matter and for approaching the Treasury. Several hon. Members have spoken for the poorer agricultural districts, and undoubtedly there is a special case to be made for such districts, and I would therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether he might not consider between this and the Report stage approaching the Treasury and voicing the strong feeling which is being expressed in the House of Commons that some more adequate provision should be made than a half, in view of the great number of Members who are against any contribution whatever being made by the rates, and who are at present concerned to see that if they accept the compromise something is given on the other side. I hope it may be possible for him to assure us between this and the Report stage that the whole matter will be carefully considered, with a view- to adding to the State contribu-

    95
    tion, and that the Bill on Report stage may be recommitted in order that this additional charge may be inserted.
    Mr. BARNES: One would have to be blind not to have gathered what was the opinion of the Committee during the last hour, and I should be exceedingly foolish not to have proper regard to it. I think I can appeal to the Committee to remember that in putting the Warrant through, which occupied two days, we had regard to the general feeling of the House, and adopted many provisions which were suggested to us. I could not possibly accept any Amendment just now, but I will represent what is evidently the feeling of the Committee to the Treasury, and I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that assurance.
    Sir J. SPEAR: There is one point which has not been mentioned, and which I should like to bring to the consideration of the Minister. The local authortics feel very strongly, not so much on the amount of money involved—neither the local authorities nor any section of the people begrudge the money required to deal liberally in the matter of pensions with the brave fellows who have fought our battles. Four years ago the House of Commons promised increased subventions from the Imperial Exchequer to local authorities in carrying out public work. That promise has never been carried out because of the War, and the local authorities feel that until it is redeemed, at least an increased burden ought not to be put on them. I know quite well that the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, promised with great emphasis that immediate steps should be taken to secure an increased Grant from the Imperial funds in relief of local rates. We know the reason why that promise has not been carried out, but to-day it is proposed to increase that burden to an extent beyond what is necessary to secure its economic administration. Therefore, in pressing the matter, the right hon. Gentleman would be acting contrary to the promise made by the Prime Minister. Unless he yields the point, the burden on local authorities will be increased and not diminished. No section of the British people begrudge the money for pensions. We only think that it is an Imperial responsibility, and, therefore, the Imperial funds should bear the largest share of the
    96
    cost. In point of principle the Amendment ought to be accepted readily by the Government.
    General IVOR PHILIPPS: I do not wish to detain the Committee, but as the chairman of a county council I wish to urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), after the word "estimate"["half of such estimate"], insert the words "as so approved."—[Mr. Barnes.]
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "or distributed amongst the councils liable to defray the expenses in proportion, if there is more than one council, to their several liabilities."
    This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment moved in the first part of the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. O'SHEE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words "provided that the charge for such expenses payable by the council of the county shall not in any case exceed the equivalent on one-eighth of a penny in the £ on the rateable valuation of the county. Where such expenditure would entail a greater charge the sum shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament."
    This Amendment is on an entirely different basis from that which we have been discussing. I assume that where the entire cost of the administrative expenses would not amount to more than one farthing in the £, one-half would be borne, as this Clause provides by the Treasury and one-half by the county. My Amendment proposes that where the total expenses would exceed one farthing in the £ that the county should bear half of the total surplus which would be one-eighth of a penny, and the surplus over one-eighth of a penny would be borne by the Treasury. This is to meet the case of small, sparsely populated counties or county boroughs, where the cost of administration would be high by reason of the number of pensioners resident in the county borough or in the county being abnormally high in proportion to population. There are some counties in which, for reasons we all understand, the number of pensioners will be much greater than in other counties,

    97
    and in the case of a small county or county borough it might happen that the result or the Clause at it stands without this Amendment would be that an unreasonable charge would have to be borne by the rates of such counties or county boroughs. We must remember that there is always a minimum charge for administrative expenses, and unless you provide some way by which a small county or county borough can avoid bringing on itself an unreasonable charge to the rates you must have regard to the fact that there is always a minimum beyond which you cannot go. The smallest county borough in Ireland, I think, is Waterford, and the population of Waterford city, I think, is 28,000. There are only six county boroughs in Ireland—Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Londonderry, and Waterford. The population of the smallest of these county boroughs, which means a county charge, is something like 28,000. In the county borough of Waterford at the present moment all the expenses are borne by money provided by the Statutory Committee The expenses amount to something like £100. Those expenses will probably increase as the number of pensioners disabled in the War increase. In the same way in other counties this charge will be an increasing charge for some time. Until the War is over it will be an increasing charge, and it will continue to be a very considerable charge for some years after the War, and then it will gradually diminish as the pensioners die off or as they recover from their wounds.
    I would suggest to the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill that he should consider this proposal, because it Is a way of relieving a small area which has to set up a committee and has to provide offices, a secretary, and all the other necessaries for carrying on the work of the committee. This Amendment would prevent such an area having an undue levy made upon the rates. The Pensions Minister gave us the case of Cardiff, where he said he found the charge for the present administrative expenses of the committee would only be one-eight of a penny in the £, and, therefore, the local rates would only have to bear one-sixteenth. Reference was also made to the County of London, in which it was stated that the charge would be one-eighteenth of a penny. My Amendment goes far beyond that in the matter of generosity from the local taxpayers, be-
    98
    cause it allows a charge of one-eighth of a penny to be imposed. Except in the small areas it is very likely that one farthing in the £ will be sufficient even after the War is over, and when the committees will have to do more work than they do now. Therefore, the ratepayers will be liable only to pay one-eighth of a penny: but in the small areas, and particularly in the poor areas, where you have to undertake a certain minimum expense in order to have your committee, and where you have to provide secretaries and clerks for the committee, the charge may be very much higher than one farthing in the £. It may be a penny, or even two pence in the pound. I want the Government in these cases to make a concession, so that the small areas will not have to bear an undue burden. I would ask the hon. Baronet to consider this matter, otherwise this Sub-section will work very unevenly, because large areas can be administered at a far less cost, and they will get off very lightly, while the smaller areas will have to bear an undue burden.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I hope the hon. Member will not persist in this Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister has just stated that he will represent the whole case, which includes, of course, the case of the smaller and poorer parts of the country, to the Treasury, with a view, if possible, to getting a scheme more in accordance with the general wishes of the House, and which will be more equitable to these poorer districts. I can assure the hon. Member that the proposal he has made will be submitted to the Treasury, together with the other proposals, but until we have had an opportunity of going to the Treasury and seeing what arrangement we can make, I would suggest to the hon. Member that it is not much use making other proposals now. At the same time, I can assure him that we will carefully consider what he has said.
    Mr. P. MEEHAN: I rise to support the Amendment because I believe there is a question of principle involved, and that is that the payment of these pensions and separation allowances is a national duty and should be paid out of the Imperial purse. The terms of the Financial Resolution passed last week preclude my moving an Amendment to that effect, and consequently, as my hon. Friend's Amendment goes some way in the direction I have indicated, I wish to

    99
    support it. He has put the case in regard to the poorer districts in Ireland, and the hon. Baronet has said that he will convey say hon. Friend's suggestions to the Treasury But we have no guarantee that the suggestions and the Amendment will be carried into effect, or that we shall be met in any way. If the hon. Baronet states that he will recommend to the Treasury that the sum to be defrayed out of the county funds should be limited to one-eighth of a penny in the £ on the Poor Rate, I think my hon. Friend would be satisfied to withdraw his Amendment. Unless we have something clear and definite on that matter I think my hon. Friend should press his Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move to insert the following Subsection:
    "(3) Every local committee shall at such time as the Local Government Board may direct submit to the council of the county borough or urban district. by whom the administrative expenses of the committee are to be defrayed an estimate of the administrative expenses proposed to be incurred by the county within such period as the Board may direct, and may from time to time submit supplementary estimates."
    This is the new Sub-section which I promised when my right hon. friend the Member for Ashford withdrew his Amendment earlier in the proceedings. If it does not entirely meet the views of hon. Members interested in this part of the question we will reconsider the exact words.
    Mr. HOGGE: The other day we were dealing with a Bill which was not printed on the ground that it was too expensive. I suppose that my hon. friend will guarantee that he is going to print this.
    The CHAIRMAN: That was when there was only a single Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HARDY: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "the"["county the expenses"], to leave out the words to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "county council shall make a contribution towards the expenses of such separate local committee, and such con-
    100
    tribution shall be based upon the amount by which the liability of the county council may reasonably be reduced owing to the establishment of such separate local committee, and the amount of such contribution shall, in case of dispute, be determined by the Local Government Board, whose decision shall be final."
    In consequence of the changes which have been made by which local committees are to be set up, which are not to be allowed to have a certain portion of the duties which now fall upon local committees, this is a matter which will involve a good deal of expense, and will be a permanent call lasting after the conclusion of the War. It is necessary, therefore, to discriminate between the expenses which will fall upon the local authority and the expenses which will remain with the county council. My Amendment is an endeavour to deal with that matter. I am not altogether satisfied that this is the very best way to deal with it, and if the Government will say that they will consider the matter further, or that they desire to put forward any scheme, I do not desire to press my particular suggestion; but I do think that something is necessary, and in order to raise a discussion I move my Amendment.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I desire to support my hon. Friend. We all aim at the same thing, that is that no locality shall pay twice over, and that each locality shall pay the administrative expenses in relation to the actual work for which it is responsible. I might suggest to my hon. Friend that perhaps between now and the Report stage he might be willing to meet a few representatives of the particular bodies concerned, and if this is done, that general agreement can be reached as to the best way of carrying out the common object on which we are all agreed. I dare say the plan of the hon. Gentleman may turn out to be the best, but we would all like an opportunity before the matter is finally arranged of submitting our views.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am obliged to my hon. Friends for the spirit in which they have approached this matter. We are entirely in agreement with their object. They maintain that where the functions are divded between the council of a county and a borough each should pay for its particular share of the work they do, and neither should be called

    101
    upon to pay for what is done by the other. That principle is absolutely sound. The only difference between the Government and my right hon. Friend is that we propose to do it the other way round. What my hon. Friend proposes is that all boroughs—I am not speaking of county boroughs, but of non-county boroughs and urban districts—which have separate committees shall in the first instance pay the county a rate which would go towards the expenses of the county committees, and then be recouped by the county. We think it would be better if in the first instance they did not pay the county, in other words, if the expense should be a special county expense, but that afterwards they should recoup the county for the amount of work which the county does on their behalf. This only arises in the case of those new committees with limited powers which we propose to set up under Clause 3. In those cases we have local committees doing everything except treatment. We think that our plan is simpler, for this reason, that we shall only have this adjustment in those comparatively few cases in which there were those local committees set up under this Bill. Under the plan proposed by my right hon. Friend you would have an adjustment in every case where there was a local committee belonging either to a non-county borough or an urban district council.
    As we think an adjustment easier in the way we propose I am going to suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment and that we accept an Amendment to Clause 3, which will really meet the whole of his difficulties. We propose, at the end of Clause 3, to insert the words,
    "Provided that where such functions are not so delegated the local committee of the borough or district shall contribute such amount as may be agreed on, or in default of agreement may be determined by the Local Government Board which shall be paid by the local committee of the borough or urban district towards the administrative expenses of the local committee of the county in respect of the exercise of such functions within the borough or urban district, and such contribution shall, for the purpose of this Act, be treated as part of the administrative expenses of the local committee of the borough or urban district."
    102
    If this plan of ours were accepted we should be willing between now and the Report stage to consult some of the officers of the bodies interested, one or two experts, as to what is the best course to adopt. I hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment and will allow me to move this Amendment later on.
    Mr. HARDY: I think that this is a question which would be best settled on Report. I confess that I cannot at the moment follow words which are dealing with an extremely complicated matter, but I am perfectly willing to accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, to withdraw my Amendment now, and let him put in his Amendment later, with of course the reservation that we must be at liberty to reconsider the matter when the Bill comes up on Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (4), after the word "of" ["purposes of this"], insert the words "the foregoing provisions of."
    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to move, after the word "local," to insert the words "or sub-committee."
    The object of this is to make it perfectly clear that the Clause which authorises the payment of travelling expenses shall also extend to sub-committees. I think this is necessary as the matter is not adequately covered by the words "sub-committees" lower down. It is perfectly obvious that the bulk of the personal expenses will be incurred by the sub-committees, some of which may be a considerable distance from the homes of the persons dealt with.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am willing to accept that Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move to add the following new Subsection,
    "(5) Where in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section two of the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Expenses Act, 1916, the council of a county or borough or urban district have, before the passing of this Act, made, or hereafter make, payments towards the administrative expenses of any local committee or district committee appointed under the principal Act incurred in respect of the period

    103
    before the passing of this Act, and the aggregate amount of such payments exceeds the one-half of the administrative expenses of the committee for such period, a sum equal to the excess shall, if and so far as the Local Government Board have sanctioned or may hereafter approve such expenses, be repaid to the council out of moneys provided by Parliament."
    The sole object is to make the payment retrospective in the case of those local committees who have already made contribution under the Military and War Pensions Expenses Act, 1916. The position is that power was given optionally to local authorities to contribute towards the expenses of these local committees. A great many have done so—I think the number is fifty-five in England and eight in Scotland. In some cases they have paid more than the half which they would be required to pay under this Bill. In those cases we propose to repay them the excess that they have paid up to this.
    Mr. HARDY: I understand that this Amendment is intended to deal with the retrospective portion of the Bill, in order to clear those counties which have already contributed. In regard to the question of excess, I do not quite understand how the matter is arrived at. Are there any words in the Bill which enable half of the administrative expenses to be recovered since July? The Clause only speaks of excess over one-half the expenses. I am afraid I do not quite understand whether or not the Government take power to pay half the expenses from last July up to the time of the passing of the Bill If the hon. Gentleman will make that quite clear, I shall be extremely glad. I presume that the Government do intend to carry out the effect of the Amendment which stands in my name immediately after the Amendment now before the Committee, namely, that the provision shall apply as from the first day of July, 1916. It does not appear quite clear from the Amendment on the Paper that the county councils will be enabled to recover the half of the contributions.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am afraid I did not make myself quite clear. If the county council pays one-half of the expenses up to now, we do not propose to cover that half; but what we do propose is to cover any excess over the half which
    104
    they may have contributed. Under the Act of 1916 they were allowed to contribute, but the amount they contributed was not in any way fixed. As we now say that it is to be a question of half-and-half, we hold that it is only fair to the local authority that where they have paid more than half, then they should be enabled to recover the excess over the half. The Amendment I have proposed I think carries that out. We do not propose to pay the whole, but only the excess over the half.
    Sir R. ADKINS: We propose to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but in connection with this we want to have words put into the Bill that the obligation of the Treasury to pay half shall date back to last July. There are a number of county and borough councils that have been incurring expenditure, and are doing so to-day before this Bill is passed, and so far as a proportion is fixed, they are only asking for that proportion, but we are concerned to know the date to which the proposal ultimately arrived at by this Bill will apply. We want to know how far it will go back. The Amendment before the House is quite right so far as it goes. But take, for example, the county of whose council I am a member. We have been contributing for many months to the Statutory Committee, and, so far as we were able, we have been meeting our expenses by an equivalent amount. What we want to know is whether the obligation of the Treasury to supply half or three-quarters, or whatever the House determines, applies, if the Bill becomes an Act, to expenditure already incurred with the sanction of the Statutory Committee from last July? We are anxious that should not be forgotten, and we thought it might possibly be dealt with in this Amendment.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am afraid I have not been fortunate enough to make my meaning clear, though I think the matter is quite clear. From any date from which the local authority, acting under the provisions of the Naval and Military and War Pensions (Expenses) Act, 1916, whether from the 1st of July, the 1st May, or whatever date, any date on which the local authority commenced spending money, under the Act of 1916. if they have spent more than half in administrative expenses, to the extent of that excess they will be repaid.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Supposing they have been paying since last July, what is there in this Bill to show that they are going to be repaid half for the period between last July and to-day?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: This Amendment is trying to do that very thing.
    Sir R. ADKINS: It deals with more than half.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have already stated that the repayment is only in respect of excess over half. The local authorities were authorised to make contribution, but it was not stated whether that contribution was to be three-quarters or any other proportion, but we now state in this Bill that the proportion is to be half-and-half. That being so, we say to those authorities who have been contributing more than half, "We will recoup you the excess over the half." We are not going to pay the half, because they have a perfect light to contribute under the Act, and they did so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Administrative Expense of the Statutory Committee.)
    For Sub-section (5) of Section 1 of the principal Act, which relates to the administrative expenses of the Statutory Committee, the following Sub-section shall be substituted:
    "(5) All other expenses of the committee (including such travelling expenses to members of the committee and its sub-committees as the committee may determine) shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the committee."
    Amendment made: After the word expenses"["travelling expenses to members"], insert the words "and other allowances."—[Mr. Barnes.]
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, after the word "determine"["committee may determine"], to insert the words "in accordance with the scale approved by the Treasury."
    This Amendment has reference to the travelling expenses of the Statutory Committee, and the provision in the Act of 1916 has reference to travelling expenses and other allowances for members of a
    106
    sub-commttee of the Statutory Committee, and the effect of this Amendment is that they are to be determined "in accordance with the scale approved by the Treasury."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Local Committees far Certain Boroughs and Urban Districts.)
    Notwithstanding anything in Subsection (4) of Section two of the principal Act and without prejudice to the powers thereunder, a separate local committee may, if the Minister of Pensions so determine, after consultation with the county council, be established under the principal Act for any borough or urban district having a population of less than fifty thousand and not less than twenty thousand the council of which so desires, so, however, that such local committee shall not exercise the functions of a local committee set forth in paragraph (f) of Section four of the principal Act, but those functions shall continue to be exercised as respects the borough or urban district by the local committee for the county in which the borough or urban district is situate, except so far as such functions may be delegated by the local committee of the county to the local committee of the borough or urban district.
    Sir N. HELME: I beg to move to leave cut the words "after consultation with the county council."
    This point was raised on the Second Reading with regard to the necessity of the Pensions Minister having to consult the county council under the powers of the Bill. We recognise, at once, that of course the Pensions Minister must take into account all the various interests involved; but we object to the introduction into an Act of Parliament of a provision that would fetter his action in dealing with this important question. There is no doubt whatever that Parliament has expressed its desire that the powers of the authorities who administer this Act shall be extended to the smaller urban authorities. We welcome the proposal of the Government, but at the same time we think it is not a question of generosity, as my hon. and learned Friend suggested the other day in dealing with this matter; we think it is quite unnecessary, and there-

    107
    fore, while disclaiming any want of courtesy to the county councils, I venture to submit this Amendment.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I should like to explain in a very few words why this proposal of my hon. Friend is not only unnecessary but is unfair. At the present time the county council, without asking for it, has had put upon it, by Act of Parliament, through the Statutory Committee, the duty of carrying out the appointment of local committees and of finding, as it has to do, a considerable proportion of the expenses. This Bill has been brought in with the cordial acquiescence of the county councils to authorise the Minister of Pensions to form committees in certain parts of the county boroughs or urban districts for certain purposes under the Act. We have not the smallest objection to my right hon. Friend or his successors having the power, but we do say that it would be obviously unfair that the powers should be exercised without the county councils having the opportunity of explaining how they have tried to do their duty and how the arrangements which they have been obliged to make will be effected by the cutting out of certain areas. Does the hon. Member intend that county councils shall not be consulted or shall be consulted? If he thinks that they ought to be consulted, why on earth cannot that power be put into the Act of Parliament as a permanent guarantee?
    7.0 P.M.
    I should have liked to see what the position would have been if the case had been reversed. Supposing a Bill had been brought into the House authorising the President of the Local Government Board to take away from the urban districts and small boroughs certain powers they were discharging and giving them to the county councils. Every representative of small boroughs, every Member of this House in whose constituency there are urban districts or small boroughs would have been here from the beginning to the end of the Debate to say what an outrage it was to take away these powers without giving them a guarantee in the Act of Parliament that they would have a hearing and would be consulted before they were mulcted of their powers. I should have been one of the first to support that, and the county councils themselves would have supported it, because the rule is very simple, very clear, and very fair, that if a Minister of the Crown or a Government Department
    108
    is authorised to alter the powers of any local authorities, small or large, those authorities ought to have a right by Statute to be heard before it is done. The county councils support this Bill in certain cases where the limited autonomy offered in this measure would be rightly used. But the county councils have already made their arrangements, and they have made them with small towns as centres for pensions administration with an area all round them. If you take away the small towns, which may be quite right, the county councils have therefore to make new arrangements for the districts around them. Therefore, it
    is obvious that the county council ought to be heard and ought to be consulted. My hon. Friend admits that, but will not have it in an Act of Parliament. Why? He is not afraid of it being acted on, if you put it in the Act. I say it ought to be in any Act of Parliament whenever you interfere with a local authority, whether county council or district council, by administrative Act, or by Government Department, and that the local authority concerned should have a guarantee in the Act that they will be heard on the question, in order that the matter may be properly discussed, and in order that the consequential arrangements may be made as smoothly as possible and without friction and with mutual good will. I hope that the House will not accept this Amendment, and that the Government will adhere to the original form, and I can assure them they will not find on behalf of the county councils anything but the wish to meet their wishes and to promote the harmonious working of the Act in all parts of the country.
    Major NEWMAN: The Association of Urban District Councils has asked me to press very strongly for this Amendment. I am not in any way attacking the county councils, so ably championed by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Adkins). At the same time I do not want to disguise that there is a certain feeling between the urban district councils and the county councils with regard to this War Pensions Bill. A great many people imagine the urban council to be a very small and insignificant body. In my Division there are two urban district councils, each of which has a population of over 70,000, which is, I imagine, rather bigger than that of some county councils. To

    109
    say that the Pensions Minister has got to consult the County Council of Middlesex before he can deal with great bodies like those urban councils to which I have referred, is very foolish.
    Sir R. ADKINS: At the present time, under the Act of Parliament, the County Council of Middlesex has been obliged to make arrangements for pensions administration in those very urban districts that the hon. and gallant Member so brilliantly represents, and surely they ought to be consulted before consequential arrangements are made.
    Major NEWMAN: There is no reason why the Pensions Minister should not consult the county councils, if he wants to. He can consult anybody he likes, but why should that be put in an Act of Parliament? What we ought to have, if words are necessary, I should imagine should be something like this: "Consult all parties concerned." What we do object to as urban councils is a provision that it shall and must consult county councils before taking any steps. I do on behalf of the association, at any rate, press very strongly for this Amendment.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I cannot understand why the Pensions Minister should be so coy in not accepting this Amendment. I have never known any Minister in this House refuse a little more power and in fact the more power they get the more they welcome it. Why is it he is opposing this very little proposal? It only means that he will have a perfectly free hand to consult whomsoever he pleases, and will not be fettered by these words, which would compel him, whether he liked it or not, to consult the county councils. I wonder where is the "hidden hand," what are the dark forces at work that force the Pensions Minister, who I am perfectly certain from my knowledge of Ministers, ranging over many years, would like to have his hands free—who is it, I ask, who is pulling against him? I believe I see the dark forces. I have every regard and respect for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins). I have known him ever since I became a Member, and honoured him and admired him, but there is one thing about him which I must say detracts from his otherwise excellent character and position. He has got a bee in his bonnet for the county councils, and if you but mention county councils my hon. and
    110
    learned Friend loses his old and pristine judgment. I believe my hon. and learned Friend as a member of the Statutory Committee has been an enemy to these small boroughs
    Sir R. ADKINS: The last time the hon. Member said that I pointed out that it had no basis of fact, and I repeat now that it is entirely opposite to the line I have taken on that Committee from the very beginning.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance, if he says that, but then I cannot understand why he is such an advocate of county councils in this House for this provision against the Amendment. The Pensions Minister, on the Second Reading the other day, said that l was wrong in my statement as to what he had said last year on the 8th August. I think I convinced my right hon. Friend that at all events it was not I who had made a mistake, and that it was the OFFICIAL REPORT, if it was anyone. If the Pensions Minister does not choose to correct the OFFICIAL REPORT he cannot blame people for quoting what he did say in August last, when he had more freedom and less responsibility than he now has. The statement which appeared then was that he said that there had been 207 applications from small boroughs before the Statutory Committee, and that of those something like fifty applications had been granted. He corrected that figure on the Second Reading, and said there had been 158 applicants and that something like fifty had been granted.
    Sir R. ADKINS: The hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that under that Act, unlike this, there was no power to give a separate committee, except under special circumstances.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I agree, but I have not said anything to show that I did not understand that. I mentioned that on second Reading, and if my hon. and learned Friend wishes I can repeat the speech. I am dealing now with what the Pensions Minister said on Second Reading. He said that two-thirds of the applications from these small bodies had been refused. I venture to say, in spite of what my hon. and learned Friend has said, that the real reason why a great number of those were rejected was because the county councils were hostile to them, and now you are going to add to

    111
    the megalomania about the county councils by putting them into the Bill as the only people mentioned to be consulted. My hon. and learned Friend says that there were special reasons required in those cases before a separate committee could be set up. I agree, but in a case for my own Constituency every special circumstance was questioned, and in a far greater degree than from any other borough in Lancashire or Yorkshire, of which the Pensions Minister was so proud. Yet we could not persuade either the Statutory Committee or anybody else to give this elemental justice. The special circumstances were these: The first was that there must be a great number of people who had enlisted. I pointed out that more people had enlisted from this one town in my Constituency than any town with its population in the Kingdom. The second special circumstance was that there must have been something like a great disaster to the people who had enlisted from the particular town. I pointed out that one battalion from this peace in my Constituency had lost three-fourths of its numbers at Suvla Bay. Another special circumstance, we were told by the Statutory Committee, was that it ought to be an industrial town in an agricultural area. That is exactly the point of my Constituency. Another special circumstance was that it should be near the corner of a large county, and that is exactly the case with it. Though we urged these special circumstances upon the Statutory Committee, and though we made out a convincing case, we could not get a little elementary justice, because the county council was opposed to it.
    We are told now that the county council is to be the authority consulted. If you do consult the county councils these local committees will never be set up as this House desires. I am perfectly willing to leave the matter in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister. He is a fair-minded man, he will do justice, he will consider the interests involved, and will give due weight to them. If you consult the county councils they will say, "What is the good of consulting us if you do not listen to our advice?" That is the reason why I urge my right hon. Friend not to listen to the blandishments of my hon. and learned Friend the hon. and learned Member for Middleton, or indeed listen to his
    112
    Friends. I notice he has come nearer to my right hon. Friend, he is afraid my right hon. Friend's sense of fairness has been touched by what I have said, but I am perfectly certain my right hon. Friend is not going to be intimidated by the august presence which comes nearer and nearer, like a moving mountain. If my right hon. Friend will do justice in this case, the first thing he ought to do is to leave himself free and unfettered in this matter, and not allow himself to be bullied or cajoled by the county councils and their emissaries in this House, but to do justice in the small boroughs which have been hitherto seeking in vain for justice.
    Mr. HARDY: My hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken appears in a new role for him, if he is now going in for the autocracy of Ministers. The Clause does leave the Minister absolutely unfettered in connection with this matter, and it is the Minister of Pensions who determines the question. Therefore it lies entirely upon him. If we do appeal to justice we must regard the justice of the parties interested. I think the parties interested are undoubtedly those to whom this House confided the management of those local committees during the months that the Act has been in operation, and I think it is due to them, if alterations are made by a subsequent Act. to give them the opportunity of offering their advice in connection with the matter in response to an appeal from the Minister of Pensions. I think the Government are right in inserting these words, and that it is only fair that the county councils who have been working out this question should be consulted in connection with the new arrangement. I can assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williams) that there will be no reluctance on the part of the county councils to carry out this new Clause, because it differs entirely from past enactments. Hitherto we were tied round with extremely difficult conditions under the old Act, and we were not able to con-criminate between the claims of different districts. If we gave to one we had to give to all. Now the matter is to be regarded in a new light, and I hope that the Government will adhere to their first intentions in this matter and not yield to the appeals which have been made to them.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I am wondering why the friends of the county councils are so excited and heated over this matter.

    113
    They tell us they are fully prepared to give every facility for carrying out this Clause, and to meet the requirements of the urban councils, but if that is the case, why do they want to be bolstered up by this statutory enactment? Those of us who have had some experience have an idea why. This is not the first time that we have had a fight between the urban councils and the county councils, and some of us have urban councils that are larger than some of the boroughs in our counties, and many of us are aware that when they want to get full statutory powers to work and to get some concession from a Minister they do not care to be put by Statute under the control of the county councils. That a Minister should consult every authority before he decides on a policy is quite right, and nobody objects to that, but why he should be compelled by Act of Parliament to consult the county councils I cannot see at all. There is no justification for such a power. I do not say that county councils could use much influence against the existing Minister of Pensions, but you might have some weaker Minister in office, and a county council that did not want a new local committee set up might come along, and he might say, "I have only got to consult you; I have all the power of finally deciding." What then will be their argument? They will say, "Then why are we so definitely referred to in this Clause, if we are only to be a consultative body? It means that we are a consultative body, and that you having learned our opinion, are to follow it out." I do not see any reason why these words should be put in a Clause of this description. The county councils know they will receive all the consideration to which they are entitled from the Minister of Pensions, but they have failed to demonstrate why they should have this statutory power.
    Mr. HOHLER: I support this Amendment. I see no use in these words, and I agree entirely with the arguments that have been presented against them. Subject to these words, we have got a Minister responsible to Parliament. and he will make such inquiries as he thinks fit. The hon. Member for Middleton (Sir W. R. Adkins) reminded us that the words in the old Act were "special circumstances," but I listened to his speech, and what was his own plea? It was "special circumstances" from first to last. It was that the county council, might have made other arrangements. Now that we have
    114
    got rid of these special circumstances, I think we should get rid of these words, which have absolutely no meaning and are valueless for all purposes. I therefore ask the Minister to delete these words and to leave the Clause so that he will not be fettered by this provision in an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. W. T. WlLSON: I am convinced that in the interests of the Minister himself it would not be wise to leave these words in, and I say that, for the dignity of his office, he ought to agree to take these words out. I want to ask whether the representatives of the county councils, taking them in bulk, are favourable to the smaller constituencies, like the urban councils, having the power to appoint a committee. In my opinion the recommendations of the county councils will, in nineteen cases out of twenty, be against giving the local authorities this power. [An HON. MEMBER:"NO, no!"] It is all very well for hon. Members to say "No, no," but I know what the response of county councils has been where there are local committees now, and where the local committees wanted to get working men on, and I have not the least confidence so far as these matters are concerned in the county councils. I therefore hope that the light hon. Gentleman will agree to the deletion of these words.
    Mr. BARNES: I am between the devil and the deep sea in this matter. I can assure hon. Members, at all events, that the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir W. E. Adkins) had no voice in the terms of this Bill. So far as I am aware, the Bill was drawn up before he saw it, and it is only within the last week or two that, in common with all other hon. Members, the hon. Member has seen the Bill at all. The words are here, and they are here for an obvious reason. They are not meant to give the county councils a veto over the Minister of Pensions. The Minister of Pensions is charged in this Bill to consult the county councils. Everybody agrees that that is a reasonable thing to do, and I have not heard a single argument against it. It is not as if we were setting up a new authority. It has been said by some of those who have urged this on me that when authorities are set up throughout the country, the county councils have not been consulted. That may be so, but we are not here setting up a new thing; we are dealing with a thing that is a year old. The county councils have, under the

    115
    terms of the 1915 Act, already set up local committees, sub-committees, district committees, and so on, and to tear a place out of a county now would be to dislocate the organisation which has been set up by the county councils. That is the simple and obvious reason for the inclusion of these words in the Bill, and there have not been any mischievous machinations by the hon. Member for Middleton or by anybody else connected with the county councils. The whole thing was done inside the Pensions Department without any consultation with the county councils.
    Something has been said about the character of the county councils, and that they are not favourable to the local committees at all. I do not think that has any bearing on this matter, and so far as my experience has gone on the Statutory Committee I do not remember any aversion on the part of the county councils to labour representation. On the contrary, it has been the other way round. Workmen have beep put on the county council local committees, and the workmen have been found unable to attend those committees. [An Hon. MEMBER:"YOU are bound to put them on."] We are bound to put some on, but, as I say, the setting up of these committees by the county councils has been done under the Statutory Committee, and we have not found that objection to labour representatives going on. I have heard these heated arguments this evening, but I have not heard any valid reason why these words should come out, and if there may be a lingering suspicion that county councils are not all they ought to be, from the labour point of view or from any other point of view, let me remind hon. Gentlemen that as a matter of fact the County Councils Pensions Committee will be the persons consulted. I am assuming that the ordinary county council has got the ordinary common sense. They have had a county scheme operating for a year, and a district desires to be cut out. The county council would at once consult the pensions committee, and that is so obvious a thing to do that I refuse to believe the county council would not do it. The pensions committee consists of all classes, including at least one-fifth of labour men and some women, and if that is not sufficient to get the opinion of which hon. Members speak. I cannot understand the argument. As I say, I
    116
    have not heard any valid argument sufficient to induce me to take these words out.
    Mr. HOGGE: I do not think the Minister of Pensions has made his position good. After all, the Minister ought to be in these cases, surely, the referee, to whom these bodies that cannot get their committees should have the right to appeal, and if they have not that right of appeal without it being made first of all compulsory that my right hon. Friend should consult the county councils, then it obviously does tie his hands, and that seems to be the valid reason that he says he has not yet heard why these words should be taken out. Take the case of my hon. Friend who represents the Borough of Llanelly. Llanelly's case may be good or it may be bad, but they are very determined to have, if they can secure it, a specific committee for that borough. That borough can by this Clause appeal to my right hon. Friend, and I have sufficient confidence in him to believe that he would weigh the pros and cons of that particular application, and say whether or not in his deliberate judgment it ought to have the committee. But this Act of Parliament compels my right hon. Friend, before he acts in the matter, to consult with the county council—that is to say, he cannot come to a decision unless he has fulfilled this statutory function which is imposed upon him by Act of Parliament. It is quite true, as many hon. Members have said, that he would never dream of coming to a decision without consulting the county council. I dare say he would go further than that, and would consult a great many interests in that particular portion of Wales before he came to a decision. I do not think the Pensions Minister has any right, through an Act of Parliament, to tie himself and his successors—if any—in the administration of pensions to consultation with the county council.
    Look at what might happen. Let me put this case to my right hon. Friend. I do not think it an impossible case to arise. Supposing you get a recalcitrant county council which was not particularly keen in carrying out this part of its public work. There are county and borough councils and public bodies who are not wishful to do some kinds of work. Supposing in such a borough or county there is the necessity to deal with disabled soldiers for any purpose at all, would these

    117
    disabled men have to suffer a disadvantage because the county council would not move in regard to them? Take the case of sparsely populated counties, about which we have heard so much to-day. Suppose in Ireland or in Scotland, say, the county council does not provide sufficiently for the people in the county to get at the provision which is made for them by the new Royal Warrant, and other provisions which may subsequently come. Suppose they do not do that: has anybody to have the right to go to the Pensions Minister and to see that the scheme of pensions is properly administered? This puts a specific barrier—it may or may not operate—in an Act of Parliament between any borough, or any small town that wants a committee getting that committee, unless and until my right hon. Friend has consulted the county council. That is a ridiculous position. I think my right hon. Friend, if he had been below the Gangway beside my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton, would have agreed with him. It is an absolutely ridiculous position for the Minister to get himself into. I hope, for the purpose of freeing his hands, for the purpose of not having it put into statutory form, that he may be biassed by the county council he is compelled to consult, that my right hon. Friend will take this out of the Act of Parliament, and that he will allow the county council or any other public body to approach him through the legitimate channels now open to them.
    This matter will be challenged by some of us if my hon. Friend does not go to a Division. It is an unheard-of thing that in an Act of Parliament a Minister's hands should be tied in this way. There is no precedent for it. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board are all interested in carrying this Bill through the House. They can speak again in this Debate. Can they give us a single precedent in legislation where a Minister of the Crown is compelled to consult an inferior public body before he comes to a decision? There is no such precedent. As there is
    no such precedent in legislation—if there is I do not know it—I should like to know what it is that is urging this thing through. The House plight not to come to a decision without being fully informed of the reason. If there is not a precedent for a Minister consulting another public body, then there is some specific reason for this being put in. There is no reason alleged why the county council or any other public body should not approach my hon. Friend just the same as any of his colleagues here in this House of Commons. I therefore appeal to him that if he has not heard any valid reason before, that in the few remarks I have made he will find that reason and will change his mind: otherwise, I am afraid we shall have to go to a Division, and, if we are beaten now, fight this matter again on the Report stage.
    Sir G. RADFORD: My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh has advanced arguments of considerable length and extraordinary tenuity. It is to be regretted that after having contributed so much utility and wisdom to this Debate he should have spun it out so thin on the present occasion. The argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions as to his reasons for consulting the county council on occasion is that there are already in existence committees appointed by the county council. That seems to me to be quite convincing. I cannot for my part see that any harm is likely to come of it. It is suggested that the right hon. Gentleman is likely to be too much influenced by the particular county council; but he has not sworn "to love, honour, and obey" any county council! He is under an obligation to hear the representatives of the county council on a matter which concerns them and their constituents, and then to come to his own decision. I hope there will be no occasion to divide on this matter, and that my hon. Friends opposite will be satisfied with the information given to them on this rather trivial question.
    Question put. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 59.

    Division No. 17.]

    AYES.

    [7.38 p.m.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Boscawen, Sir A. S. T. Griffith-

    Ashley, W. W.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Boyton, James

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bathurst, Capt. Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Brookes, Warwick

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Broughton, Urban Hanlon

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Ivor (Southampton)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Hills, John Waller

    Pratt, J. W.

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Hinds, John

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Radford, Sir George Heynes

    Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Illingworth, Herbert H.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Johnston, Christopher N.

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Tyneslde)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. W. H.

    Jones, Rt Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Rutherford, Watson (L'rpool, W. Derby)

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Law, Rt Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Fell, Arthur

    Lewis, RE Hen. John Herbert

    Shortt, Edward

    Finney, Samuel

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brown lee

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Macmaster, Donald

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Forster, Henry William

    M'Micking Major Gilbert

    Tickler, T. G.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Teyon, Captain George Clement

    Gardner, Ernest

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Watt, Henry A.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Maicolm, Ian

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Williams, Col Sir Robert (Dorset. W.)

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Winfrey. Sir Richard

    Gretton, John

    Mond. Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Hardy, Rt Hon. Laurence

    Nield. Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

    Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Beck.

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

    NOES.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Horne, Edgar

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Baker. Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Boland, John Plus

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Dowd, John

    Boyle. Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Shee, James John

    Burns. Rt. Hon. John

    Kiley, James Daniel-

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Reddy, Michael

    Cosgrave, James

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rowlands, James

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sealy, Lt-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

    Dillon, John

    McGhee, Richard

    Sheehy, David

    Donelan, Captain A.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Doris, William

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Snowden, Philip

    Duffy, William J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Touche, Sir George Alexander

    Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Goldstone, Frank

    Molloy, Michael

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hackett, John

    Newman. John R. P.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nolan, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

    Hogge and Mr. Llewelyn Williams.

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. KILEY: I beg to move, after the word "Act"["be established under the principal Act for any borough"], to insert the words "for the City of London and any Metropolitan borough and."
    I move this Amendment on behalf of the Noble Lord the Member for South Kensington (Lord Claud Hamilton). The object of the Amendment is quite clear. It is to enable any or all of the Metropolitan boroughs who desire it to have the right of looking after their citizens when they
    120
    are broken in health, subject, of course, to the permission—if I may use that term—of the Minister of Pensions. I have had an opportunity of reading the Debates which took place in this House on the introduction of the first Pensions Bill, and I find there expressed the intention of the Government of that time that the Metropolitan boroughs should have, as have other boroughs in the county, the right of district committees. An attempt was made to remove that right, but the Minister in charge of the Bill, the right

    121
    hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) resisted that proposal, and said:
    Such it proposal as suggested would be most unpopular, not only with the Metropolitan boroughs, but with the wives and widows of those for whose advantage the committees were being set up.
    That clearly shows that when the Bill of 1915 was before this House it was the intention that the Metropolian boroughs should be placed in the same position as the other boroughs throughout the country; but when that Bill became law those boroughs were not to be found in the Bill, and, as a consequence, the power of nominating these committees was left to the county council, and thereby the borough councils were not permitted to appoint or take control. There may be very good reasons why the county council should have this power, and knowing the ability of many distinguished Members in this House who are on the county council, if those gentlemen were prepared to work these committees, I would be somewhat reluctant to intervene. But what has happened? Sub-committees have been appointed by the county council for the Metropolitan boroughs, and I have before me a list of the committees whom they have set up for the borough of Stepney, a great industrial district. The county council evidently had some difficulty in finding people to undertake this work. I have before me a list of one of these committees. They have appointed a lady from Westminster, another lady from Blackheath, another lady from Rushey, from Westminster, another lady from Hampstead, another lady from Kensington, and another lady from Marylebone. They have appointed a gentleman from Woolwich, another gentleman from Kensington, and another gentleman from Bow. Can you imagine that in a great working-class district it is not possible to find more suitable people than the people who have been selected? I have no objection, and I do not want to complain in the slightest of the good people who have, no doubt at considerable sacrifice and considerable cost to themselves, gone down to that borough and done the best they could, but we venture to think locally that we could do it quite as well and very much better.
    This Amendment would give us the opportunity of looking after the interests of our own people. It was my duty and my privilege, at the time of the recruiting scheme, at the request of the Powers-that-Be, as mayor of the borough, to undertake
    122
    the organisation of that work. We called our townsmen to their duty to fight for their country. It is now my painful duty, as chairman of the tribunal, to call our citizens together and to compel them to-go and fight for their country. But when they come back, broken in health, that is a time when the Powers-that-Be consider we are not capable, or are not fit, to safeguard the interests of those people. Surely that is a proposal that could not be defended or justified for a moment, and that is one of the reasons why we feel locally so grieved at the action which has deprived us of our rights to safeguard and look after our own citizens when they come back. I am told the question will be raised that since the local committees have been set up and are working, why disturb them? We have been told that they are doing their work, and are doing it well. Let us see how it works out. The other day I was consulted on behalf of a discharged soldier who is receiving 4s. 6d. a week from Chelsea. He found himself unable to continue the light employment upon which he was engaged, and the 4s. 6d. and the few shillings he was able to earn were not sufficient. It was therefore suggested that he should apply to the committee. It took us some time to find out where this local committee was located, but eventually it was found, and the man was sent there. He was told to come back on another day between ten and twelve. He got there on the appointed day at ten o'clock, and waited in a queue till twelve. He was then told that no more cases could be seen that day, and that he must come back another day. The result was that the man decided he would not come back and waste any more time, but that he would rather put up with the few shillings he earned and the four shillings and sixpence. That is how it works out. Surely it would be much better that the local authorities at their town's building should have the control-of the work, and the duty and responsibility of looking after their own citizens. That is the place that sent them to the Army, and that is the place where they should apply when they want assistance, and where they can feel that the corporation and members of the council would be there to look after their interests.
    There is one other point which, I think, should not be overlooked. The places from which the sub-committees come, as I have already shown, are all places in and around London, except the borough itself.

    123
    Why should it not be possible for such a man as I have mentioned to apply in the evening, so that he would not be compelled to lose the few shillings he is able to earn? I am afraid it is impossible with these good folks who come from all districts in far-away places, but there should be no difficulty in that being arranged locally, if permission is given to the council themselves to organise the work in the way I think it should be. There is only one reason, I think, that will be brought forward, and that is, Do not disturb the present committee. That is an argument which I noticed was used very largely when it was proposed to set up these committees, namely, that there were already committees doing this work, and why disturb them? Nevertheless, the House, in its wisdom, decided to set up new committees. These sub-committees have been appointed eight or nine months, and there is no serious reason in my judgment why they should not be superseded by a responsible local committee. On behalf of my borough I can promise any of those good friends who are now working in the district that they will receive every opportunity of continuing their labour, and we should only be too glad if a certain number would remain and assist. But I do maintain in all sincerity that the duty of looking after these men is a local matter, and should be left to the local people, and any suggestion that these men would suffer by being transferred to a local committee is one that cannot be maintained for a moment.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I desire to second this Amendment, which is a permissive and not a compulsory Amendment, and which goes to restore the former intention of this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) stated that an Amendment cutting out the Metropolitan boroughs in this matter was moved in Committee on the main Bill, and was not accepted. The same Amendment was moved again on Report, and also was not accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel read the statement which my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board made in the Debate in Committee, but I should like to read to the Committee also his statement made in discussion on the same Amendment on Report. He said:
    "I have been in communication with several members of the London County Council, and I am
    124
    more than ever strengthened in my view that each Metropolitan borough should have the option of setting up a committee of its own…While having every desire to meet the wishes of the London County Council, I cannot say that I think that the Metropolitan boroughs should give way on this occasion, but I think that they ought to be consulted, and that each should be allowed a separate sub-committee for the very important work with which they are entrusted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1915. col. 879. Vol. LxxIII.]
    8.0 P.M.
    The House was of the same opinion, but, unfortunately, the wording of the Clause was left in rather a vague way, and so the matter remained unsettled. The London County Council and the Statutory Pensions Committee joined in making a scheme which left out all mention of the Metropolitan boroughs, and ignored them altogether. Worse than this, the present Bill confers upon boroughs having a population less than 50,000 but not less than 20,000 the right to form a committee, and at the same time ignores the Metropolitan boroughs altogether, which seems to me to be a very extraordinary action. I do not know exactly what line the Pensions Minister will take upon this matter, but, on the 8th of this month, in reply to a deputation on the subject, he said he could not defend the present position in London, the scheme in force was intended to be temporary in its character, and when it was competent for the local authorities to take over the work they ought to do so. He further stated that local or district committees should be appointed in each Metropolitan borough. I think we have ample grounds for urging that the Metropolitan boroughs should be recognised in this important matter. The hon. Member for Whitechapel has related the difficulty which people interested have now in finding the existing sub-committees at home, difficulties arising out of the very curious arrangement of the days when they receive visitors, and the uncertainty in the minds of people where they are to be found. If they had a committee on the local authority there would never be any such difficulty. I am told that even now people constantly go to the offices of the borough council in order to make inquiries about their pensions, and they have to be sent to another habitat, and it is very uncertain whether they will find what they want. I would urge the claim of the Metropolitan boroughs to some power in respect of this important matter of pensions. We have placed on them all sorts of work in connection with the War. There are the War Tribunals, War Savings

    125
    Committees, War Loan Committees, and many other forms of activity. The work is done with a great deal of enthusiasm, and these people have rendered great service to the State. But I do claim that in such local matters the local authorities are really closer to the population than a Statutory Committee; they know the people better, they have better means of obtaining information, and I think it is a rather extraordinary thing that the claims of the Metropolitan boroughs in this matter should have been ignored in the way they have been.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I do not intend to make a speech either for or against the Amendment. I shall leave that to my right hon. Friend in the charge of the Bill. But both hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Amendment have quoted me as holding the opinions that they are putting forward, and as having urged them when the original Bill setting up these committees was before this House. They say I urged that the Metropolitan boroughs should be allowed separate local committees. I did nothing of the kind, and the hon. Members have misconstrued what I said. There was no demand made from any part of the House at the time that the Metropolitan boroughs should have separate local committees, and it was never contemplated by any single Member that it should be asked for. The question which arose at that time was whether the Metropolitan boroughs should have separate district committees—a different thing altogether. I was in charge at that time, and I took the line that the arguments were very well balanced each way. I said I did not think the Metropolitan boroughs would ultimately be satisfied unless they were allowed separate district committees, and some day or other that point would have to be decided. But I wish to explain to the House quite clearly that nothing I ever said can possibly be urged as an argument for giving the Metropolitan boroughs local committees, and nothing I ever said can be quoted in favour of that.
    Mr. H. P. HARRIS: As I am chairman of the committee which my hon. Friends propose to disestablish—incidentally relieving me of a great deal of hard work—I ought perhaps to state the very strong objections which exist to their proposal. It is quite clear from their speeches that they do not realise
    126
    what they propose to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) seemed to think that the adoption of the Amendment would simply restore a former decision. But that decision, as my right hon. Friend who has just spoken has pointed out, was in favour of setting up district committees, whereas this is a proposal to set up local committees. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment seemed to think that one great object to be secured was that the borough councils should have the care of disabled men when they come back. With all respect, they would have no such power. The proposal is to set up a separate local committee for every Metropolitan borough, and the effect of that would be to deprive the London Committee of all its powers except one, the care of the disabled soldier. The London Committee would be left high and dry, and it would have less jurisdiction than the local committee of any other county. If there was good and sufficient reason for that proposal no one would object. After all, good administration only has to be considered, and not the feelings of the London Committee, if they have any, nor the desire of the borough councils for jurisdiction.
    I must point out that Clause 3 of the Bill is quite inapplicable to London. The object of Clause 3 is to enable the Pensions Minister to take a town out of the area of a county committee, say, to take the city of Winchester out of the county of Hampshire. But it is obviously quite a different proposal to suggest that the Minister should have the power—I cannot imagine him using it—to take away from a county committee the whole of its area. Yet that is the proposal of the Amendment. I venture to suggest that the onus of proving the desirability of such a very remarkable proceeding rests upon those who propose it. What does this proposal mean? It means scrapping the whole of the existing machinery which is doing the work. The London committees will go. The forty-six local sub-committees will go. The officials of these sub-committees, many of them earnest workers, will cease to hold office. The band of workers they have gathered around them will in large measure be dispersed. And what is to be set up in their place? Twenty-nine new local committees, which will be composed largely of people without any

    127
    previous experience of the work, and they will have to get together an organisation of their own capable of doing the work.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: My hon. Friend has ignored something which was said by the hon. Member for Whitechapel, and which is more formally stated in the the paper issued by the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, to the effect that in forming these Metropolitan borough committees they would be only too glad to incorporate the people who have been working with the existing committees.
    Mr. HARRIS: I will deal with that presently. I question, in the first instance, whether it is desirable to cut down the powers of the central committee as proposed, and secondly, whether it is practicable to take down the whole machine and reassemble its parts, or such as can be collected together, to form an entirely new machine. I wish to say that, in my opinion, it is a distinct advantage to have a central London committee supervising and co-ordinating the whole of the work, gaining experience over a large area, and helping the local committees in the whole of London—and it can help them by making representations to Government Departments and other authorities with a force which could not be commanded by committees representing a much smaller area. Let me deal with the work which must be done locally. It is now being performed by forty-six local sub-committees appointed not by the London County Council, but by the London War Pensions Committee. On all these sub-committees there are experienced workers—some of them, it is true come in from outside districts—and each of them have labour representatives.
    Mr. KILEY: Appointed by the Pensions Committee.
    Mr. HARRIS: Yes; on these sub-committees there are two or more labour representatives, and on most there are borough council representatives. Five borough councils, however, have refused to appoint local representatives, but the London committee are not to blame for that. If this Amendment is carried the work will have to be carried on by twenty-nine local committees, largely composed of people with no previous experience. I am quite convinced my hon. Friends do not realise
    128
    the enormous volume of work which has to be transacted, or the time and experience required. Borough councillors seem to think it is only a question of two or three committee meetings a week, and a paid clerk. But committee meetings are only a small part of the work, and I have here some extracts from a letter showing the actual work of one of these sub-committees. I should say it is typical of all the committees. It is stated that the committee meets fortnightly and has a sub-committee which meets three times a week, but they have four office days of from six to ten hours work. There are over eighty workers, of whom thirty have been on the work since 1914. Three of the committee work the whole time on the four days, and they put in a considerable additional amount of overtime. During the last four weeks they have dealt with 172 new applications and 230 old cases, and they have received 782 letters and written 734. On whom does the burden of all this office work fall? We have borough councillors on the majority of these committees, but they will admit that they are much too busy to see to the heavy work in the office. Therefore, the real burden of the work falls upon a number of patriotic citizens, some of them men but most of them women, who have gathered around them a band of devoted workers. If these were ordinary times when borough councils and their staffs would be supposed to have some spare time and workers were plentiful. I should not ask who is going to do this work in the future; but I do ask now, Have town clerks time to undertake this piece of reorganisation as well as all the ordinary work in the committee rooms It is notorious that town clerks and their depleted staffs are fully occupied not only with local, but with national work, and if I read the signs of the times rightly, they are likely to have further national tasks placed upon them. In Islington the town clerk and the borough treasurer have been undertaking official duties in connection with these local committees, and they have had to resign their offices because they could not spare the time to do the work.
    Who is to carry on the work in these committee rooms? My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) referred to the circular issued by the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, and they say that then-appears to be an impression that if the borough councils were given these powers they would at once dispense with the

    129
    services of members of the existing subcommittees who have interested themselves in voluntary work which specially fits them in the administration of the principal Act. They say that they are ready to avail themselves of the experience of these ladies and gentlemen. I do not doubt that for a moment, but I would ask, Are the same people to go on doing this work in the committee rooms in the future, and, if so, have they been consulted in this matter, have they been asked whether they are willing to go on with this work under the new conditions? I have tried to ascertain the views of the people who are really doing this work, and I think they are the people who are most entitled to the consideration of this House. Many of them are doing that work now without reward and with very little praise. I have ascertained the views of some of the most experienced organisers from all parts of London—north, south, east, and west--of all classes, and I find that they deprecate in the strongest way any change in the administrative machinery at the present time. Practically what they say is this: "What you are proposing is to give us a new master who will have his work to learn. At present we are serving under the London Committee, which, after nine months' experience, knows its work, which has as its honorary organiser a lady who knows this work from A to Z, and who is always ready to help with her advice." They also point out that every change means loss of workers, and they say that at the present time they have great difficulty in keeping their workers together, many of whom are attracted by other forms of National Service, and they only continue doing this voluntary work because, having done it so long, they do not like to leave it. If the whole thing is now to be turned over to the borough councils we shall lose a large number of these workers, and we cannot take the responsibility of the work.
    These are difficulties which cannot be ignored. I am aware that they apply to any change of administrative machinery, but more especially to the revolution which my hon. Friend is now proposing, which is one to scrap the whole of the existing machinery without in the least considering what is to be put in its place. Before a change of this kind is carried out this problem should be examined, not from the point of view of claims to jurisdiction, but as a practical business pro-
    130
    position. The borough councils have not done that. If I look at this Report to which the hon. Member for Westminster has referred, I do not see one single sentence which shows that they realise the enormous amount of work to be done. I spoke to a town clerk the other day, and asked him whether he had ever been in one of the committee rooms in his borough and studied what the work was, and he said "No." I think that is the reason why the borough councils have entirely underrated the volume of the work which has to be done. I am extremely anxious that the borough councils should not nurse a grievance in this matter. I have always been a strong supporter of borough councils and their jurisdiction, and I gave evidence in favour of the creation of borough councils before the Royal Commission at a time when it was not at all a popular thing to advocate that policy, and I took part in framing the Act of Parliament which created those councils. Consequently, I am extremely anxious, on public and personal grounds, that they should not nurse a grievance in this matter. I think that instead of doing the rash act which is now proposed the borough councils should come to grips with this subject, and go into it closely, and either satisfy themselves that there are obstacles in the way of a change of administration at the present moment or else show that those obstacles can be removed. What is of the greatest importance is continuity of the administration, and that is the only thing that the London Committee cares about. We have nothing to gain by having local sub-committees as compared with district committees. What we have to consider is preserving the continuity of the administration, and we owe this to those for whom we have to work, namely, our soldiers and sailors, and their wives and dependants.
    Sir N. HELME: The subject before us is one which has attracted very great interest, and as I had the honour of presiding at the conference of those representing public authorities I rise to support the Amendment which is now before the House. I may point out that in respect to the granting of autonomous powers to Metropolitan boroughs, this is the only opportunity for any future establishment of such bodies, and if this opportunity is allowed to pass, then the Minister of Pensions cannot in the

    131
    future, unless a special Act is passed, deal with this subject. Arising out of the gathering to which I alluded, a deputation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman who preceded the Minister for Pensions, and laid before him the views that are now before the House. I had the honour of introducing a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman who is charged with the carrying out of this Bill, and we pressed upon him the very important necessity of granting to the public authorities representing local interests—
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I understand that this Amendment refers solely to London, and I gather from the remarks which the hon. Member is making that he is dealing generally with the question of boroughs.
    Sir N. HELME: It is quite correct that the meeting to which I alluded did include the wider scheme, but we centred upon this point which I was venturing to put before the Minister of Pensions. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to suggest that there should be a conference of those interested, and I think it would be well if the Government would accept this Amendment, because the full responsibility rests with the Minister of Pensions to exercise his discretion, and he could deal with each Metropolitan borough on its merits. We recognise the value of the work that has been done hitherto, and we wish in no sense whatever to depreciate it, but on the broad principle of local authorities dealing with local affairs we do press that the Metropolitan boroughs should have the right, which is given the local authorities throughout the country, to manage their local affairs under this Bill. We would further press upon the right hon. Gentleman to look into the working of the present Act and to see how far the work has been done by these large committees and how far it really centres itself in the inquiries made by sub-committees. These sub-committees may be very small in number, but, as we well know, in the larger bodies very frequently a great amount of responsibility for the decision is left with the sub-committees and their reports are accepted. I venture to think that the House ought to accept this Amendment and make it possible where and when it is thought desirable to carry this arrangement through.
    Sir W. COLLINS: The Amendment raises an important question of local administration in the Metropolis in regard to this new and important service, and, although not a London Member at the present time, I have sat for a Metropolitan constituency and have taken some interest in local administration. The problem, I take it, is whether this new national service should, in the ease of the Metropolis,. be administered centrally, rather than locally, through the Metropolitan borough councils. I confess that on many occasions on questions of local administration in London I have not always seen eye to eye with my hon. Friend the Member for South Paddington (Mr. H. P. Harris), but on this occasion I find myself in complete agreement with him, and, incidentally, may I say that I have had an opportunity of making myself acquainted with some of the administrative work of the London Local Pensions Committee over which he so ably presides, and I have satisfied myself of the thorough efficiency of the work done. The question I ask myself in regard to a matter of this kind is whether it will make for efficiency of administration to supersede the present system of one local pensions committee for the county of London, with some forty-six sub-committees working under it, and divide up the work now so well done amongst twenty-nine local committees, following the outline of the borough council areas. I confess that my dominating principles in such matters of administration are to make as far as practicable for unification and equalisation of burden. In neither respect does the Amendment before the Committee mark any substantial progress; in fact, the reverse.
    After all, there is to be a local charge under this Act to the extent of a moiety of the expenses of working and administering the bountiful supplier coming from the new Royal Warrant, and the rating in London, as is notorious, varies from something like 6s. 7d. in the City of London to 11s. 5d. in Poplar. If these borough councils are to be the local pensions authorities, I apprehend that the cost in regard to a moiety will fall upon the local rates, and that will not make in the direction of the equalisation of burden for such administrative purposes. I cannot help thinking that in this national service, locally administered and hitherto in voluntary hands, the work and experience of those who have been connected with the

    133
    voluntary work in the past should be utilised as far as possible and practicable. I understand that has been done in regard to the sub-committees which work under the local pensions committee, over which the hon. Member for South Paddington presides, and to supersede them by a newly-appointed personnel, corresponding to the borough council areas, I venture to think would constitute a great dislocation of work which is already being done with great insight and experience by self-sacrificing voluntary workers, and would not make, in my opinion, for efficiency, whilst it would tend to render unequal the burden of a moiety of the cost. On the whole, therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to the re presentations made to him on behalf of those who spoke so ably for the Metropolitan borough councils, but that in this particular service he will regard London as one and keep the administration of the National Pensions under a committee working for the whole of London with suitable sub-committees, possibly arranged on the basis of borough council areas, or with district committees if that is thought feasible in the future, and not supersede too rapidly the voluntary agencies which have done the work so well prior to the Government tardily recognising its responsibility in the matter.
    Mr. BARNES: The speech just made by the hon. Gentleman, together with the speech made by the hon. Member for South Paddington (Mr. IT. P. Harris) relieves me from making any lengthy observations, because I agree absolutely with what they have said in regard to the very great services of these voluntary workers who are now doing the work and also in regard to the principle of the unity of London in this matter. I was quoted by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) as having said that in my opinion local committees should be set up for London. I do not know from where he quoted, but I can assure him that I said no such thing, and on the very first opportunity, when I was told that I had been reported to have said so—it was in my room about a fortnight ago—I pointed out that I made no such statement. I know what I did say, and I will repeat it. Under the 1015 Act the County Council of London, in common with all other county councils, had a right to adopt either one or other of the to Sub-sections of Clause 2 of that Act. They could have either set
    134
    up district committees under Sub-section (4) or as they have done, they could have set up sub-committees under Sub-section (7). I said that I believed that the Act of 1915 contemplated each of the Metropolitan boroughs having a district committee of its own, and I repeat that. I have said nothing different from that anywhere. Therefore, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been misquoted.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I said nothing different from that.
    Mr. BARNES: Oh, yes, certainly; you read out from a document that I had stated somewhere that cach of the Metropolitan boroughs should have a local committee. There is all the difference in the world between a local committee and a district committee. A local committee is a separate entity or authority acting under the Act. A district committee is really a sub-committee of a county scheme. I think, and I have always thought, that it was the intention of the Act that the Metropolitan boroughs should each have a district committee, that being quite consistent. with the further idea of the London County Council acting for London as one unit. The London County Council, in its wisdom, thought it best to carry out this scheme of sub-committees in contradistinction to district committees. Therefore what has happened is that they have had continued help from those people who had so much experience in doing this work. Those people are still doing the work. I am not going to express an opinion whether or not it would be done better by the borough councils ultimately, but I have been round the committee rooms of some of the bodies now doing the work from time to time, and have found them filled with disinterested men and women who, I believe, are doing the work, with no axe, of their own to grind, and who are doing it solely in the interests of the soldiers and sailors and their dependants. Therefore I would suggest to the hon. Member for Whitechapel and others who have spoken that we must have regard to that fact. The carrying on of the work in the most efficient manner possible in the interests of the soldiers and sailors must be the chief consideration in our minds. Is this the best time to make any disturbance at all? The hon. Gentleman thinks it is the only time. It is not for me to suggest to hon. Members who have supported this Amendment what other

    135
    Members have done in regard to other Amendments. They occupy far stronger ground in a demand for district committees than they do in asking for local committees. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for South Paddington (Mr. H. P. Harris), London is altogether peculiar. If you take away the Metropolitan borough areas and give them all local committees, then you are taking the ground from under the very feet of the county council. You might occupy stronger ground in regard to district committees. The main consideration at the present is to carry on the work with the least possible disturbance. Nobody with any sense of responsibility and with knowledge of the London situation would suggest for a moment that some drastic alteration should be made in the present arrangement. It is because of that that I feel sure the hon. Member will not press this Amendment to a Division. I would urge one other reason. We have just got a new Warrant, which increases the work of these local committees, therefore this time would be the worst of all times to press an Amendment of this sort, which would have the effect of dislocating the work of the London County Council's War Pensions Committee, and might have the effect, if adopted, of scattering all these local workers. The hon. Member for Whitechapel seemed to assume that if the borough councils were given local committees they would rope in all these voluntary workers who are now on the ground. Well, they must have a word to say in regard to that. I am afraid that that assumption will not be borne out by the facts, and that very likely many of these people, being deprived of their leader, with whom they have been accustomed to work during the last year or two, will say, "We are not going to work under some new machinery of which we know nothing, and we will not do the work." That is another reason why I hope this Amendment will not be pressed, whatever may happen in regard to any other Amendment,
    Amendment negatived.
    Major NEWMAN: I beg to move to leave out the words "and not less than twenty thousand."
    So far from being an unimportant Amendment, this is one to which the Urban District Councils Association
    136
    attach the greatest importance. I have no particular axe to grind for myself in moving this Amendment, but I have in my Constituency two urban districts with over 70,000 population and a third with well over 20,000 population. The urban districts object to this limitation to 20,000 as being an implied limitation of the words in the Act of 1915. If hon. Members will look at Section 2 of that Act, they will see that Sub-section (1) reads:
    "For the purpose of assisting the Statutory Committee in the execution of their duties, a local committee shall be established for every county and county borough, and for every borough or urban district having a population of not less than fifty thousand the council of which so desires, and for any other borough or urban district for which the Statutory Committee, on the application of the council thereof, considers it desirable that, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, a separate local committee should be established."
    Hon. Members will see that there is nothing there about a 20,000 population, and in fact, no limitation at all, but that if it is so desired a separate local committee shall be established with the leave of the central committee. The Minister of Pensions and the Committee will see that this 20,0000 limitation will rule out a great number of quite important county towns who would like to have, and who ought to have, a separate local committee with its limited powers. You might get a population of just under 20,000, or an important locality which desires to have a local committee, but simply because it is just under the 20,000 limit it will not be able to get one. I know that the Association of District Councils had an interview with the Minister for Pensions and that this is one of the points they impressed most strongly upon him. They wanted this limitation of 20,00 taken out of the Bill. I imagine the argument they put before him was something like this, that the local authorities, speaking through the local tribunals, had had the job of sending men to the front, and therefore the local authorities would like to have through local committees the honour of looking after these same men when they came back from the War. That is surely a very strong argument. They want to have this, to my mind, rather arbitrary and almost absurd limitation of 20,000

    137
    taken away. Surely what we want in this and the other Bills which are before the House is more decentralisation. Here in London we have this great mass of busy officials, bureaucrats as we call them, all tumbling over one another, whereas in the country we have a lot of people who want to do work of this sort and cannot get it. We have too much centralisation here in London, and we want some of the work taken out from London and put in the country districts, where it can be as well or even better done. What I have said about London applies, I am sorry to say, to the majority of the county councils themselves. They have so much work there that a county council official now is as much a red-tape bureaucrat as anyone in those great London offices. We want, therefore, to get our work decentralised, and that is one of the chief reasons why urban district councils are so anxious to be allowed to have these local committees set up in districts where the population is less than 20.000. I therefore most earnestly appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to accept this Amendment and allow a district which does not quiet reach a population of 20,000 to set up local committees if it so desires.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Those of us who have large county constituencies with large areas in them, with urban councils of a very influential character and great interests at stake, do not quite come within the figure of 20,000. I cannot see why this figure should be put in. Surely the Pensions Minister, with the statutory power he now has of consulting county councils, would be able to get all the information requisite on purpose not to grant and set up a committee if he did not think a particular area was sufficiently important to have it. But why should it be prevented from setting up a committee in an area where there is a good deal of local life, a good deal of voluntary energy, a desire on the part of the people to look after their own close at home, and where, as in many cases, the county council is a very long way away from the locality? I could give illustrations where it is another realm altogether, the county town being much nearer to the next county. I ask sincerely that the Minister in charge will consider the advisability of removing that qualification. It gives him the power, if he desires, of setting up this local committee, and I am sure it would be of interest and benefit if it was done in many
    138
    cases. Many of these places will, in themselves, in a short period of time, be over the 20,000. Many of them are going up to the border. There is nothing in this to help you to set up a committee when there is one set up on the larger scale. It will be said, "We cannot break the area that the committee now has on purpose to give it to these other committees." I sincerely trust we may get this very small concession.
    Mr. WING: I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us exactly how we stand in this matter, because I understand that my own Constituency, which really consists of small councils under the county authority, already has committees under the county council arrangement which exactly coincide with the general scope of this Bill, and, if that is so, I rather doubt the advisability of complicating it, because now, in the county of Durham, after a good deal of trouble, we have organised the whole of the county under the county council and we are getting uniformity of management, and I rather imagine that if you introduced an Amendment such as this we shall not have that uniformity of management, but shall have everyone running on their own, which will not be so beneficial to the recipients as the Mover of the Amendment seems to suppose.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am sorry I cannot accede to the request of my hon. and gallant Friend. There has been a great demand on the part of boroughs under 50,000 to have separate local committees. The Statutory Committee grants-them wherever they find special circumstances. Now, as the agitation has continued, and there is good ground in some cases for giving them separate local committees, we have taken powers in the Bill to do so where the Pensions Minister thinks right in the case of towns between 20,000 and 50,000,"and I think that is a very fair compromise. But if you ask us to go below 20,000, I must really ask my hon. and gallant Friend where he proposes to draw the line. He says, supposing a place is just under 20,000. But supposing a place is just under 10,000. Wherever you draw the line you will have the same difficulty. The hon. Member (Mr. Rowlands) said that places now under 20,000 might grow to 20,000 in the next year or two, but after it becomes 20,000 it

    139
    would be perfectly possible for the Minister of Pensions to grant a separate local committee in the way desired.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Do you not take the Census figures? Even if a place is 20,000 now you would not give it a committee.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think it is actual population, but I will inquire. In reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Wing), he really puts the matter quite clearly. You would judge from the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Newman) that where you have a county committee the whole thing is administered centrally by the officials of the county council and there was no kind of local administration at all. That is not the case. No county pensions committee administers a scheme for the county by means of its central officials. They have either district committees or sub-committees, and the whole county is organised on a decentralised local basis. In so far as the Pensions Minister may grant separate local committees under this Clause he will upset the county schemes, and he would upset them a great deal more if he were to give separate committees to places with populations below 20,000.
    Major NEWMAN: He need not do so unless he wants. It is within his discretion.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I agree, but I think a line ought to be drawn. Let me call attention to another point which I think has been overlooked. These small towns are now the centres of administrative work in an area which extends outside their municipal boundaries, and they are the necessary centres. You cannot administer a county if you take all the towns out of it. You would leave it like a cake without any plums in it. You must have a natural centre, and it would be reducing the importance of these towns if by giving separate local committees they were confined to their own borough boundaries, whereas at the present time they are administering either as local or district committees in an area including the town and a considerable distance of country outside. Nothing in this Clause takes away the present right that these places have got under the original Act which set up the Statutory Committee and the local committees of obtaining separate local committees if the Statutory Committee are convinced there are special circumstances. We do
    140
    not derogate from their present rights in the least. I think the Committee will see that we have done our very utmost at the expense really of upsetting the county schemes to meet the wishes of these smaller boroughs. However, we feel we must draw the line somewhere, and I think 20,000 is the proper figure. We have precedents for that both in the Insurance Act and in the case of old age pensions and other measures, where the minimum of 20,000 has been fixed.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to move, after the word "thousand"["not less than twenty thousand"], to insert the words "or for any combination of boroughs or urban districts."
    I regret that by oversight, I neglected to put this Amendment down on the Paper. I mentioned the matter some time ago to the Pensions Minister, and be promised that he would think it over. It may be a new point to the hon. and gallant Baronet, but it is an extremely simple one, and I think the Amendment might be accepted by the Government. The suggestion is that where there are adjoining districts which practically run into each other and where the combined population would be over 20,000 you might then set up a joint committee. There would be no power for any of these districts to secure a committee for itself, but what would happen would be that these combined urban districts, or in some cases it might be a combination of a borough and an urban district, would have the right to go to the Pensions Minister and ask for power to have an independent committee for their combined area. There are a great many districts in this country where you have separate urban authorities and yet you have practically one community—that is to say, you have perhaps two or three districts which run into each other, and which are to all intents and purposes one community, although they continue under the authority of different councils. In these circumstances, wherever the county council have set up district committees, they have, as a rule, already amalgamated, and just as you have now given the power to urban districts which have populations of over 20,000 to have their own committees independent of the county councils, I think it is not unreasonable that a combined area which might have a population of 50,000 or even more should have the same right to go to the Minister of Pensions and
    T
    141
    ask for the power to have an independent committee. There could be no injury to the general scheme if this permission were granted. I hope I have said enough to induce my hon. and gallant Friend to give consideration to my proposal if he thinks I have made out a primâ facie case. I recognise his difficulty in being suddenly faced with this proposal, and if he will be good enough to give me some assurance that he will think the matter over between now and the Report stage I should be perfectly satisfied.
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I can assure my hon. Friend that any proposal he makes will always have the careful consideration of the Pensions Minister and myself. We do not see the necessity for this Amendment at the present time. If you get what my hon. Friend calls contiguous areas, with a population of 40,000 or 50,000, I should have thought that if they were unwilling to combine for the purposes of local government they would be equally unwilling to combine for the purpose of pensions. Generally, you find there is very acute local feeling between these different places. I am not prepared to accept the Amendment at the present moment, but I will think it over between now and the Report stage. Perhaps I might here clear up a point which was raised a few minutes ago by the hon. Member. In the case of districts with populations of under 20,000 I was asked whether we should take the census population or the actual population? I said that I would inquire, but I thought it would be the actual population. I find that my contention was quite right, and that the Statutory Committee now has the power to take the actual population, irrespective of the census figures.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I am very glad that that point has been cleared up, because my hon. and gallant Friend knows that in the case of the Education Act the only authorities which are autonomous are the authorities with a population of 20,000. I assumed that this precedent followed in other legislation would be followed in this, and I am glad of his assurance. Before withdrawing my Amendment I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his promise to consider the matter before the Report stage. I think he will find on inquiry that a great many districts which are unwilling to combine for all purposes,
    142
    because there are certain local circumstances, perhaps the possession of gasworks or undertakings of that kind, are not only quite willing to combine for the purpose of pensions but are already so combined under the county councils. All I am asking is that a committee of that kind, covering a fairly large population, ought to have the same power to go to the Minister of Pensions as any other separate district. I will withdraw my Amendment now, by leave, and put it down on the Report stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
    "Provided that where such functions are not so delegated to the local committee of a borough or urban district contributions of such amounts as may be agreed on or in default of agreement may be determined by the Local Government Board shall be paid by the local committee of the borough or urban district towards the administrative expenses of the local committee of the county in respect of the exercise of such functions within the borough or urban district, and such contributions shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as part of the administrative expenses of the local committee or urban district."
    This Amendment is intended to meet the point that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, as to the allocation of expenses between county and borough councils in cases where the local committee of a borough under this Clause has not got full powers. The only effect is this. A local committee may be formed under this Clause with limited functions whose administrative expenses would be paid for out of the borough rate, but inasmuch as its functions are limited, part of its duties would be performed by the county committee and it would not be paying anything to the county for this purpose. Therefore it is proposed to make a contribution towards the county for this part of its duty. If my right hon. Friend desires we will take the views of some county and borough experts so as to make perfectly certain that this is the best way of dealing with the matter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Alteration of Purposes for which Voluntary Funds may be Applied in Certain Cases.)
    Where any fund has been raised by voluntary contributions for the purpose of providing assistance in some specific form to disabled officers or men, or to the wives, widows, or dependants of officers or men, and provision has been made for such assistance out of public moneys, the Minister of Pensions may, after taking such steps as he thinks desirable for ascertaining the wishes of subscribers, on the application of the trustees or managing body of the fund, make an order authorising the fund to be applied to such other purposes for the benefit of disabled officers or men or the wives, widows, or dependants of officers or men as may be specified in the order, and on the making of any such order the fund may be applied accordingly.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, after the word "may"["Minister of Pensions may"], to insert the words "on the application of the trustees or managing body of the fund.
    This Clause applies to cases where there is a local fund, the objects of which are now partly carried out by the new Warrant, and where the trustees or subscribers wish to divert the fund to some other purposes, and on the application of the trustees, and with the consent of the subscribers, the Pensions Minister may make an order so diverting it. But it was pointed out that, in the way the Clause was drawn, it looked as if the Pensions Ministry was to go about canvassing the subscribers and trustees. We have no desire to undertake any sort of underhand work of that sort. We wish to act only on the application of the trustees, and according to the wishes of the subscriber. A promise was given on the Second Reading that words would be inserted to make this perfectly clear, and that is the object of the present Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I beg to move, to leave out the words "he thinks" and to insert instead thereof the words "they think."
    The object of this Amendment is to carry out the same idea as that of the hon. Gentlemen. It appeared to the Committee of Lord Provosts and Lord Mayors, who took a great interest in this matter, that the words of this Clause as
    144
    originally drawn gave the entire power in the matter to the authorities and not to themselves—that is to say, they were scarcely to be consulted. I think that they were wrong myself. However, they asked that the Amendments which stand in the names of the three Members for Liverpool should be put down. I saw the Minister in charge of the Bill, and he said that all that they intended was to carry out exactly the same idea. I notice now that the Government have put down on the Paper the same words as our first Amendment, and these have just been dealt with, and also the third Amendment, but they have not put down the second or fourth. The effect of that is again to throw the controlling idea of making any alteration in these funds, and practically the power of dealing with them, into the-hands of the Minister of Pensions. I may point out that what we are dealing with here is a considerable number of funds that have been collected in various parts of the country under the aegis of the various lord mayors and chairmen of county councils, and other bodies who got up founds for the purpose, and these funds have been allocated to various specific purposes. There was an attempt at one time to get hold of the funds, and to put them all into the common fund and deal with them, although they had been given by private benefactors for private purposes. These funds have been subscribed to be used for the purposes for which they were collected, and it should not be competent for this Government, or any other, to lay hands upon them and use them for the purpose of helping the Government of the day to evade any of its responsibilities and cast them upon these funds. There is a very strong feeling about this, and it has been suggested that these words should be inserted.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which was passed a few moments ago makes the Amendment which the hon. Member proposes out of order. It does not read.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: We want at present to substitute "they think" for "he thinks."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that would read. "The Minister of Pensions may, on the application of the trustees or managing body of the funds, and after taking such steps as he thinks desirable—"
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: What we desire is to make certain of the wishes of the subscribers being ascertained, so that these steps shall not be such steps as the Minister of Pensions thinks but such steps as the trustees of the fund think. The word "they" refers to the trustees of the fund, and what we want by this Amendment is that the trustees should be the persons to ascertain what are the subscribers wishes. The intention of the Amendment is that the steps to be taken for ascertaining the wishes of the subscribers should be such steps as the trustees deem necessary to ascertain the views of the subscribers. That is the simple point raised by this Amendment, and the idea of both parties is that the wishes of the subscribers should be ascertained. In the case where it is contemplated to make alteration in the object for which the fund has to be used, steps ought to be taken to ascertain the views of the subscribers, and what we suggest is that it is the trustees who should do that, and that it should not be left to the Minister of Pensions to say, "I have ascertained the views of the subscribers, and I am going to do as I like." It seems to me that the Government ought to accept this Amendment. I think it is perfectly intelligible, with regard to these particular funds that have been collected, and which will amount to a very considerable sum indeed, and which are in the hands of trustees, that those trustees ought to be the persons to take steps to ascertain the views of the societies, and it is they who ought to lay down how these views ought to be ascertained, and it should not be left entirely in the hands of the Minister of Pensions.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am sorry we cannot accept this Amendment. The Government, generally speaking, are entirely in agreement with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. We have agreed—it has already been done —first of all, that no move at all can be taken by the Minister of Pensions without the trustees, first of all, making application. The second step is to ascertain the views of the subscribers. When we come to that stage, then we have the Minister consulting with the subscribers, because there may be cases where the trustees misrepresent the subscribers. My hon. Friend is anxious that these funds should not be interfered with arbitrarily and unnecessarily by the Minister of Pensions, but supposing the trustees apply to the
    146
    Minister for a diversion of these sums, and supposing the Minister has reason to think that in this matter the trustees do not really represent the views of the subscribers, would it not be most important that he should have power to be able to-himself consult the subscribers? My hon. Friend has nothing to fear; nothing can happen until, in the first instance, the trustees have made application. We have gone very far to try and meet this point, and in the first instance the application has to come from the trustees, and afterwards there can be consultation with the subscribers.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I am moving this Amendment and the other which is on the Paper entirely ad Misericordiam and if the hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept what I have submitted all I can do is to ask leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I beg to move, after the word "make" ["make an Order"], to insert the words "with the concurrence of such trustees or managing body."
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I accept that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HARDY: I beg to move, after the word "widows" ["wives, widows, or dependants"], to insert the word "children."
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Application to Scotland.)
    (1) In the application of this Act to Scotland "Local Government Board" means the Secretary for Scotland, "borough" or "urban district" or "single administrative area" means a Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh, and references to a "rural district" shall not apply.
    (2) In lieu of paragraph (b) in Section one (1) the following shall be substituted:
    "In any other case, be defrayed by the council of the county in which the area of the district committee is-contained."
    (3) In lieu of Sub-section (3) of Section one the following provision shall apply:

    (a) The expenses of a county council under this Act so far as not defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament shall be defrayed out of the general purposes rate: Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889 (in this Section referred to as the Act of 1889), the ratepayers of a police burgh shall not be assessed by the county council for any such expenses unless the police burgh is for the purposes of this Act held to be within the county: and provided further that with respect to every burgh within the meaning of the Act of 1889 which is for the purposes of this Act held to be within the county Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (4) of Section sixty and Section sixty-six of the Act of 1889, shall, so far as applicable, have effect as if such expenses were expenditure therein mentioned: Provided also that where a county is divided into districts for the purpose of the principal Act the foregoing provisions shall be modified in their application to the expenses of the county council, in relation to the local committee or any district committee in such manner as may be approved by the Secretary for Scotland on the application of the county council.

    (b) The expenses incurred by a town council under this Act, so far as not defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, whether incurred under requisition from the county council of otherwise, shall be defrayed out of the public health general assessment. but shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the statutory limit of that assessment.

    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "or single administrative area."
    Leave out the words, "and references to a rural district shall not apply. (2) In lieu of paragraph (b) in Section one (1) the following shall be substituted: In any other case, be defrayed by the council of the county in which the area of the district committee is contained."
    In Sub-section (3), leave out the words, "Provided also that where a county is divided into districts for the purpose of
    148
    the principal Act, the foreging provisions shall be modified in their application to the expenses of the county council, in relation to the local committee or any district committee in such manner as may be approved by the Secretary for Scotland on the application of the county council."—[Mr. Barnes.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 6 (Application to Ireland) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Short Title, Construction, and Repeal.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. (Administrative Expenses) Act, 1917, and the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Acts, 1915 and 1916, the Minister of Pensions Act, 1916, so far as it relates to the Statutory Committee, and this Act maybe cited together as the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Acts, 1915 to 1917.
    (2) This Act shall be construed as one with the principal Act.
    (3) Section two of the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. (Expenses) Act, 1916, and Section eighteen of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, are hereby repealed.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "Provided that nothing in this repeal shall affect the power of making contributions under the enactments so repealed towards the administrative expenses of local and district committees incurred before the passing of this Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Statutory Committee to Sit in Parliament.)
    A person who holds the office of chairman or vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee shall not by reason of his office be incapable of being elected to or voting in the Commons House of Parliament.—[Mr. Barnes.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

    149
    This new Clause is intended to straighten out the project we have for putting my hon. Friend (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) on to the Statutory Committee. We find that in the Statutory Committee the chairman or vice-chairman can be paid, and therefore the person holding either one or other of those offices stands the risk of having, when appointed, to present himself for re-election to his constituency. We do not want my hon. Friend to be put to that trouble, and, inasmuch as we want his presence on the Statutory Committee, in order to have greater control over that body, we want that done without putting him to that disability. That is the sole purpose of this new Clause.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Is it the intention that this is to be a permanent Clause, and that its terms are not to apply to this particular case, but that it is to be an enabling Clause for all time?
    Mr. BARNES: Quite. It may be said to carry out the undertaking given in this House, and it is quite in accordance with the declarations made on behalf of the Government that the Pensions administration should control the Statutory Committee. This provision carries out that. and is quite irrespective of the personality.
    Question put, and agreed to. Clause ordered to be added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of Principal Act in London.)
    Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, there shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, be set up in the City of London and in each Metropolitan borough a district committee, and the Minister of Pensions shall, for this purpose, have power to revoke or alter any scheme made under that Act for the county of London. Such district committees shall be constituted in the manner and shall have such powers and duties as are prescribed for district committees by the principal Act.—[Sir George Touche.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir G. TOUCHE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The position of London in this matter is not at all satisfactory. The Government has not seen its way to agree to the appointment of local committees in the
    150
    City of London and in the Metropolitan boroughs. This new Clause is designed with the view to meet the situation in that way created. This Bill is certainly not satisfactory for London as it stands. There is a great deal of strong feeling in favour of giving local autonomy. That was distinctly contemplated, and in the Act it was perfectly clear that local authorities should take over the government of their own areas, but for reasons which I need not go into now that was not carried out in London. An experimental measure was carried. It was described as an experiment for a certain limited period, which has now expired. My right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister informed a deputation on the 7th of this month that he was not going to defend the present arrangement in London. He himself indicated that he thought a fair and reasonable arrangement would be to appoint district committees. I feel therefore, that I can claim his entire sympathy with this new Clause. I cannot say that the Pensions Minister is the author of it, but he has certainly been the inspirer of it, and the Clause has been drawn in order to try to give effect to his suggestions. We who represent London boroughs tried to meet him as far as possible, and we hope that he will come part of the way to meet us.
    I understand that this Clause will not be objected to by the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, although I have no authority to speak on their behalf. The position seems to be favourable for some modification that will take away the discontent which undoubtedly exists in London boroughs and also in the City of London, at whose instance more particularly this new Clause is submitted. The present position is one which my right hon. Friend himself admits is very difficult to defend, and, indeed, it is not defended. The only defence I have heard has been the statement that any change would cause difficulties and inconvenience, but side by side with that there is held out a hope that a change will be made some day. I submit if there is any reality in that hope it ought to be realised as soon as possible. I suggest if a change is going to be made it had better be made now, because every month that passes is calculated to make it more difficult. It has been said that this might create difficulties with your voluntary workers, and everybody in this House is desirous of avoiding a danger

    151
    of that kind, but the time which is allowed in this Clause—a period of three months—ought to be long enough to dispose of any difficulties of organisation. If it is not long enough, I shall be only too glad to accept an extension of that period to whatever length my right hon. Friend may be prepared to go within reasonable limits.
    Mr. DICKINSON: This question was discussed on a previous Amendment, and, although this Amendment differs to a great extent from that we discussed before, yet similar questions, and questions I think of equal importance, arise in respect to it. The request that is made now by the hon. Member is that we here should lay down a definite scheme for the administration of the War Pensions Act in London. What was done in 1915 was that Parliament, and I think wisely, gave the power to decide the methods of administration to the various local authorities. The county councils all over the country were empowered, with the consent of the Statutory Committee, to draw up schemes for the purpose of administering that Act in their respective areas. The London County Council, in its wisdom, and I have no doubt with the fullest knowledge of what the Metropolitan borough councils desired to have done, came to the conclusion that the system to be adopted in London should be that which exists at the present moment. That system may be right or it may be wrong, but I would very seriously appeal to this House not to pick out the London County Council as the one council with which it insists on interfering in its discretion on this matter. The Act of 1915 gave two options with regard to this question. It allowed the local authorities to draw up a scheme whereby there should be one committee for London, or, if it preferred, to draw up another scheme whereby there should be a district committee for every Metropolitan borough. The London County Council preferred to adopt the former scheme, and having been a member of the London Committee since its inception I am convinced that the county council was wise, at that moment at any rate, in deciding that the scheme should be one which should be administered from the centre. If we insist here upon revising that scheme, we thereby withdraw from the body that is best qualified to judge, the power of settling how this matter is to be administered in London.
    152
    I do not know whether the London County Council has absolutely made up its mind that for ever this scheme is the best. It is quite possible that that body, to which I do not belong at the present moment, and which I have not served upon for many years, may after consultation with the various borough councils, and after further insight into the working of the present system, come to the conclusion that it would be better to form district committees, which they are authorised to form, provided that they alter this scheme. Have they been consulted? I only know that at the present moment there is a report which I have here dealing with this particular Bill, and in that report they say after having given an account of the present position of affairs:
    In the light of the foregoing expressions of opinion, we are informing the Metropolitan borough council, that we are not prepared at present to recommend any change in the existing arrangements for the administration in London of the Naval and Military War Tensions Act. 1915."
    I respectfully ask the House to pause before they, in opposition to the announced opinion of the London County Council, say that the council is wrong in thinking it is better for the present to leave matters as they are. Quite apart from the opinion of the county council, I think it would be a very great mistake from the point of view of administration to make any change in our present system. An hon. Gentleman has at an earlier stage of the discussion pointed out with great force the difficulties that must accrue if any change at all is made in the present system. I know those difficulties very well, and anyone who has had to do with this work in London must feel that it is extremely problematical whether a change at this moment would not break down the whole system of administration. We have now this work conducted by over a thousand voluntary workers who have agreed to work under the present system. I have no doubt myself that some of them, perhaps a good many of them, would go on if the system were changed, but I know perfectly well that a great many of them would not go on. I believe the borough councils would find it, pressed as they are at the present moment, extremely difficult to find the members necessary for carrying this out, because the proposed change means that instead of having local sub-committees, as we have now, upon which the majority of members are persons who have shown by their

    153
    work that they are able to spare the time, you are bound by Act of Parliament to have district committees, the majority of which are to be members appointed by the borough councils. The borough councils have representatives on all the subcommittees at the present moment working in London, and that is a very important point to bear in mind. Then the arrangements have been such that the areas administered by the sub-committees are in every case coterminous with the Metropolitan boroughs, so that at any moment when the proper time comes it will be easy enough to make the change.
    I submit to the House that at this particular juncture it is unwise to make a change for one very good reason, and that is that the work that is now being carried on under this Act would undergo a very serious alteration the moment the War came to an end. The greater part of the work now consists in dealing with separation allowances, demands from wives for temporary assistance, claims from dependants to help them to get the separation allowances, and all that kind of work, which has been done by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association before the war pensions sub-committees were set up, and which is now being done by these London war pensions sub-committees. That forms the greater portion of the work. That, of course, will come to an end absolutely when the War ceases. Another large portion of the work is getting the right pensions for the widows of the soldiers who have fallen in the War and for the soldiers themselves. That is also a question which at the end of the War will come to an end. The pensions will be settled possibly there may be variations in them, but the greater part of this work will come to an end when the War ends. In my humble opinion that will be the moment at which to consider a change like this, and I think it is quite possible that when one is able to envisage the actual volume of work and the class of the work that is required in connection with this Act after the War has come to an end, then it may probably be necessary to make some changes in the scheme; but for the present I suggest to the Minister of Pensions that he should not interfere with the discretion of the London County Council and pick the London County Council out as the one local authority which Parliament is going to overrule in exercising its discretion in setting up the
    154
    best scheme for London, but that he should wait until the War is at an end, and then, as I have no doubt he will have to do, reconsider the whole question, and take into consultation not only the representatives of the Metropolitan borough councils, but also the representatives of the London County Council, and between those two classes of bodies he would be able, I have no doubt, to work out a satisfactory arrangement for the permanent administration of this Act when once peace has come about.
    Mr. KILEY: I rise to support the new Clause which has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Sir G. Touche). I have already spoken to-night, and I have no wish to cover the ground again, but if my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) had delivered the speech which he has delivered to-night twelve months ago, it would have been very much to the point. At that time it was proposed to abolish the committees of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and other organisations of that kind, and this House in its wisdom thought it was essential that there should be an improvement on that organisation, and they decided to set up new committees. These new committees have been in existence and have to the best of their ability done what they could to carry out the desire of this House in administering the pensions and allowances which were necessary. But there are many improvements which could be devised. In my own Constituency, of which I claim to have some small knowledge, we have a committee which meets once a fortnight, and they delegate a good deal of their work to sub-committees, as was stated by the hon. Member for South Paddington (Mr. H. P. Harris), but he did not tell us how many comprise those subcommittees. I am told that sub-committees sometimes consist of one member who does the work in the meantime and gets his committee a fortnight later to confirm what he has done, that committee comprising people who come from all over London. Therefore, one is not persuaded that that system could not be improved upon.
    I have already said to-night that the local authorities have been responsible for sending men into the Army. I have already said, as mayor of the borough, which I was at that time, that we assembled in the town hall and called our

    155
    citizens there and told them it was their duty to join the Army, and as chairman of the tribunal it was my painful duty to send them into the Army, and the only thing we are barred from is, when these men come back, to see they get as sympathetic and as generous a treatment as it is in our power to give them. That is what we are barred from. That is what we protest against. That is what we object to. If it is good enough for us to help to get men into the Army it is good enough for us to see to their assistance when they come back. That is what we are asking this House to consider. I have referred already to the good friends who have done such good work, and whom we are still hoping to retain and get a good deal of assistance from. We want, if it is at all possible, that there should be some labour people on these committees. I was reproached by my hon. Friend the Member for South Paddington because I had not referred to the fact that labour representatives were on that committee. It is quite true one labour representative has been appointed on the committee, but as he is only available in the evening, and the ladies and gentlemen who have been good enough to attend the committee from the outside find it more convenient to attend during the day, the attendances of that labour representative is practically nil. A great industrial borough, such as the one I have the honour to represent, Stepney, ought to have labour representation on that committee. That is only possible occasionally unless some new arrangements are made to fix the meeting in the evening. For that and other reasons which I do not need repeat I most heartily support the new Clause.
    Mr. BARNES: As I said before I have a great deal of sympathy with the Metropolitan boroughs in their demand for district—not local committees. I have also said before that that, I believe, was the intention of the Bill of 1915. We are not in 1915. We are in 1917. We are in the middle of the War. Anyhow, we are still in the War. The very first consideration to my mind is to disturb the existing arrangements as little as possible. I am, therefore, not concerned so very much about theoretical considerations, about the right of districts, and so on, seeing that the work is being done, and on the whole being done well. I sympathise with the districts, and I appreciate their desire to do the work. Cannot we come to some
    156
    compromise? It does seem to me to be a matter essentially for compromise. Let us not forget that there are twenty-two out of twenty-nine of the Metropolitan borough councils now, as a matter of form at all events, on the committees.
    Mr. KILEY: Under protest.
    Mr. BARNES: It does not matter; they are there under the scheme set up by the county council, which the representative authority for the county of London. There are only a small minority of Metropolitan borough councils still standing outside. I think it ought to be made conditional. The county council and the borough councils might come together and agree on some compromise. The first consideration should be, I think, that the Metropolitan boroughs should really take a part in the work. Even in the twenty-two cases I ha\e cited, where as a matter of form they are connected with the committee, I am told they are not taking a very large part in the work. Therefore any transfer of the work must be gradual. I think that ought to be the first consideration. The Metropolitan boroughs ought to take part in the work, make themselves acquainted with it, and efficient in it, so as to take their rightful place in the scheme. If that were done I have no doubt—and if I had any doubt before I should have none after hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras—the county council would be willing to come to some arrangement whereby district committees should be set up in every one of the Metropolitan borough areas. I would suggest, so as to give ample time for that to be done, that the spirit of this Amendment should be accepted, and a longer time fixed, say, within twelve months after the War, or something of that kind, to appoint the committees. If the hon. Member and the county council could get together and talk over some arrangement as to time, while resisting this Amendment, it might be possible to accept an agreed Amendment.
    Mr. H. P. HARRIS: I want to say that the borough councils have undoubtedly a strong claim to district committees. I have always recognised that. and the question is how we can make the transfer from the present local sub-committees to district committees without a break in the continuity of the work. I think I gave conclusive reasons to show that there were great difficulties at the present time. No

    157
    one attempted to contradict me. I pointed out also that the London War Pensions Committee has had no hostility whatever to district committees. They rearranged existing districts in order to bring them all within borough council areas. They also gave representatives to the borough councils in the hope that the borough councils would in that way get a grip of the work. But I am sorry to say that what the right hon. Gentleman has said is true, that the borough councils have not really taken a great interest in this work. They have not got the grip of it that we hoped they would have. If the borough councils would only face the difficulties which now exist, I believe we could manage eventually to get this matter settled. I hope my right hon. Friend will not accept the actual Amendment, because it really is a snub for the London County Council which that council does not deserve. They are willing, I believe, to place this entirely in the hands of the Minister of Pensions. It is only because the London committee pointed out to them the great difficulty of making the transfer effective at the present time that they have hesitated to amend their scheme in order to create district committees. I am quite prepared to fall in with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman as to a good understanding. I hope it may be possible to get district committees appointed before twelve months after the War. It ought not to be in the form of this Amendment, because it is a reflection upon the London County Council for that for which they are certainly not in any way responsible. I am very anxious that the borough councils should not have a sense of grievance in this matter. They can help us a great deal. I wish them to give us all the help they can, and I feel quite certain that in that case the district committees will be set up at an earlier date than otherwise would be possible.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am authorised by the Minister of Pensions to say that he cannot accept this new Clause in its present form. But if the representatives of the district committees get into touch with the representatives of the London Pensions Committee; if my hon. Friend, who has just spoken, gets into touch with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras at once, before the Report stage, my right hon.
    158
    Friend hopes very much that an arrangement may be come to of an agreed Clause which can then be put down.
    Sir G. TOUCHE: I am most anxious to put forward what I have to say in a reasonable spirit. I recognise the spirit of compromise which the right hon. Gentleman has shown, although I consider that in some matters he has not met us quite so far as he might have done. He has had everything his own way. What I ask is not an unreasonable concession. I would have preferred that he should have accepted the Amendment with some extension of the time—not twelve months. However, I accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend, and withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that we can bring up another new Clause.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Hear, hear!
    Sir G. TOUCHE: Under those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed [Bill 20].

    ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    The House knows the reason for this Bill. Shortly put, it is to provide, during twelve months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army. It is what is commonly recognised in this House as a hardy annual, but in view of the fact that there are three or four new points raised here, I think it is my duty to explain to the House what these new points are. The first Amendment is an Amendment of Section 154 of the Army Act with respect to deserters and absentees without leave. We now propose to amend that Section of the Army Act so that any soldier who is an absentee, who reports himself as an absentee to a police officer, does not need in future to appear in the dock with the common criminal in the morning. Members of the House will have seen in the public Press from time to time cases where a magistrate at a Police Court has before him a soldier who, through no fault of his own, has been late in arriving

    159
    at barracks, or has lost his train, or has been absent for some other reason over which he had no control. We propose now -that when a soldier finds himself in that position and goes to the officer in charge of any police station and confesses that he is an absentee it shall not be necessary to appear at the Court, but he can be sent at once to the nearest military unit.
    With regard to the second Amendment, I think it is also an Amendment to assist the soldier. It is an Amendment of Section 163 of the Army Act, and is really an extension of what is known in law as the Documentary Evidence Act. At the present time Section 163 provides that
    "Where the proceedings are proceedings against a soldier on a charge of being a deserter or absentee without leave, and the soldier has surrendered himself into custody of any portion of His Majesty's Forces, a certificate purporting to have been signed by the commanding officer of that portion of His Majesty's Forces, and stating the fact. date, and place of such surrender, shall he evidence of the matters so stated."
    10.0.P.M.
    As is well known, numbers of soldiers surrender themselves almost nightly to railway transport officers and provost marshals and assistant provost marshals at the various stations, but those transport officers and provost marshals are not really men within the Section of this Act who are in command of a portion of His Majesty's forces. The real meaning of that statement, "a portion of His Majesty's forces," really refers to a commanding officer of a portion of His Majesty's forces, and the effect of this Section is to make a railway transport officer, or provost marshal, or assistant provost marshal himself in effect a commanding officer for the purpose of signing a certificate to the effect that the soldier has missed his train, and the further effect of that is that it will no longer be necessary for us to send, say, to France for two men to prove that this man is an absentee. This certificate as signed by the provost marshal would be sufficient evidence to show that this man is a deserter, and the effect of that is, first of all, that it ensures a speedy administration of justice; it saves a soldier from being sent under arrest to a military barracks near at hand; and it also helps the soldier in this way, that whenever he arrives at his unit, he will be duly charged. As the House knows, if the soldier is under arrest his pay stops, and consequently his allotment. It stops during the whole time he is under arrest and during the whole time he is under-
    160
    going sentence, so that this speedy administration of justice will ensure that any long delay will be prevented in future. With regard to the Schedule, it is really a matter for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. The effect of it is very shortly this: in consequence of the rise in prices, the billeting charges have been raised by 1d. in respect of breakfast, dinner, and supper, and the charge for stable room and forage by 4d. As we know, there has been a great outcry in the House about the rise in price of the various food commodities in this country, and we do not think it unreasonable to raise those charges. Consequently, I hope the House will agree to these new Amendments. I do not think there is any other point which is raised in this Bill afresh, and I hope, therefore, that, in view of the fact that the House has got an opportunity of discussing this Bill in Committee, it will now give it a Second Reading.
    Mr. BILLING: I am not quite sure what the limits are of the discussion on this Bill, but there is one question of administration so far as the Flying Corps of the Army is concerned, which I should like to raise. It affects officers interned in neutral countries. It is the custom if an officer is obliged to make a forced descent in either Holland or some other country, which is not directly engaged in this War, to discourage any efforts on his part to return to this country and take up his duties again. I should like to point out that this country alone has adopted that attitude. So far as French officers are concerned, if they be unfortunate enough to land in Holland or some other country, if they can effect their escape they are permitted to do so. But the War Office authorities in this country have suggested, and suggested in such a way as to leave no room for doubt in the minds of the officers, that any attempt on their part to effect an escape would not be looked on with favour by the authorities here. I understand, too, that against their wish, officers have been requested to give their parole that they would not escape. I want the Under-Secretary for War to give this matter consideration. It is quite a common thing to see Royal Flying Corps officers returning periodically to this country for from ten to fifteen days and hanging about here doing no useful work, simply for the reason, which the War Office knows better

    161
    than I do, that they are not permitted even to attempt to effect their escape from Holland.
    If I may be permitted I should like to use this opportunity to ask the Under-Secretary for War to clear up a point which has caused a considerable amount of controversy both in the Press and otherwise, and that is as to on what he based his averages of the losses we have sustained on the Western Front during the last six weeks. I understood him to say that the figures he gave represented the average losses per week of the pilots engaged, but, as the hon. Gentleman went into details and decimals, I assumed he was dealing with the total number of pilots engaged. I have gone into this matter somewhat carefully, and it seems to me that that must me impossible. The figures I have at my disposal suggest rather that the average losses "in the Western Front—
    Mr. SPEAKER: What has this to do with the Army (Annual) Bill?
    Mr. BILLING: I may be in error, but I understood that questions of administration could be raised on this Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: But this Bill has nothing to do with administration. The only effect of the Bill is that it places the Army under military discipline.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I wish to express a hope that the Government may see its way to a further amendment of the Army (Annual) Act in so far as it deals with the form of field punishment No. J. They have, in practice, instituted a change, but it is not at present covered by the wording of the Act. When this question has been raised in the House it has been pointed out that the House itself is responsible for the wording of the Army Act, which legalises that particular form of field punishment No. 1, known as crucifixion. A very great step in advance was made by the Government recently, as indicated by the Under-Secretary for War when he spoke last on the subject, in adopting a certain modification of this form of field punishment, and what I want is that some words should be put into the Army(Annual) Act which will make it quite clear that this modification shall have the force of law. I do not want to go into the whole question because the House has already had put before it the great cruelty and hardship which may be suffered by men undergoing this field punishment. I know it is not the
    162
    desire of the high military authorities—of the responsible authorities that any needless cruelty should be inflicted, and the particular modifications which they have brought into force already have done away with the most serious objections to this form of field punishment. I understand that in consequence of the decision of the military authorities, although they do not feel they can dispense with this form of punishment altogether—a step which some of the high military authorities in France have, however, favoured—they have moderated the punishment in such a way as to allow a minimum of freeplay to the hands and legs of men punished in this way.
    Everyone who has consulted men who have undergone this punishment knows that much depends on the way in which it is administered. It may be cruel and hand to bear; it may involve acute physical suffering, or it may be that it only involves some suffering with considerable indignity. I believe the form now approved by the military authorities is one which avoids the very great pain and suffering which wore inflicted in the past. I want to ask my hon. Friend if he will consult with the authorities as to the possibility of introducing into this Bill, on the Committee stage, some words which will limit the form of field punishment in the way in which it has already been limited by the decision of high military authorities, and will thus make it quite clear that the intention of Parliament is that this punishment shall not inflict needless cruelty and suffering, and remove from the Army the danger of a stigma which I am sure neither he nor any of the military authorities wish should be incurred. We desire that no punishment should be inflicted which involves needless suffering and cruelty, and I think everyone who has studied the subject must admit that in the past there has been such needless suffering. But we want to ensure that as far as possible under the new Regulations it shall be made impossible in the future. I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to give a satisfactory assurance on that point.
    General IVOR PHILIPPS: I want again to raise the question of discipline in the Army—a question of a Court of Appeal to which officers can go when they feel that they have grievances which have not been properly redressed. This is the question I raised the other day, and I said on

    163
    that occasion that I had no complaints to make as regards courts-martial or their administration, but there were numerous other cases where officers who had serious grievances could not get redress. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War, in reply later on in the evening—and I apologise to him for not having been able to be present when he did answer—quite inadvertently, I am sure, misrepresented what I had said. He was replying to the hon. Member for Enfield, who had brought forward cases of officers in which it was felt that the administration of justice had not been properly carried out, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War said that I had already given a satisfactory answer to the hon. Member for Enfield. I am certain if my hon. Friend will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that he seriously misrepresented me, perhaps quite unintentionally. I wish to make no change whatever in what I may call the legal administration of justice by courts-martial or courts of inquiry. I wish to deal with cases where officers and men are unable to claim the advantage of a court of inquiry or are unable to claim a court-martial. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is a great necessity for some such court of appeal as I propose. It-was not perhaps so essential when there was a small voluntary Army, but now, when you count your Army by millions, it is most essential that there should be no question of any feeling of injustice in that Army if you wish to retain it as good as it is at the present time. What I would like to see in the Army (Annual) Bill is an amending Clause which sets up a Court of Appeal to which every officer and man could put his case if he feels that the officers above him have not given that attention to his grievance to which he thinks he is entitled. At present there is no such Court of Appeal, and the soldier can only appeal to the officers who have settled his case, or he can appeal to the Army Council which has laid down the law and are at the same time judges of the case. I should like to see a Military Court of Appeal set up something on the lines of the Court of Inquiry recently set up by special Act of Parliament to try certain cases with which we are all acquainted. Such a Court should in my opinion consist of at least one judge of the High Court, together with some military officers, and
    164
    I should also like to see upon it at least one or two hon. Members of this House who have no official position.
    The cases which I think would naturally come before such Courts are grievances about pay. I will give one example. When the Indian troops came over to this country there was a great deal of anxiety amongst their friends as to whether those officers would receive English pay or Indian pay during their service in France and the late Prime Minister gave us to understand that no British officer of the Indian Army would lose by coming to France, and every officer in the Indian Army fully understood that as a definite undertaking that such would be the case. But it was not the case, and there was not one single officer who did other work than that which, he definitely came over from India to do who did not lose money by the transaction. Consequently they felt that they had a very great grievance, and I agree with them. I had a number of these officers serving under me and they appealed to me—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is administration, and the sole object of this Bill is to apply the military law to the Army. If this Bill did not go through the whole Army would cease to exist at the end of next month. These questions of Indian officers receiving pay are not within the four corners of this Bill.
    General PHILIPPS: I was only giving an example, and of course I will not pursue that argument. What I wish to set up is a disciplinary measure, and I was only using the Indian troops as an example why I wished to set up this Appeal Court. At present these officers have no opportunity of appealing for justice. I want to set up a disciplinary court, but, of course, if I am not allowed to give any examples, it weakens my case.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of administration. It is simply a matter whether an individual is entitled to pay at a certain rate or at another rate. That is not a matter of discipline, and it could not possibly come before the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Court at all.
    General PHILIPPS: I will turn from that point and simply continue my case. I wish to put before the House the urgent necessity for a Court of Appeal for all cases where officers and men feel that they have grievances. There are two Clauses in the Army (Annual) Act: Clauses 42 and 43, the heading of which is "Redress of

    165
    Grievances," and those are the only conditions under which a soldier or an officer can appeal in regard to his pay or any other grievance. It is the only statutory grant of authority to redress his grievance, and it is that I wish to see developed. At present, under the Army (Annual) Act a soldier can only appeal to his company officer. This officer sends it to the commanding officer and so it may finally get to the Army Council. I want to see it go a stage further. I will not say it is a question of pay. It may be a question of promotion. Whatever it is, it is discipline. It is the only way in which the Army is controlled. I wish to see added a Clause something on these lines:
    "If any officer or soldier, after his complaint has been enquired into under Sections 42 and of the Act and a decision has been arrived at. still considers that he has a grievance or has not had the redress to which he may consider himself entitled, such officer or soldier may appeal to a special Military Court of Appeal set up by this Act, and every officer to whom such all appeal is made in pursuance of this section shall cause such appeal to he forwarded to such Military Court of Appeal and such Military Court of Appeal shall investigate such complaint. and if satisfied of the justice of the complaint so made, shall issue its finding accordingly and forward the same to the Army Council, which shall take such steps as are necessary for giving full redress to the complainant in respect of the matter complained of in-so-far as the finding of the Military Court of Appeal is concerned.
    Provided that nothing in this section gives any officer or soldier any right of appeal from the finding or sentence of a court-martial."
    That is what I wish to point out very clearly. I am not criticising courts-martial at all. Then I propose that another Clause should be added, forming that Court of Appeal. Sections 42 and 43 of the Act require amendment, and it is essential that something of this sort should be done. I do not believe you can keep this great Army as a disciplined force unless you bring more democratic views into the government of the Army, and I want the Government to follow that splendid example set by the most democratic Secretary of State for War who ever sat upon that bench, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George), and to introduce more democratic government into the Army. I know that this Court of Appeal which I propose will be resisted. When the hon. Member goes to the War Office to-morrow every officer there will say "Preposterous!" But still it has got to be. The time has come when the Army has to be governed on democratic principles. The sooner this House adopts that principle, the better it will be for the Army and for the country.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I desire to put myself right with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The two Sections he quoted—Sections 42 and 43—do not say "Redress of Grievances." The title is
    "Redress of Wrongs"—
    every different story. The first is to the effect that
    "If an officer thinks himself wronged by his commanding officer,"
    then he may do certain things. The next provides that
    "If any soldier thinks himself wronged in any matter by any officer,"
    then he may do certain things. There is nothing there about grievances, which is a very different thing.
    General PHILIPPS: I regret that there should be any question of disagreement, and I apologise if I used the word "grievances" instead of "wrongs." I look upon those words from the Army point of view as meaning exactly the same thing. Of course I bow to your ruling, Sir. This is the only way in which an officer or soldier can get any grievance about his pay brought to the notice of the Army Council.
    Mr. DILLON: I desire to support the appeal made by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. E. Harvey) that there should be an Amendment introduced into the Army Act to deal with field punishment No. 1. I assume from the cessation of the public agitation on the question that the qualifications promised by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War have been carried out, and that field punishment No. I has been so modified, as to remove altogether the horrible and odious characteristics which were cited in this House and in the Press without contradiction. That is very satisfactory; but, of course, it remains a fact that in the case of an officer who is harsh it would be open to him, so long as the wording of the Statute is the same, to revert to the practice universally condemned by the House. I hold the view that anything involving physical torture ought to be eliminated from punishment in the Army. Everybody who knows anything at all about the subject knows that when an army is in face of the enemy you must have some forms of punishment, and rather stringent punishment, and that you cannot resort to imprisonment. I shall never forget the

    167
    long-drawn out Debates which occurred when the Irish party in this House abolished flogging in the British Army and when night after night—I was not then a Member of the House, but I was sitting under the Gallery listening to the Debates —every military man in this House, with one or two honourable exceptions, in those Debates said that if flogging in the British Army was abolished the whole of the Army would break up. Innumerable officers—there were a great many officers in the House in those days—got up night after night and pointed out that it would be absolutely impossible to maintain any British Army in the field without flogging. At that time one South African War had taken place—it was not the last—and those then in the House succeeded in getting out returns of the flogging that took place during that South African War. The number and ferocity of the floggings that went on during, I think, the first Transvaal War, were perfectly horrible. They were pointed to by the officers who spoke in those Debates—I listened to the Debates myself—as proof positive that you could not maintain the British Army in the field without having recourse to flogging. After a severe struggle flogging was abolished and all modern officers of the British Army are united in their testimony that the Army has greatly improved. All these punishments, which are brutal and savage, have a tendency to degrade men and make them unfit to act as soldiers, and it is recognised now in every democratic country in the world that these degrading and disgusting punishments, instead of contributing to the discipline of an army, demoralise men and injure discipline. Therefore, I hope when the Committee stage comes on the Under-Secretary will introduce carefully considered words which will confine field punishment No. 1—I do not like to use the opprobrious term by which it was described lately — to reasonable punishment. Men who are subjected to that punishment ought to be so fixed up that torture will be impossible. It was stated in the House, and I do not know that it was ever contradicted, that one or two men had died under it.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It was contradicted.
    Mr. DILLON: At all events I do not think it was contradicted that the form of that punishment could be and was on
    168
    many occasions made absolute torture. It is possible to tie a man up too tight. To fasten a man up in a perfectly humane way, an object of derision to his comrades, is punishment of the most terrible character to any man who has any self-respect at all. He is not fit to be in the Army if he has not some self-respect. It is quite enough to do that without adding torture to it.
    There is another point I want to raise in the Amendments to the Bill. I am not quite clear, even after the explanation of the Secretary of State, what is the exact scope and effects of these proposed Amendments. Clause 4 says where a person surrenders to a constable, being deserter or absentee he is to be handed over to the military authorities and brought before a magistrate. I cannot see any objection to that, but Clause 5 appears to be somewhat ambiguous, and I am suspicious and doubtful whether it may not have a much wider application than the hon. Gentleman admitted.
    Where the proceedings are proceedings against an officer or soldier on a charge of being a deserter or absentee without leave, and the officer or soldier has surrendered himself into the custody of, or has been apprehended by a provost marshal."
    Will that cover cases, which are very numerous—I have some of them in my pocket, which I propose to interview the Under-Secretary about to-morrow—where men are arrested who have never been in the Army but are arrested as deserters because it is alleged they are liable under conscription law, and are arrested as deserters? Will those words have the effect of depriving these men who are arrested as deserters under the Military Service Act of the protection of a Civil Court? That is an extremely important question, and we must examine these words with the greatest possible care to see that there does not lack in them that possibility. I have had one or two cases of my own Constituency who were arrested as deserters, although they were not deserters. In my opinion they were no more liable to the Military Service Act than I am; but they were deprived by a trick of trial by a Civil Court to which they were legally entitled. One is in Salonika to-day, illegally in Salonika, because after a long struggle we were successful in compelling the War Office to issue an order that such men were entitled to be tried by a Civil Court before they were handed over to the military authorities. In the early days this principle which appears to me to lurk

    169
    in the words of this Amendment was put into force in this country under the Military Service Act, and also in Ireland, where the Military Service Act does not apply. Men were called deserters because they had gone to Ireland to escape the Military Service Act, and the police being in ignorance of the law accepted the statement of the military authorities that they wore deserters as sufficient authority to them to hand the men over to the military without trial. Military escorts were sent, and these young men were placed in the hands of the military without trial. It now turns out, as we knew all along, and it has been admitted by the Government, that the whole proceedings were illegal. These men were entitled to trial before a civil tribunal, before ordinary civil magistrates, and they are now always brought before civil magistrates under similar conditions. Do the military authorities propose by these words to take away the protection which we have obtained for these men? If not, why are these words inserted into the proposed new Clause? Clause 4 says:
    "Where a person surrenders himself to a constable."
    That is alt right; we do not criticise that.
    Clause 6 uses the words
    "or has been apprehended."
    What is the object of introducing the words "or has been apprehended"? I put this point in order to give notice to the hon. Gentleman that some Amendment will be moved on it, and so that he may look into the matter carefully.
    Mr. MILLAR: I am sorry I did not hear the Under-Secretary's speech. I should like to ask him a question on a point I have already raised in correspondence with him. Perhaps he can tell us exactly what is the effect of the words in Clause 4,
    "Where a person surrenders himself to a constable in the United Kingdom as being a deserter or absentee without leave, the officer of police in charge of the police station to which he is brought…may cause him to be delivered into military custody, without bringing him before a court of summary jurisdiction."
    Before the person who is being charged with this offence is handed into military custody how long is he to remain in civil custody? I have had a representation made to me by the Justice's Court of
    170
    Lanarkshire, where the procedure in cases under the Army Act has been that where a charge has been admitted or is proved there has been commitment of the accused to prison until an escort is provided. In a number of cases some time has elapsed before the escort arrives, when the man belongs to a unit which is situated at some considerable distance. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us whether it is intended where the charge is admitted that the accused should be handed over at once to the military authorities of the district to await an escort from his own unit, wherever it may be situated, or whether it is intended that he shall remain in prison until the arrival of the escort from the unit to which he belongs? Where the offence is not admitted, but is proved in Court, is there to be commitment to prison pending the arrival of an escort from any other part of the United Kingdom, where there is a place suitable for detaining a man in military custody? I have been asked to repeat this on account of the delay which has taken place in certain cases. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to give an assurance that in every case immediate steps are taken to send an escort to take the accused away, and that they will not be detained in these places longer than is necessary.
    Major NEWMAN: As the House knows, on a couple of occasions during the last few weeks I have drawn attention to the question of the dismissal of officers without giving them a chance of appeal. On each occasion, though I have been treated with courtesy by the Under-Secretary, I was met with something in the nature of a stone wall, and I have had no assurance that these unfortunate officers would have any chance of appeal given to them. The hon. Member for Southampton has referred to a Court that was not purely a Military Court, but one composed partly of civilians and partly of military. I do not go so far as that. I ask again that these officers who are not given a chance of appeal, if they cannot get an appeal at the front should get some appeal at home, and if the hon. Gentleman can give me some such assurance I shall have nothing more to say. I have got case after case given to me where these young officers for very small offences have been deprived of their commissions. As I told the House on the last occasion, a sergeant cannot be deprived of his stripes without a court-

    171
    martial. It that is the case, how much less ought commissioned officers be deprived of their commissions and relegated to civil life, and perhaps then be brought in again as a conscript, without, at any rate, a chance of a court of inquiry. Yet case after case has been given to me where these officers have appealed over and over again for a chance of a court of inquiry or a court-martial and have been refused or have received no answer at all. Therefore, I appeal to the Under-Secretary to the War Office to have some sort of Court of Appeal or court of inquiry or court-martial whereby these young officers, if they think they have been dismissed unfairly, can make their complaint known, either at the front or better still here at home. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Southampton has told the Under-Secretary that what the Under-Secretary said the other day about court-martials was not quite correct. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman now to give me some assurance on that point.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I should like to support what the hon. Member has said. In some of the cases of these officers the charges are trivial—I mean trivial, in view of the period during which they have been trained. A young officer was asked to send in his resignation in these circumstances: He had been at the front not many days when he was put in charge of a battery, and he made a mistake which led to his being sent back to this country. If he did not send in his resignation he would be gazetted out of the Service. He had never had charge of a battery before. I submit that the officers are trained in such a hurry and so insufficiently, that the only way in which a man's efficiency can be tested is that during a period sufficient for his adequate training he should, before some competent authority, be put through the duties which he is expected to discharge at the front, in order that it maybe seen that he is able to perform those duties. To ask an officer, before he has had sufficient training, to perform duties he has never discharged before, and then ask him to resign because he has made some slight mistake, is not dealing with the matter in a common-sense fashion. The officer should be sent back for more training, and should be given a further opportunity, unless he shows utter incapacity. I hope something
    172
    will be done in that direction. I am rather glad to see the new Clause 4 of the Bill, which provides that absentees without leave are to be handed over to the military authorities, without being kept, as they are sometimes, two or three days in the prison cells. In one case a man had been a deserter from a regiment he had joined previously for nearly twelve months. He had joined another regiment and did excellent work at the front. When he came back he was arrested, and the officer representing his previous regiment pressed for a conviction. The magistrate, exercising his common sense, pointed out that the man had been fighting well in the other regiment for his country, and he was not going to make a victim of him. I can SCO the danger of a man, after being away from a regiment for twelve months, joining another regiment, and, on his return, being arrested and court-martialled, after he had fought well in the other regiment. In the ease to which I referred the magistrate remarked that the reason given for desertion was a good reason, if there can be, a good one for desertion. I hope something practical will be done in a case like that; otherwise, I have no objection to the Clause at all.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I wish to say a few words in support of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He said the charge might be a trivial one, and, that being so, it seems to me a great hardship that an officer in the circumstances should be asked to tender his resignation. In one instance the charge was a serious one, the suggestion being that there was cowardice, but the boy was suffering from shock. He was asked to send in his resignation, and his father wrote to me about the matter, repudiating the charge, and asking that his son should be tried by court-martial. I brought the case before the authorities, and forwarded the letters, but I could get no redress, nor could I find means of redress. It seemed to me a case of very great hardship, but I am glad that this matter has been brought up and I hope something will be done.
    Mr. O'SHEE: I desire to refer to a curious case which has been brought to my notice. It is that of a second-lieutenant on probation who has been eight months in the trenches and is still in the same rank. He has most favourable records, and commended by his superior officers. There are no complaints against him, and he is, I believe, an exemplary

    173
    officer. He belongs to the 36th Division of the Ulster Division. I do not know whether they are kept longer without promotion in that division than in others, but as it is the only case of the kind I have beard of I should be obliged for an explanation.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Waterford (Mr. O'Shee), I am afraid that is hardly within the scope of this Bill. I would volunteer the suggestion that the delay in this officer being made a substantive second-lieutenant from being a probationer may be due to the fact that in the battalion to which he has been gazetted there has been no vacancy so far. I came across to-day, for example, the case of a very gallant second-lieutenant, the son of a Member of this House. He has been in France for nineteen months. With regard to the point criticised by the hon. and gallant Member for Southampton (General Philipps). and the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Major Newman), and the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. T. Wilson), namely, the necessity for having a Court of Inquiry in particular cases in the Army, that question was raised and I replied to it—not very fully, it is true-in the Debate on the Army Estimates. I told my hon. Friends, who have got experience of the Army, and know its ramifications and its established discipline, and I think they will both agree with me, that whatever we might be able to do in days of peace, that at present it was unthinkable to establish any more courts during this terrible War. It is a well-known fact that you could not get the necessary officers back from France, from Egypt and elsewhere, and I am perfectly certain my hon. and gallant Friends would be the last to suggest that meanwhile in any case you could have such a Court of Inquiry. I hold the opinion that at the present time there is a court of appeal in His Majesty the King. Any officer who is wronged can always appeal to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, namely, His Majesty the King. I must again say what has struck me during my years of connection with the War Office, and very forcibly, has been the extraordinary care with which every officer's case is investigated by the members of the Army Council, and I have no doubt by the various generals and Army commanders to whom the case is brought before it goes
    174
    to the Army Council. The case which the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outh-waite) brought to the notice of the House was characterised by this fact. He told us that this boy—he led the House to understand that he was merely a boy—was asked to resign his commission on account of cowardice.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I said I was not sure that it was specifically stated, but the imputation resting upon him was that of cowardice.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not remember all the facts of the case, but I know a great many cases of this sort have been brought to my notice where naturally anxious parents come about their sons who have been asked to resign their commissions, and when I have inquired I have found that a very humane commanding officer has told a boy to send in his resignation and that the only alternative is a court-martial.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: But in this case they asked for a trial.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There is always a means of redress under Sections 42 and 13, which make it perfectly plain that where any wrong is suffered by any officer he can always complain to the Army Council. An officer in the Army ought to know what are the rights of an officer and of a soldier, because the soldier is dependent upon the knowledge of the officer. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Lanark (Mr. Duncan Millar), I made it perfectly clear in my speech that the very causes of delay which he hoped this Bill would obviate will be obviated by this Bill. As I pointed out', the real intention of one of the new Clauses is not to allow the soldier to be kept in prison or to go into the dock or appear before the magistrates, but that he should be sent, as soon as telephonic or telegraphic communication can be entered into with the nearest military depot, to that depot and not to prison.
    Mr. MILLAR: Does that mean that the nearest military depot in every ease will take charge of the accused until the guard of his own unit conies to take him?
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is not expressly stated there, but I know that the intention is to keep the soldier away from the Civil Court and prison, and naturally enough the very first thing that the officer

    175
    in charge would do would be to communicate with the nearest military depot and he would be sent to the nearest barracks until he could be taken over by his own unit. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) who was rather afraid, as I understood, of the importance of certain words in Clause 5, it is perfectly plain, if you read these two new Sub-sections together, that they do not deprive any soldier who may be apprehended or arrested of the protection of a Civil Court. The Section to which he drew my particular attention merely obviates the necessity of the soldier who makes the arrest having to go probably to France or Ireland to give evidence that he made the arrest. In other words, as I said in my opening speech, it is merely a extension of the Documentary Evidence Act, namely, that the production to the court of trial of a certificate, signed by the soldier as to what took place, is sufficient proof of the fact of the arrest. The only other point to which I should like to allude is the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. E. Harvey) and the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and I was very glad that both of them realised the fact that the War Office had fulfilled its promise. I promised at the end of last year to see that a new system of the administration of field punishment No. I should be introduced, and both my hon. Friends here acknowledge that we have done this, and that, so far as they know, there is no ground for complaint now of that needless cruelty and suffering which in the earlier days was inflicted upon these unfortunate men. I am not going to say that I would be successful, however anxious or willing I might be, in any attempt to do what was wished; but my hon. Friend made a slight error by saying that all the high commands in France were anxious that that punishment should be abolished.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: I said "some." I know that opinion differed in France. I understood that in the higher commands some were in favour and the majority against.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My Noble Friend and I have made inquiries from the higher commands in all the theatres of war, and there is only one which advocated its
    176
    abolition. The others were in favour of it. I have discussed this subject at considerable length, and I hope I have convinced the House that those in the Army are not anxious to keep up this punishment. We are however, in the position of having a gigantic Army and having to make a disciplined forced in a minimum of time, and it would be very ill-advised on our part if we were, in the interests of discipline in this Army, to abolish the punishment altogether. In the interests of humanity, however, we desire that it should be carried out without any needless torture. I am hopeful that my hon. Friend will see that we did our level best, and will not press me in Committee to produce any such words.
    Mr. HARVEY: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to see if it is possible to find such words? I very much hope he will make the effort.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will certainly promise that, but I cannot promise anything further. I will see what can be done in the direction my hon. Friend desires. With the permission of Mr. Speaker I should like to take the first opportunity of contradicting the statement which has been made to the House by the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing). The House will remember that I was asked some time ago—on 13th March—what our casualties were in France among our airmen, and my statement then was that
    "The average casualties per week for the last six weeks are: killed. 7–6; wounded, 8–3: missing. 4/"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th March, 1917. col. 887, Vol. XCI.]
    It is quite clear that I never used the word "percentage." These words are plain upon the face of it. If you take the average of six weeks, the average number of men killed in one week was 7.6, of wounded men 8.3, of missing men 4.2. I find that the same day the hon. Member said—and I think it has been repeated to-night—
    "It means we haw lost in six weeks 20 per cent. of our men, because the total comes to 20–2 per cent. of the personnel of the Air Service IT Means that if this goes on in this way then in six weeks the whole Air Service will be wiped out, That is rather an alarming statement."—[OFFICIAL]. [(REPORT, 13th March. 19l7, col. 1048, Vol. XCI.]
    I thought it my duty, in view of his repeating the statement to-night. to take the first opportunity of contradicting him. I never said any such thing, and I am perfectly certain, when my hon. Friend realises the great distinction between what

    177
    I myself said and what he pretends that I said, he will take the first opportunity of withdrawing. I think that I have met every point raised, and I hope the House will now give us the Second Reading of this Bill.
    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."
    Adjourned accordingly at Wight minutes after Eleven o'clock.

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,—
Chepstow Water Bill.
South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill.
Bristol Water Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be committed.

INFANT WELFARE.

  GRANTS FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Return ordered "of Grants given by the Local Government Board in the year 1916–17 to the twenty-seven London boroughs and the city of Westminster, and to the cities of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and Bradford, in aid of—

  (1) Municipal infant welfare centres or clinics and municipal health visitors;

  (2) Voluntary infant welfare centres or clinics and voluntary health visitors;

  (3) Total Grants under (1) and (2);

  (4) The names of the institutions on account of which grants were given, showing whether municipal or voluntary;

  showing under (1), (2), and (3) the totals for London and the five cities, respectively.—[Mr. Acland.]

  EXPENDITURE FROM RATES.
  Return ordered "of Expenditure from Rates by the twenty-seven London boroughs and the city of Westminster, and
  1698
  by the cities of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and Bradford, during the year 1915–16 for—

  (1) Municipal infant welfare centres or clinics and municipal health visitors;

  (2) Voluntary infant welfare centres or clinics and voluntary health visitors;

  (3) The total expenditure under (1) and (2);

  (4) The rate in the £ which it represents; and

  (5) The amount by which the total rate in the £for all public local services was less or more for the year 1915–16 than for the year 1913–14;

  showing under (1), (2), and (3) the totals for London and the five cities, respectively."—[Mr. Acalnd.]

OUTPUT OF COAL IN UNITED KINGDOM.
Return ordered "showing the estimated quantities of Coal raised in the United Kingdom in each quarter of the year 1916, compared with particulars for the corresponding periods of 1915 and 1914 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 120, of Session 1916)."—[Sir Albert Stanley.]
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Regulations for Special Schools (i.e., Schools for Blind, Deaf, Defective, and Epileptic Children), together with Regulations for Institutions providing Instruction in Preparation for a Trade for Students formerly in attendance at Special Schools [by Command; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Three Orders in Council, dated 13th March, 1917, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 13th March, 1917, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CROWN OFFICE ACT, 1870.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 13th March, 1917, making Rules as to the Form of Letters Patent to be used in the creation of Peers and Baronets [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LIGHTHOUSES, ETC. (LOCAL INSPECTIONS).
Copies presented of Reports to the Board of Trade by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, of their Inspection of Local Lighthouses, Buoys, and Beacons in 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    FOREIGN OFFICE BAGS (PRIVATE LETTERS).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the liability to capture and publication by the enemy of private letters sent in the sealed Foreign Office bags, he will take steps to secure that the contents of such bags dispatched in charge of Foreign Office messengers shall be submitted to the same censorship as that to which letters sent through the post are liable?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): The answer is in the negative.
    Colonel GRETTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Foreign Office bags are used for private letters sent by persons who are not on the staff of the Foreign Office, and will he take steps to have letters of that kind censored?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am not aware of that as a general rule. There may be exceptional cases in which that happens, but certainly it does not apply as a general rule.

    RECRUITING IN IRELAND.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can give further particulars as to the Report, on recruiting in Ireland which was prepared by an Irish officer at the request of the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister was acting as Secretary of State for War; whether the Report was approved by the late and by the present Commander-in-Chief in Ireland: whether it was sanctioned by the Chief Secretary; and whether it will be laid upon the Table of the House?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I assume that my hon Friend refers to a Report by an officer of the Irish Command which was received in the time of the late Secretary of State. This Report, which was not-asked for, was considered Departmentally, but it is not proposed to take any farther action on it.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is this the Report that was referred to in a Debate in the House a few days ago by the hon. and gallant Member for Newport (Captain Beville Stanier)?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that my hon. Friend must give me further particulars. I only assumed it was a certain Report.

    SUPPLY OF NURSES.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War on what date the Committee on the Supply of Nurses presented its Report; whether he can state why it has not yet been presented to Parliament; and whether he can state if it is intended to publish it in full?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that I have nothing to add at present to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on the 6th of this month.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Report of the Chairman was presented?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: All that I know is that the Report is at present being considered by the Army Council, and until it is so considered I cannot say whether it will be published or not.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: In view of the urgently important nature of this question, is there any reason why a Report of this importance should be held up for two
    months without any explanation?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I quite realise the importance of the Report, but I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that we do not wish to do anything until the Army Council have thoroughly considered it.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend, but the question of the adequate supply of nurses for soldiers at the front is one of great importance and there is no good in postponing the matter until the War is over. This Report has been under consideration for over two months by the War Office, and what is the cause of the delay?

    ARMY CLOTHING DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the Army Clothing Department have taken a building now in course of erection in Regent Street and, if so, for what purpose; if he is aware that the building is in a most unfinished state and that it must be months before it can be completed; and why it is necessary to take premises in Regent Street, where the ground rent value alone is far in excess of the whole rent likely to be charged for a completed building in another and more suitable locality?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Additional storage accommodation was needed for part-worn clothing in the neighbourhood of the main depot at Marylebone. The owner of the building referred to, who was authorised to carry out certain work at his own expense for the purpose of making it weather-proof, offered it to the Department rent free for six months from the end of March or the duration of the War. The Department has closed with this very favourable offer.
    Mr. BOYTON: May I ask whether the owner of these premises is a member of any Committee connected with the Army Clothing Department, and would it not be more profitable to adopt the other course?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is quite true that the owner of it is a member of the Clothing Committee of the Royal Army Clothing
    1702
    Department, but I have to look at it from the point of view of the War Office. We had to choose between putting up a building which would cost £25,000 or finding some temporary storage, which this building offers us.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    DIETARY SCALE (PRISONERS OF WAR).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the diet scale for the wounded prisoners at Dartford, Clapton, etc; is it on a scale much larger than that fixed by the Food Controller for our civilian population; is the medical staff consulted as to the dietary necessary for the patients; are most of the prisoners convalescent; and are those who are able doing any work or is it intended to employ them in any way?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): The dietary for wounded prisoners of war at Dartford, Clapton, and other camps cannot be fixed according to a rigid scale, as it is based upon the recommendations of the medical officers attached to the various camps in accordance with the requirements of individual patients. As soon as a convalescent prisoner is discharged from hospital he is sent to a parent camp, where he is employed on camp duties of a suitable nature till he is able to be sent to a working camp. There are at present a large number of prisoners in such camps, while practically all the rest who are available for work have been earmarked for various employments and are awaiting transfer to working camps as soon as the necessary accommodation is ready.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea of what the average-percentage of diet is compared with that of the civilian population?
    Mr. HOPE: I am afraid I cannot. It would involve intricate calculations, as the doctors prescribe quite differently for different patients.
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Committee representing the War Office, the Home Office, and the officer prisoners at Donington Hall has now decided on the scale of rations that under the present conditions may be deemed adequate for the officers in residence at that place?
    Mr. HOPE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply to the question of the hon. Member for Clapham on 27th February. There is no scale of rations for officer prisoners of war, who buy and have to pay for such food as they may reasonably require. They are, however, limited in regard to the purchase of bread, meat and sugar to the amounts advocated for the civil population of the country by the Food Controller.
    Major NEWMAN: What was the Committee appointed for? In that answer we were given to understand that a Committee was appointed to deal with the question of these officers and their food.
    Mr. HOPE: There was no Committee appointed to deal with the question of the officers' food. There was a Committee appointed to revise the rations in accordance with the wishes of the Food Controller, and I think that is covered by the next question.
    Mr. FABER: But seeing that the Leader of the House said, in answer to a question of mine the other day, that the people of this country are to economise not only in bread, meat, and sugar, but in everything, are these German officers allowed to run loose in other matters than bread, meat, and sugar, and buy what they like?
    Mr. HOPE: No. Their purchases are watched, and if they exceed in other articles undoubtedly they will be stopped. The phrase I used was, "such food as they may reasonably require." If their requirements become unreasonable, they will be dealt with.
    Mr. FABER: But there is that condition of reasonableness?
    Mr. HOPE: Certainly.

    DUMFRIESSHIRE (CONDITION OF FARMS).
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of farms and small holdings in Dumfriesshire where corn cannot be thrashed, where land cannot be ploughed and where dairy stock has all been sold owing to the labour having been called up for military service; and whether there is any means of providing assistance with effective labour in these cases in view of the need for the greatest production of food?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): My attention has been called to-some instances in which difficulties have occurred in Dumfriesshire, as in other counties, through the calling up of workers for military service; but according to my information the conditions mentioned by my hon. Friend do not apply generally to farms and small holdings in Dumfriesshire. Labour to assist in agricultural work is being supplied to farmers who require it through the district agricultural committees by the National Service Department, who are acting in co-operation with the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this state of matters has been brought about by a very exacting tribunal, whose members always get their own gardeners exempt?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have no information upon that subject, but if the hon. Gentleman puts down a question I shall be glad to look into it
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already nearly 2,500 men have been supplied all over Scotland by the National Service Department?
    Mr. MUNRO: I believe that is so. In this connection the National Service Department has rendered most valuable-National Service.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of the ploughs sent by the National Service Department were useless?
    Mr. MUNRO: No, I am not aware of that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It is a fact.

    CANADIAN FROZEN BEEF.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade is he can say what are the total imports of Canadian frozen beef since 1st November; how much was imported on account of the Swift, Armour, and Morris companies, and what were the names of any others importing these goods; and why is no arrangement made with the Canadian Government similar to that made with the Colonial Governments of Australia and New Zealand?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. George Roberts): Imports of frozen beef from Canada are not shown separately in the Monthly Trade Accounts, but the total quantity imported from "other countries"(including Canada, South Africa, and Brazil) in the four months (November, 1916, to February, 1917) was 5,627 tons. We have no knowledge of the shippers. The Canadian Government have not found themselves in a position to buy meat for us, but they help us in various ways. In the period in question we have bought 10,200 tons of frozen meat from Canadian firms for the Armies, and are buying more as far as we can.

    TRACTORS AND PLOUGHS.
    Mr. PETOasked the Minister of Munitions whether the entire shipments of tractors and ploughs are held up to the order of his Department, including machines ordered by particular farmers; whether he is aware that in cases where all arrangements have been made in anticipation of delivery by farmers to put these machines into immediate operation on large farms of 1,000 acres and upwards, and spring cultivation and seeding operations have been laid out in anticipation of having the machines to use, this action will so hinder the work as to diminish the area of arable land that can be cultivated and sown this spring; will he say who is entrusted with the task of deciding that these machines can be more usefully employed elsewhere than on the farms for which they were ordered; and whether he is satisfied that his Department are more capable of carrying on farming operations than the farmers who are responsible for the cultivation of these large farms?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of MUNITIONS (Major Sir Worthington Evans): No tractors are being held up. Importers and manufacturers are delivering as fast as the machines are ready. Tractors and ploughs are only diverted by the Ministry of Munitions on request by the Boards of Agriculture for England or Scotland or the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland. The decision as to where machines so diverted can be most usefully employed rests with those Departments.
    Mr. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman take some steps to see that that answer
    1706
    is conveyed to those importers, so that they do not give answers to inquiries for machines to the effect contained in the question, that the whole of the consignments axe to the order of the Ministry of Munitions?
    Sir W. EVANS: The facts are as I have stated in my reply.

    FOOD PRICES COMMITTEE.
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether the Second Interim Report of the Food Prices Committee can be laid upon the Table?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The Second and also the Third Report of the Food Prices Committee are in the hands of the printer, and it is anticipated that they may be circulated before the end of this week.

    LAND CULTIVATION (IRELAND).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how many tractors have been brought to Ireland since the beginning of the tillage scheme; and how they have been distributed?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): Eighty motor tractors or more are at work in Ireland, about one-half of which were imported subsequent to the issue of the Compulsory Tillage Regulations, and more are expected to arrive this week. The responsibility for the distribution of motor tractors has been taken over by the Department of Agriculture in order to ensure that they are used to the best advantage.
    Mr. LUNDONasked on what grounds he refuses to give the names of the inspectors appointed in connection with the tillage scheme; whether these men are practical farmers; and, if so, will he state whether they are themselves carrying out the Government scheme on their own farms?
    Mr. DUKE: It would be contrary to the public interest to publish the names of the persons appointed to act as inspectors in connection with the Compulsory Tillage Regulations. I have no reason to suppose that any of them who have farms have failed to comply with the Regulations.
    Mr. LUNDONasked how many district councils in Ireland have adopted the tillage scheme; how many refused to deal with it in any shape; and the number which threw the scheme overboard because of the Food Committee's refusal to allow local authorities to buy seeds in their own areas?
    Mr. DUKE: One hundred and twenty-seven district councils have adopted the loan scheme for the distribution of seeds and manure. The Department of Agriculture have no information as to the reasons which influenced most of the remaining eighty-six councils in deciding not to adopt the scheme, but in a number of localities there was no necessity for its adoption.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some district councils a certain amount of dissatisfaction exists owing to the fact that under the scheme which they have adopted they are unable to get seeds through the Department?
    Mr. DUKE: I am aware that in some districts there is dissatisfaction, but I think it is inevitable. We have, however, adopted a comprehensive tillage scheme and every step has been taken which I could see my way to take to meet the difficulties, as my hon. Friend knows in some cases which he has brought to my notice.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he will ascertain if a pooling arrangement has been entered into between twelve of the largest potato exporters in the North of Ireland in connection with the seed potatoes purchased by the Irish Department through Cullen. Allen, and Company, of Belfast; and will inquiries be made into the matter?
    Mr. DUKE: Orders given by the Department of Agriculture for seed potatoes are distributed amongst a number of potato merchants, including Messrs. Cullen, Allen, and Company, of Belfast, who act as the distributing agents.
    Mr. LUNDONasked how it happens that of those granted licences to export potatoes all are, with a couple of exceptions, Protestants and Unionists and mainly confined to Ulster; by what method are licences granted; and what recommendations are necessary to obtain the necessary permit?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not know what are the religious opinions of the persons who have been licensed to export potatoes. I have received complaints from Protestants and Catholics of supposed partiality, and I am satisfied they are unfounded. No doubt the Ulster potato trade is largely in the hands of Protestants.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON(by Pricate Notice) asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the provision of a supply of potatoes for Scotland?
    Mr. MUNRO: In consideration of the fact that owing to the failure of the ordinary potato crop, and the extent to which the demand for seed potatoes has further denuded Scotland for the benefit of English growers of its already scanty stock, I am glad to say it has been arranged that 12,000 tons of English-grown potatoes shall during the next few weeks be made available to the Scottish Board of Agriculture for consumption in Scotland. The potatoes will be sent in the first instance to the principal centres of population and will be distributed in accordance with arrangements made by the Board in consultation with the municipal authorities. A scheme of distribution is now being prepared, and it is hoped that the first supplies will very shortly be placed on rail. The prices to the consumer will be the ordinary prices, as fixed by the Food Controller. I need hardly say that, even with this supplementary supply, the quantities available for consumption in Scotland will be extremely limited, necessitating the utmost economy on the part of all classes in their use; and I desire to make an appeal to those who are not dependent on potatoes as a diet to abstain from their use for the benefit of the poor.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of potatoes that is per head of population in Scotland?

    IRISH FOOD COMMITTEE.
    Mr. LUNDONasked if the Irish Food Committee has so far entered into and taken possession of any lands where the owner has refused to comply with the tillage scheme; if so, in how many cases; and will the names and addresses of such people be given?
    Mr. DUKE: I am glad to say that in every case in which the Department of

    1709
    Agriculture has yet taken steps toward entry the person in default has undertaken to make good his default.

    SEED OATS (PRICES).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if his attention has been called to the prices which are being charged by merchants for seed oats; and will steps be taken to see that the already heavily handicapped Irish farmer will not be required to pay exorbitant prices for the seeds he may require?
    Mr. DUKE: Having regard to the value of oats for feeding purposes and to high transit charges the Department of Agriculture are of opinion that the prices charged for seed oats cainnot be regarded as exorbitant.

    FISH SUPPLY (IRELAND).
    Colonel M'CALMONTasked the Vice-President whether he has taken similar steps for the provision of petrol for fishermen and small yacht owners, who are willing to use their boats for the maintenance of the supply of fish as are in force in England and Wales?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that the question of the supply of petrol for the purpose mentioned rests with the Petrol Control Committee. So far as the Department of Agriculture are aware, their recommendations have been acted upon in those cases which have been referred to them.
    Colonel M'CALMONT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the owners of such boats by publishing information as to how they can obtain petrol for the maintenance of the supply of fish?
    Mr. DUKE: If my hon. and gallant Friend will address to me a question on the matter I will answer it.

    WHEAT COMMISSION.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why the Wheat Commission found it necessary to send out on Sunday, 11th March, a telegram of 225 words to large numbers of firms asking for supplies of wheat, which involved a great deal of work to post offices all over the country, when letters containing the same information could have been prepared and posted on the same day and would have come to the notice of the recipients at the same.
    1710
    time, namely, the opening of business offices the first thing on the following-Monday morning?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Captain Bathurst): The Food Controller requested the Wheat Commission to take prompt action in relation to certain stocks of barley, and, as the course to be adopted was not decided upon until late on Saturday, the 10th instant, it was too late to prepare and post a large number of letters for delivery throughout the country on Monday morning, as was necessary. I may say that this course was adopted in order to prevent the discharge of an enormous number of employés whose continued services were required.
    Mr. RENDALL: What gain was there in time in sending out telegrams requiring the Post Office employés to write out telegrams of 225 words all over the country rather than employ their own clerks on Sunday morning?
    Captain BATHURST: As I have already pointed out, it obviated the necessity of discharging a very large number of men whose continued services were necessary. I may also point out that the postal facilities are not so good as they were, and that these communications would probably not have been received in any case until Wednesday.

    COMPULSORY RATIONING.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will advise His Majesty's Government to introduce a system of rationing by ticket of sugar, potatoes, and general groceries, so that all classes shall have, and only have, their fair proportions thereof and prevent hoarding and wastage?
    Captain BATHURST: Having regard to the expenditure of man-power and money which would be involved, the Food Controller is very reluctant to recommend the introduction of a compulsory rationing scheme, unless, or until, extreme shortage of supplies renders such a course inevitable. He considers that hoarding and waste can be prevented by less cumbrous machinery.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider a system of local tickets, which could be done quite simply without the organisation suggested?
    Captain BATHURST: Perhaps the hon. Member will explain the extreme simplicity of the course which he recommends?
    Mr. W. THORNE: If the Government are going to consider this question, will they also consider the advisability of a family book instead of tickets?
    Captain BATHURST: If the hon. Member will explain to me the nature of his proposal, it certainly will be investigated.

    TEA, COFFEE, AND COCOA (SHORT WEIGHT).
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether a Select Committee of this House, consisting of fifteen Members, was appointed on 24th March, 1914, to inquire into and report on the question of short weights; whether after hearing evidence the Select Committee in their Report unanimously recommended that it should be made illegal to sell tea, coffee, and cocoa (in powder) in retail by any other system than by net weight; and whether the Food Controller will issue an Order or Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act giving full effect to this unanimous finding and recommendation of the Select Committee?
    Captain BATHURST: The recommendation referred to by the hon. Member was stated by the Committee themselves to be made in the full knowledge that it might in certain cases involve a change in price or a lowering of quality. As the price and quality of tea for general consumption has recently been fixed by agreement, the Food Controller does not propose at present to enforce a recommendation which would upset the arrangement made.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is not the unanimous recommendation of a Select Committee of this House that tea, coffee, and cocoa should be sold by no other system than by net weight going to be carried out by the Food Controller?
    Captain BATHURST: I believe that a good many unanimous Reports of Select Committees of this House have not necessarily been immediately adopted. I may perhaps mention that two branches of the trade are by no means agreed upon this subject, and even the representatives of the co-operative movement differ from the view put forward by the hon. Member.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the brokers and wholesale buyers of tea in the London market buy
    1712
    all their tea by net weight, and moreover get an excess of from half a pound to a pound in each chest; and, that being so, why should they compel poor people to buy paper at 2s. 6d. per pound?
    Captain BATHURST: I quite admit that there is a good deal to be said for this suggestion, but at the present time it is thought undesirable to change the system, especially as the bulk of the representatives of the trade are quite satisfied that it should continue.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing practice of using for these packets double wrappers of paper and of tinfoil, and that the proportion of weight taken up by the wrappers is greatest in the case of the smaller packets?
    Captain BATHURST: yes; and that matter is being very carefully watched. In the event of the package being increased in weight, steps will be taken to prevent such an alteration continuing. The interests of the consumer are being carefully watched in this matter, as has been repeatedly pointed out; but wherever the consumer purchases a package of tea which is represented as a pound but which includes the package, that fact is stated on the wrapper, and due allowance is made for it.
    Mr. WHITE: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether he will protect the public by fixing a maximum weight for the wrapper?
    Captain BATHURST: Yes, that has already been decided upon, and I can assure the hon. Member that any increase in the weight of the wrapper is not going to be permitted. It shall be at the minimum which existed before the War.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the poor workers of this city, in buying four quarters of a pound of tea gross weight, only receive 14½ oz. of tea and l½ oz. of paper, and is that—after all, it is a public fraud—going to be permitted by the Food Controller?
    Captain BATHURST: No; I am not aware of the fact alleged by the hon. Member, and, if he can show me any case in which the wrapper weighs more than 1 oz., immediate steps shall be taken to prevent any such thing.
    Mr. FLAVIN: If the hon. Member will come with me to my locker, I will show him a wrapper and he can weigh it.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Emanuel Ribeiro is still confined to Lord Derby's war hospital near Warrington for conscience' sake; whether he is still being forcibly fed; whether he is in solitary confinement in a very cold bedroom and has to stay in bed all day to keep warm; is he denied the visits of friends and not allowed to leave his room even to go to the lavatory; whether he is aware that he has a wife and five young children at home; and whether, under the Military Service Act, ho is entitled to complete exemption?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry that I am still not in a position to answer my hon. Friend, as I have not yet been able to get an answer to the inquiries which were instituted. I will let him know as soon as possible.
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. G. H. Stuart Beavis, a conscientious objector, was arrested on 25th May, 1916, and handed over to the military authorities, and a few days later sent to France, tried by court-martial at Boulogne for refusing to obey a military order, sentenced on 24th June, 1916, to death by shooting, which was afterwards commuted to ten years' penal servitude, was brought before the central tribunal, who considered him to be genuine and offered him work under the Home Office scheme which he refused, and has now been in prison without intermission since the beginning of July last and is now in Maidstone prison; and whether, seeing there is no doubt as to his genuineness, he will be discharged from the Army and released from prison?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 15th instant to the hon. Member for Bradford West.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. Herbert Runham Brown, a conscientious objector, was arrested on 28th August, 1916, as an absentee under the Military Service Act, court-martialled on 5th September for refusing to obey a military order, sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, and sent to Wormwood Scrubbs Prison; whether on 8th December, 1916.
    1714
    he was sentenced by court-martial to two years' hard labour for again refusing to obey a military order; whether his local tribunal agreed that he was genuine and exemption was refused by one vote only; and, in view of these facts, whether he will be set at liberty in accordance with the provisions of the Military Service Acts?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The statutory rights to which Private Brown was entitled were exhausted before he became a soldier. He cannot, therefore, be relieved from military service.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether Mr. Eric P. Southall, a conscientious objector and a birthright member of the Society of Friends, was arrested on 2nd June, 1916, court-martialled on 24th June for refusing to obey a military order, sentenced to 112 days' hard labour and sent to Winson Green gaol, and thence to Wormwood Scrubbs; whether he went before the central tribunal, who remarked they could not understand why he had not been given absolute exemption at first; whether he was again court-martialled and sentenced to one year's hard labour, which was afterwards commuted to six months which he is now serving in Wandsworth civil prison; whether, seeing there is no doubt as to his genuineness, he will be set at liberty; and (2) whether Mr. G. A. Sutherland, a conscientious objector and a member of the Society of Friends, and known in South Africa prior to the War as a pacifist, was arrested on 25th April, 1916, handed over to the military, court-martialled on 3rd May for refusing to obey a military order, sent to Lewes Gaol, deemed by the central tribunal to be genuine, and is now undergoing a second term of imprisonment in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin; whether Sub-section (d) of Section 2 of the Military Service Act was enacted to meet such cases; and whether this man will be set at liberty?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed that in both cases these men refused to accept work under the Brace Committee, and in these circumstances they will not be set at liberty.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. Hubert Peet, a well-known Quaker and editor of the "Ploughshare," has been court-martialled a second time for refusing to obey military orders;

    1715
    whether he has already served a term of 112 days' imprisonment with hard labour; and will he say what is the object of these repeated punishments of a bonâfide conscientious objector?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed that Private Peet has refused to accept work under the Brace Committee. Under these circumstances he remains subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the Army Act.
    Sir W. BYLES: May I have an answer to the last part of the question?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my answer covers the last part of the question.
    Sir W. BYLES: Is not this man a bonâ fide conscientious objector, entitled to complete exemption under the Military Service Act?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The facts of the case are that he has been offered work of national importance by the Home Office which he has refused.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he has received a satisfactory report of the work done by the conscientious objectors on the New-haven-Seaford road; and (2) whether a number of conscientious objectors, who have refused to have anything to do with military service and who have undergone sentences of imprisonment, have been recently working on the Newhaven-Sea-ford road; whether the working hours are shorter, the feeding arrangements better, the pay more, and the leave longer than that enjoyed by the troops in the immediate neighbourhood; and whether he will explain why these men are placed in a better position than those who are serving their country?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): One hundred and seventy-eight conscientious objectors are employed under the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors on the New-haven-Seaford Road. Their working hours are the same as worked for by men employed on similar work in the locality, namely, ten hours a day in summer and a little less in winter. As regards their food, instructions are being issued to all camps where conscientious objectors are employed under the Committee that the
    1716
    weekly rations suggested by the Food Controller are to be observed. The men are paid 8d. a day. They may, by good work and conduct, earn ten days' leave per annum. I am not aware how these conditions compare with those of soldiers in the immediate neighbourhood. I regret to say that the work hitherto performed by these men has been unsatisfactory. The Committee, in conjunction with the Road Board, are taking active steps to secure a higher standard of industry.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this question of leave, and is it fair that these men should be given ten days' leave when soldiers cannot get more than a week-end?
    Sir G. CAVE: They get ten days in the. year by good conduct only.

    GAZETTED OUT.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, with regard to Captain Arthur L. Tooze, who was gazetted out of the Army and whose commanding officer has recommended him for employment as a lieutenant-instructor of troops, whether he will take steps to secure that the recruiting officer at Paddington does not call him up for service as a private in the meantime until the case has been further considered?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This ex-officer will not be called up pending further consideration of his case. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down his question again.

    UNFIT FOR SERVICE.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the case of a man residing at Whalley Range, Man chester, who attested on the 10th December, 1915, was rejected as unfit for service on the 5th April, 1916, was re-examined at Hardman Street Consumption Hospital on the 27th February, 1917, and rejected as temporarily unfit, and was re-examined on the 10th March, and again rejected as temporarily unfit, being instructed to call again for re-examination in a week's time; and whether he can state how many times this man must be re-examined and prevented from carrying on his business before the military authorities can decide whether he is fit for service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries are being made, and my hon. Friend will be informed of the result.

    VALVULAR HEART DISEASE.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Robert Smith, of 13, Bardsley Street, Heaton Norris, Stockport, who was rejected at Stockport on l5th May, 1916 (Group 43, No. 634) for valvular disease of the heart, has now, after re-examination in February, 1917, been passed in category C1; and whether this is in accordance with War Office instructions?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have asked for a report, and I will let my hon. Friend know the result.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it in accordance with the War Office instructions?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say that. I must have notice.

    DISCHARGE FROM. SERVICE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what inquiries were instituted into the antecedents of James Bray, an Irish carpenter, who has worked on military buildings since the outbreak of war and is now, as No. 8384, Reserve battalion, 18th County of London Regiment, being punished for refusing to become a soldier; whether his account of himself, that he has worked as a carpenter on military buildings in Athlone, Arklow, Queenstown, Dublin, Ripon, Richmond, Sheffield, Coventry, Birmingham, Anston, and Regent's Park, in immediate succession, has been found untrue in any particular; and, he having come to this country solely for this skilled war work, and therefore not being ordinarily resident here, where he now is, whether he is still being punished illegally, and when he will be released?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries have been made into the facts of this case, and as it appears that James Bray has been employed on work in connection with Government contracts almost continuously since his arrival in Great Britain, it has been decided as an act of grace to discharge him from military service. I would remind the hon. Member that Bray was arrested by the civil police on their own initiative and was properly handed over to the military authorities by a stipendiary magistrate who had heard the necessary evidence and decided that Bray was liable for military service, and in these circumstances there is no question of his having been punished illegally.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what compensation is to be paid to James Bray for this illegal attempt to force him into the Army, and what action is to be taken in regard to the magistrate for sending him into the Army, without having made proper inquiry?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As I have pointed out to the hon. Member in my answer John Bray was not forced into the Army, and no compensation will be paid.
    Mr. KING: Is not the remedy in this case to take action against the magistrate who acts illegally; has such action not already been initiated in one case?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The magistrate in this case has not acted illegally.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this case has been before his Department for some months, and that until I went down to Winchester and heard the man's statement, the authorities refused to budge an inch; and is he aware that there are many other cases like Bray's, only they are not brought to light?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to give notice of this question.

    ASSISTANT CLERKS (ABSTRACTOR CLASS).
    Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked whether, in the Customs and Excise Department, there are available for service in Government Departments as assistant clerks (abstractor class) a few youths still serving as boy clerks and ineligible on various grounds for the Army who successfully passed the examination for assistant clerkships in January, 1916; whether women have been appointed since that date to fill vacancies which in the usual course would have been filled by these youths, who are consequently retained in the position of boy clerks and deprived of the higher salary which would have been theirs as established clerks; and whether he will take steps to have such youths promoted without delay?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): There are three boy clerks ineligible for military service now serving in the Customs and Excise Department, who successfully passed the examination for assistant clerkships in January, 1916. No appointments as assistant clerk have recently been made in the Customs and Excise Department, as the vacancies have

    1719
    been kept in reserve for boys on military service senior to the boys in question, and have therefore been temporarily filled by women clerks; but extra vacancies have now occurred, which may make it possible for the Civil Service Commissioners to assign the boys in question to assistant clerkships without prejudice to their seniors.

    RETIRED OFFICERS.
    Colonel M'CALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the promotion of re-employed retired officers will be considered by the Committee of which the right hon. Member for Dundee is Chairman?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The promotion of re-employed officers who are in the Reserve of Officers is bring considered by the Committee.
    Colonel M'CALMONT: But what about the retired officers who are not on the Reserve of Officers, but who volunteered their services though not called upon?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am hopeful that we shall be able to make use of their services.

    ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.
    Colonel M'CALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is in accordance with the decision of the Army Council that a civilian doctor in Ireland appointed in medical charge of troops in his locality before the War, who although of military age has been found medically unfit for general service by a board, is to be forthwith replaced by another local civilian doctor of over military age; if so, upon what grounds has it been decided to penalise young unfit doctors; and whether this decision will apply to doctors who have become unfit through military service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is in accordance with the wishes of the Central Medical War Committee that we should not employ young doctors at home, as this prevents others from volunteering. Young medical men who are unfit are employed on general service at home and not locally.
    Colonel M'CALMONT: What is meant by general service? Are local doctors
    1720
    moved to another district and other men employed in their place? Can they not be employed in their own locality?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: We cannot accept offers of local service. Doctors must volunteer for service in any part of the Home Command.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (MEDICAL DEPARTMENT).
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the doctors in the medical department at Woolwich Arsenal are under the jurisdiction of the Army Medical Department?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As far as officers are concerned, appointments are made through the office of the Director-General. I believe one or two women doctors have been appointed by the Arsenal authorities direct. The medical department, like the rest of the Arsenal, is not under the jurisdiction of the Director-General.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, without detriment to the public interest, he can give the actual number of prisoners of war now in the United Kingdom and the number of undesirable aliens in internment?
    Mr. HOPE: There are at present in this country 27,613 combatant prisoners of war, military and naval, practically all of whom are Germans, and 30,525 civilian prisoners, of whom by far the greater number are Germans.
    Major NEWMAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if the 27,000 prisoners of war include the wounded?
    Mr. HOPE: Yes.
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the vacant land at the Alexandra Palace, N., is now under process of cultivation by interned enemy aliens; and has it been found possible to employ other interned aliens or prisoners of war on the cultivation of land to directly produce food for their own requirements?
    Mr. HOPE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, the reason being, as I explained in my reply

    1721
    to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend on this subject on February 13th, that, following international usage, the principle of compulsion is not applied to interned civilians as it is to combatant prisoners. In regard to the second part, I am informed that interned aliens and prisoners of war are at present employed on the cultivation of land for their own food in the Isle of Man, and at Feltham, Dorchester, Stobs and Blandford.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: What steps are taken when these prisoners of war or interned aliens go on strike; what power of punishment is there?
    Mr. HOPE: With regard to combatant prisoners, there are the ordinary military powers. With regard to civilian prisoners, each strike will have to be dealt with on its own merits. According to international usage, there is no power to compel civilian prisoners to work, nor are our prisoners in Germany so compelled.
    Major NEWMAN: At the Alexandra Palace are these interned aliens offered work if they care to work; has peaceful persuasion been adopted?
    Mr. HOPE: I cannot answer for certain as to the Alexandra Palace. Interned aliens have been asked to work, but I cannot say exactly what has happened in that particular camp without notice.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Send Newman over to peacefully picket them.

  AIR SERVICES.

    BOMB-DEOPPING MACHINES.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to consider the standardisation of some type of bomb-dropping machine that they may be produced in a sufficient quantity to undertake a sustained offensive behind the enemy's lines?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the AIR BOARD (Major Baird): The possibility of such a standardisation as the hon. Member suggests is being kept in mind. But the production of various types of aeroplanes must be governed by the requirements of the naval and military Services.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the
    1722
    machines known as BE 2 C, BE 2 E, and BE 2 D are now being used for offensive work or for bomb-dropping behind the German lines; and, if so, what is the average speed and climb of these machines?
    Major BAIRD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. BILLING: Am I to understand that these machines are not being employed over the lines?
    Major BAIRD: That was not the question the hon. Member put down.
    Mr. PRINGLE: "For offensive work," yes.
    Mr. BILLING: Are these machines going over the lines for offensive work? It is a perfectly straightforward question.
    Major BAIRD: It would not be in the public interest to state what kind of machines are used.
    Mr. BILLING: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that it would be in the interests of the pilots?
    Major BAIRD: I certainly appreciate that, but the hon. Member must recollect that any answer given here is at once sent over to Germany, and it does not suit us, in the interests of the pilots or of anybody else, that the Germans should have this information.

    ROYAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Lieutenant-Colonel O'Gorman is still in control of the Royal Aircraft Factory; and, if not, for what reasons was he removed from his post?
    Major BAIRD: Lieutenant-Colonel O'Gorman ceased to be superintendent of the Royal Aircraft Factory upon his appointment as consulting engineer to the Director-General of Military Aeronautics.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that it is the custom of the Director-General of Military Aeronautics constantly to send Lieutenant-Colonel O'Gorman to the factory and use his influence?
    Major BAIRD: That is altogether contrary to the facts. The Director-General of Military Aeronautics makes the best possible use of Colonel O'Gorman.

    OBSERVER'S DEATH.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the particulars in connection with the death of C. J. Jarvis, an aeronautical observer in the Royal Flying Corps; and will he say what type of machine he was in at the time, and to what cause is his death attribute able?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This officer was in a B. E. 2D, at the time of his death. I have no details of the casualty, which took place as long ago as 26th October, 1916.

    SOPWITH TRIPLANE SCOUT.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the order for the Sopwith triplane scout has been altered or cancelled; and, if it has been cancelled, will he say when this machine was offered to the authorities; when the order was placed; what number were ordered, and what deliveries have taken place, and if this order has been cancelled for what reason?
    Major BAIRD: Parts 2, 3, and 5 of this question are repetition of a question addressed to me by the hon. Member on the 12th instant. I regret that I can add nothing to the reply which I then gave him. It would be contrary to the public interest to furnish the remainder of the information asked for.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether it is not in the public interest or in the interests of this House that contracts of this description, which are unfortunate, should be discussed or debated?
    Major BAIRD: No. The interests of the House and of the public, I take it, are the same as the interests of the nation, and at this particular moment it is very undesirable that we should give to Germany information which would enable them to know how long it takes us to produce new machines?
    Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Member not aware that this machine was offered by this firm twelve months ago this month, and that it took eight months for the authorities to make up their minds what they were going to do about it?
    Major BAIRD: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I have just invited the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the point that it is not desirable to give information
    1724
    to Germany as to the time which it takes us to get machines out, and he has just stated precisely the thing that I have said, it is not in the public interest to state.
    Mr. BILLING: I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the information I asked for was not how long it took for us to turn it out, but how long it took our authorities to make up their minds?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is one disadvantage of asking questions without putting them down on the Paper.

    AEROPLANE CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to provide for the appointment of one technical head for both the naval and the military branches of aeroplane construction; and whether he will see that powers are given him to control the design and requirements of machines for both of these Services?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I see no reason for disturbing the present arrangement, which was only recently arrived at after the fullest consideration, whereby the control of the design of aeroplanes and seaplanes to be ordered for both Services is vested in the Air Board, on which both Services and the Ministry of Munitions are represented.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this administration has been responsible for some 500 or 600 machines- at present brand new machines—being deposited in all the available places around? Is he aware that I spent the morning going round to these depots and inspecting them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am certainly not aware of the last part of the question, and I have no reason to believe the accuracy of the first.

    COMMITTEE OK MEMBERS.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present state of our Air Services, he is prepared to consider the appointment of a Committee of Members of this House privately to inquire into and report upon the general administration of our Air Services?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not prepared to accept the suggestion contained in the question.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take some steps to inquire into the present administration and the present condition of affairs in the Department?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The subject has been most minutely investigated by the Cabinet, and we are satisfied that everything is being done that can be done at the moment.
    Mr. WATT: Was it not on the question of the Air Service that the last Government went out, and has this Government been any improvement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing this Government with that of France.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the application of Mrs. Flynn for dependant's allowance out of her son, Private John Flynn, No. 9023, Irish Guards, 1st Guard's Brigade, D group, machine gun company, British Expeditionary Force, France, will be now considered?
    Mr. FORSTER: Dependence was assessed at 3s. a week, and this amount, together with excess allotment, has been issued since the 27th July, 1915.
    Mr. MEEHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private Denis M'Sharry, of the 7th Leinsters, No. 5057, British Expeditionary Force, 47th trench-mortar battery, has been allowing his mother, who was partly dependent on him previous to his enlistment two years ago, the sum of 3s. 6d. per week, and that the War Office refuse to grant her any allowance; and whether inquiries will be made and all dependant's allowances will be remitted to his mother?
    Mr. FORSTER: Mrs. M'Sharrys claim for dependant's separation allowance was disallowed as dependence on her son prior to enlistment could not be established. If she is dissatisfied she can, of course, appeal.
    Mr. MEEHAN: Under the new Pensions Warrant, will this woman be entitled to a further allowance?
    Mr. FORSTER: No; this relates to the separation allowance.

    PUBLIC SCHOOLS (OFFICERS).
    Colonel M'CALMONTasked what steps have been taken since the outbreak of war to improve the training of the Officers' Training Corps contingents of public schools by the appointment of officers and warrant or non-commissioned officers as instructors?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Full encouragement, subject to the necessity of instructing officers for duties with the Expeditionary Forces, has been given to officers of the Officers' Training Corps to improve their training by special courses of instruction and attachment to service units. A limited number of vacancies in musketry courses have also been assigned to Officers' Training Corps officers; a few senior officers have been permitted to visit the Armies in France, and also the Royal Military College. Contingents make their own arrangements for the employment of warrant and noncommissioned instructors, but it will be realised that there is such an urgent need of these men in the Army itself that it has not, so far, been possible to spare instructors for these contingents from those still serving.
    Colonel M'CALMONT: Is it not a fact that there are large numbers of officers and noncommissioned officers now in this country who are physically unfit to instruct grown-up soldiers, but who would be perfectly fit to instruct boys; and will the War Office not make some effort to assist the public schools to train the material from which our officers of the future are to be found?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: We are doing everything possible, as my hon. Friend knows, to assist the public schools.

    FOREIGN DECORATIONS.
    Colonel M'CALMONTasked whether the name of a regimental officer in the British Expeditionary Force is not allowed to be submitted for more than one foreign decoration; and whether this order is equally applicable to staff officers?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Unless nominated by the Sovereign or head of an Allied State or his representative, no officer below the rank of major-general is permitted to receive more than one foreign

    1727
    decoration. The order applies equally to staff and regimental officers, and is designed to spread the decorations as widely as possible.

    WAR TRADE COMMITTEE (LICENCES).
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of applications for licences made to the War Trade Committee during the first six months of its operations and the number for the last six months of 1916; and the number of licences granted for the same two periods, giving the figures for the two periods separately?
    Captain Viscount WOLMER(on behalf of the War Trade Department): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The figures are as follows:

    Date.

    Number of Applications.

    Number of Licences authorised.

    1st March, 1915 to 31st August, 1915

    195,733

    167,694

    1st July, 1916 to 31st, December, 1916

    499,847

    358,304

    SINAI MINING COMPANY (ENEMY INTEREST).
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade if, with reference to the lately-advertised sale of the alien enemy-owned shares in the Sinai Mining Company, he can state whether, in view of the fact that the management remains unchanged, any and what precautions were taken to prevent the shares being eventually re-acquired by the alien enemy interests; and can he give the names of the buyers of the shares?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The purchaser of the enemy-owned shares in the Sinai Mining Company, Limited, was required to be a natural-born British subject, and to make a statutory declaration that he was not purchasing the shares for or on account of any enemy or foreigner or foreign corporation or corporation under foreign control. The shares held by enemies did not give control of the company. The purchaser was Mr. James Campbell.
    Major HUNT: What precaution is being taken to see that these shares are not reacquired by alien enemies?
    Mr. ROBERTS: There is a Bill for that purpose now before the House.

  MUNITIONS.

    BONDED SPIRITS.
    Mr. D. MILLARasked the Minister of Munitions whether the experts consulted by his Department have reported in favour of the use of bonded spirits for the manufacture of munitions; when their reports were received; and when it is in tended to take action upon them, having regard to the necessity of conserving grain and other food materials at present used in the manufacture of alcohol for munitions purposes?
    Sir W. EVANS: Most careful consideration is being given to all these questions. Under existing circumstances, it is not proposed to make use of bonded spirits for munition purposes. Other ways of avoiding the use of grain are being considered. I may say that, except for a small quantity of spirit obtained from molasses, it has been arranged that only those patent-still distilleries which are used for the making of yeast are to be employed for the production of spirit.
    Mr. MILLAR: May I ask the hon. Member whether the experts consulted have given an opinion in favour of the use of bonded spirits, and whether he intends to use the pot-still spirits for that purpose?
    Sir W. EVANS: I can only say that my right hon. Friend has considered all the advice that has been given by the experts, and the decision which I have now read is his decision.

    MANIPULATIVE SURGERY.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he has received the sworn declaration of Miss Wade Thompson with regard to the circumstances under which she was prevented from resuming work at Woolwich Arsenal; whether the doctors still deny that she was prevented because she had been cured by Mr. Barker; whether she was paid for the fortnight during which she was not allowed to work; whether the notice sent to her by the medical department on 1st March with.

    1729
    regard to resuming work was sent before or after notice had been given of questions in Parliament; whether at the time the notice was sent Miss Wade Thompson had already been back at work for several days; and, seeing that this young lady is working in the same section under the same foreman and at the same machine, will he state who reported to him that she was working in a different section?
    Mr. BUXTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Munitions whether he can give the information derived from the inquiry into the proceedings of the medical department at Woolwich Arsenal in preventing the resumption of work by Miss Wade Thompson; and what action has been taken in the matter?
    Sir W. EVANS: Miss Thompson was not prevented from resuming work because she had been treated by Mr. Barker. When she offered to return to work on 13th February she did not produce a certificate that she was fit for work signed by a qualified medical practitioner as is required under the rules of the Arsenal. She was not paid for the fortnight (13th to 27th February) during which she was not at work. Nothing was known at the Arsenal of any question being raised in Parliament until 2nd March. Miss Thompson had been working since 27th February. In reply to the last part of the question, Miss Thompson was working at one time as a probationer under the Inspector at Laboratory Stores, and subsequently in the Ordnance Factory.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: My hon. Friend has not answered the question. He stated on the last occasion that this young lady was allowed to resume work, and a few weeks ago she was put into a different, department. Is that true?
    Sir W. EVANS: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken. I think he will not find that answer was given. What is accurate in fact is that first she was employed, as I stated in my answer, in one department as a probationer, and subsequently she was put into another department.
    Mr. BRADY: Is it not a fact that this lady's father is a deputy-lieutenant of Dublin, an Army officer, and a Dublin citizen of very high reputation, and that he himself has corroborated the facts in this question by a statutory declaration?
    Sir W. EVAN: I really do not know the lady's parentage, but I am quite prepared to accept my hon. Friend's statement. I think there is no question now as to the facts.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that this young lady was prevented from resuming work, and how it is that she was not paid wages during the fortnight?
    Sir W. EVANS: I hoped I had explained that in my answer. The young lady did not present, as was necessary, a certificate that she was fit to work, signed by a medical practitioner, and until she did that there was obviously a risk in allowing her to resume employment, because she might not have been fit to do the work.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the doctors in the Arsenal deny the sworn statements of this young lady and her father that Mr. Barker sent her back, and they said, "Oh, you have been to Barker. You will not be allowed to resume work here." Do they deny that?
    Sir W. EVANS: The statement of facts is as I have given it in my answer.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I think, in fair play to this young lady, the truth ought to be told. She has made a sworn statement of what happened. Is her statement doubted by my hon. Friend?
    Sir W. EVANS: I have no reason to doubt that the young lady made her statement of what she believed to be the facts, and also I have no reason to doubt that the facts I have given to the House are accurate and complete.

    TRADE-CARD SYSTEM.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the feeling among many trade unionists in the country as to the unequal way in which the trade-card system is working; and whether early steps will be taken to substitute some other scheme which will be equally just to all classes of munition workers?
    Mr. WINGasked the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle, as representing the Ministry of National Service, whether it is proposed to abolish the trade-card register, which operates unequally between different sections of trade unionists, and to substitute some

    1731
    other system likely to give more general satisfaction; and, if so, when the decision of the Government on the subject is likely to be announced?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY CO the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to reply to these questions. My right hon. Friend stated the position yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for West Ham. There is nothing that can at present be added to that answer, to which I must refer my hon. Friends.

  RUSSIAN REVOLUTION.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS AND DUMA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has noted the desire expressed by various organs of public opinion that it will conduce to the solidarity and complete understanding of the Allied nations in the prosecution of the War that this House should pass a Resolution expressing its admiration of the public spirit and patriotism of the Russian Duma; whether he is aware that on 10th August, 1914, the Russian Duma sent to Mr. Speaker a message of greeting and friendship, which is entered on the Journals of this House for 25th August, 1914; and whether the Government will set down a Motion for an early date?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As was stated by the Prime Minister yesterday, we hope to submit a formal Resolution on this subject to the House of Commons on Thursday.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman place that Resolution on the Paper to-morrow, so that it may be known a full day in advance, and so that, if necessary, suggestions in the form of an Amendment may be made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. We shall put it on the Paper as soon as possible. In my opinion, if the Resolution were to be debated at all, it would lose all its value.

    GERMAN EAST AFRICA (SLAVES).
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether he has received from the Anti-Slavery Society an appeal to the Government to proclaim liberty to the 185,000 slaves in German East Africa; and what answer has been sent?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that there is still no trace of any appeal from this society to the Prime Minister.
    Sir W. BYLES: Is it possible that there should be slavery under the British flag?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope not, Sir.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is not this territory occupied by the British? If so would not slavery be illegal?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think there are legal technicalities involved in that which I cannot answer. Occupied enemy territory is not the same thing as a place under the British flag.
    Mr. BILLING: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to allow a technicality to stand in the way?

    VENEREAL DISEASE BILL.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake not to proceed with the Venereal Disease Bill till after the Criminal Law Amendment Bill has been reported to this House from the Standing Committtee?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I see no sufficient reason for giving this undertaking.

    SIR HUGH LANE'S COLLECTION OF PICTURES.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the circumstances of the loss to Dublin of Sir Hugh Lane's collection of pictures now in the London National Gallery; if he is aware that Sir Hugh Lane's death was caused by a German torpedo; is it the intention of the trustees of the National Gallery to benefit London by the sinking of the "Lusitania"; if he is aware that the codicil to his will, unwitnessed, expressed the real wishes of Sir Hugh as to the disposal of his collection of pictures, and that the codicil which is in his own handwriting is to the effect that the pictures were to go to Dublin; if he will request the London National Gallery, in the interest of justice and equity, to restore the pictures to Dublin; and, if legislaion is required to allow of this being done, will he take the necessary steps to meet the requirements of the law and introduce a Bill without delay?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that it cannot be assumed as certain that the unwitnessed codicil represents the final intention of the testator. In any case the National Gallery trustees must be guided in any action they take by their obligations as trustees, and I have no authority to ask them to relinquish that small portion of Sir Hugh Lane's collection which was definitely bequeathed to them. There are grave objections against special legislation of the character referred to in the last part of the question.
    Mr. BYRNE: Am I to understand from that answer that the London National Gallery are going to hold up these pictures from the city of Dublin and are the trustees of the National Gallery going to be so mean and contemptible as to accept these pictures considering that Sir Hugh Lane really bequeathed them to Dublin?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am told that that does not represent the facts or all the facts. The trustees think they have obligations as trustees and they have no power to hand them over.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is throughout the whole of Ireland a very strong feeling that these pictures, which belonged to that very illustrious art critic, Sir Hugh Lane, ought to be retained for the benefit of the Irish people?

    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, IRELAND (HOURS OF OFFICIALS).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if the officials of his Department outside of the secretary are supposed to do so many hours per day at their work in the office; is there a time register kept; if so, is there any distinction drawn between the higher and ordinary officials as to signing such a register; and how many hours per day is each official supposed to put down?
    Mr. DUKE: The staff of the Department of Agriculture are expected to attend daily for seven hours, but for some months past the majority have worked on an average from ten to twelve hours daily. The attendance registers are signed by all officers to whose attendance they relate.

    WOMEN POLICE
    Mr. FERENSasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the Women Police Service has already trained a considerable number of policewomen, who are working a full eight hours' day in provincial towns, paid by the rates; that they have been exercising the power of arrest; and that they work in rough and crowded districts, managing their own cases with no disability of physical strength; if he is aware that the Ministry of Munitions is employing a force of about 250 policewomen, who live in barracks under their own officers and who are sworn in as constables in. Dumfriesshire and Cumberland, use the full powers of constables, and deal with large crowds of men and women operatives, and that excellent reports have been received of their efficiency and service: and if the Home Office can make arrangements to provide the special training and instruction which is required for producing efficient women police?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am aware that in some provincial towns as in the Metropolitan Police district women are being employed in aid of the police upon work of a preventive nature, but I cannot say that they perforin their duties under no disadvantage as regards physical strength. I am also aware that a large number of women police (about 200) are employed by the Ministry of Munitions and are rendering efficient service at munition factories, where many of the workers are women, and that in Cumberland and Dumfriesshire they have been sworn in, but not that they have the full powers of a constable or deal with large crowds of men and women.
    I understand that courses of instruction for women are provided by the National Union of Women Workers and by the Women Police Service, but the Commissioner is unable to provide official instruction for them at the present time. The training classes for the Metropolitan Police have for some time been discontinued owing to there being no recruiting for that force, the teaching staff are engaged on other duties, and the training school building has been lent as a club for overseas soldiers.
    Mr. H. P. HARRISasked how many women police are employed in the Metropolitan Police area, and who pays them; whether their services have been found useful; and whether he proposes

    1735
    to take steps for increasing their number and giving them adequate powers and remuneration?
    Sir G. CAVE: Two members of the Women Police Service and fifty-eight members of the National Union of Women Workers are employed, most of the latter for part-time only, by the Commissioner of Police on work which is mainly preventive in character. If more are available they will be employed from time to time when their services can be employed with advantage. The pay given is at the same rate as the commencing pay of a constable. They have adequate powers for the work on which they are employed.

    DARDANELLES ROYAL COMMISSION (SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT).
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether in the White Paper issued as a supplement to the mutilated Report of the Dardanelles Commission, the paragraphs called. Notes are in the very words of the excised portion of the full Report, or are they paraphrases or glosses of those excised portions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The notes circulated as a White Paper are in some cases the exact words of the Report, and in others paraphrases of them.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Is there any parallel in the whole history of Parliament of glosses and paraphrases being given to the House of Commons in reference to a Report ordered by the House to be presented to it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can give no other answer than the one I have given many times on the same question.
    Mr. MacNEILL: It is said in the White Paper that the Government authorises the issue of these Notes. Who in Heaven's name authorised the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I mentioned in the House of Commons that we intended to take that course, so that, at all events, we have that assent for what we have done.

    DUBLIN (REBUILDING).
    Mr. BRADY(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether
    1736
    his attention had been drawn to a statement in the Press this morning that the work of repairing or rebuilding the cottages in the area in East London devastated by explosion was well advanced and that yesterday over a hundred houses had been completed and handed over to the tenants, although only two months have elapsed since the date of the explosion; that the speed at which the work is being done is establishing a record for this country in rebuilding; whether it is not a fact that although almost twelve months have elapsed since the destruction of a vast amount of property in Dublin that nothing has yet been done towards the rebuilding of the houses so destroyed, and that this delay is causing incalculable injury to the persons who carried on their businesses in the destroyed area; and whether he will take steps, even now, to deal with this urgent and serious problem?
    Mr. DUKE: It is the fact that the properties destroyed in the rebellion in Dublin are not yet being generally rebuilt although the Government has provided by ex-gratia Grants and a statutory loan scheme a large measure of assistance toward the rebuilding. The rebuilding is in the hands of the owners of the destroyed properties. There is no analogy, so far as I can see, between the rebuilding by Government of property destroyed by an accidental explosion of munitions under manufacture for the Government and the rebuilding by private owners of their property destroyed as the result of an outbreak of rebellion.
    Mr. BRADY: Is it not a fact that the Government undertook to help these owners to rebuild the premises, and that an extraordinary delay has taken place in the fulfilment of this pledge by the Government?
    Mr. DUKE: No, Sir, the Government has done probably more than any Government ever did in the past in such a set of circumstances, and there has been no avoidable delay on the part of the Government. On the other hand, although large sums have been provided for out of the Exchequer towards the rebuilding of these premises, the state of things is that to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Will the Chief Secretary inform the House of Commons if the owners of this destroyed property in Dublin were any more responsible for its

    1737
    destruction than the people who suffered by the explosion in the East End of London?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not an urgent question.
    An HON. MEMBER: Nothing ever is in Ireland.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    Mr. McKEAN(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he will favourably consider the suggestion that the Speaker of the House of Commons should be empowered to summon a Conference comprising the representatives of the Dominions at present in London (along with other qualified persons if such a course be considered necessary) with a view to the settlement of the Irish question, the Report and recommendations of such Conference to be preceded by and based upon the examination of witnesses and a thorough investigation of the vital facts of the political situation in Ireland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I stated in the House on Friday, this subject is now engaging the earnest attention of the Government, and the suggestion of the hon. Member will be considered.
    Mr. McKEAN: As it would be obviously unfair to expect Mr. Speaker to act as Chairman of the proposed Conference and, at the same time, to discharge the ordinary routine duties of his office as Speaker, will the Prime Minister arrange that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the advisability of Mr. Deputy-Speaker acting as Speaker during the period in which the Speaker is so engaged?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going a little too fast.

    Criminal Trials (Visitors on Bench).
    Mr. WATTasked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to prevent the bench in any criminal trials being occupied by relatives of the judges and others, in view of the fact that this practice is an innovation?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): No, Sir. It is true that from time to time at Assizes, but seldom otherwise, it happens that persons other than the judge and his officers are present on the bench by invitation or permission
    1738
    of the judge. So far as this can be called a practice it has always existed, and is in no sense an innovation.
    Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that this practice does not exist in the High Courts, London?
    Sir G. HEWART: I am not quite sure that I follow what is meant by the expression that my hon. Friend has used: if the question is as to whether this ever happens in the London Courts, I dare say it sometimes does.

    Judges.
    Mr. WATTasked the Attorney-General whether the High Court and the County Court judges in England are by their commissions whole-time servants of the Crown or are they permitted by such to engage in mercantile or other pursuits in any capacity; if the latter, do they in point of fact ever engage in trade?
    Sir G. HEWART: I am not aware of any express permission, nor indeed of any express prohibition, of the kind referred to. Such matters are left, and safely left, to the discretion and the traditions of the judges themselves. If my hon. Friend has in his mind any specific case of which he desires to make complaint, it would, I think, be more convenient that he should inform me of the circumstances.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman state the position of a judge called upon to try a case in which such interests are involved?
    Sir G. HEWART: In such a case the judge does not act.
    Mr. WATT: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether judges ever occupy the position of paid directors of mercantile companies?
    Sir G. HEWART: I am not aware of any such case.

    Trust Land (Income Tax).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister, in view of instances in which the opinions of the present legal advisers of Departments have been reversed in the Courts, admitted by the advisers themselves to have been wrong and brought under the notice of the late Government, respectively, whether he will have the opinion of the Treasury advisers reconsidered with reference to the liability of the Delvin Rural District Council to

    1739
    Income Tax on trust land held as trustees for a charitable purpose on condition of making no profit; whether he will have the facts reconsidered that, if Income Tax were assessable, it should be on the actual profits and not on the Poor Law valuation; that the council being only trustees are not in occupation of the land; that the council are precluded by Clause 2 of the trust scheme from making any profit from the land; that the purchase instalments for the land are raised as a district charge on the rates for the benefit of poor people in the neighbourhood of the land; that the Income Tax Acts provide for exemption from Income Tax of rents and profits of lands vested in trustees for charitable purposes; that the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888, Section 13, Sub-section (2), defines and exempts such uses as charitable; that, in the case of the Commissioners of Income Tax v. Pemsel, 1891, the House of Lords defined and exempted from Income Tax trusts for the relief of poverty and other charities beneficial to the community; and whether, in accordance with the law, the claim made upon the Delvin District Council will be withdrawn?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The question of the Income Tax liability in this case has already received full consideration. If the council are advised that the claim of the revenue is ill-founded they should follow the procedure prescribed by the law in such case. Full provision exists for the determination of Income Tax appeals and claims by the tribunals constituted or designated by the Income Tax Acts.
    Mr. GINNELL: Seeing that this question cannot be contested in a Court of law without expense to the rates, will not the Government lay down a rule covering cases like this?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  DARDANELLES CAMPAIGN.
    COMMISSION REPORT.

      STATEMENT BY MR. ASQUITH.
      Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
      Mr. ASQUITH: It is with great reluctance that I have taken the opportunity, which the Government have been good enough to afford by this Motion, to make a statement in regard to some matters which arise on the recently published Report of the Dardanelles Commission. It would have been far better, in my opinion, to have postponed all controversial discussions as to past events and responsibilities until after the conclusion of the War. Its prosecution ought to occupy all our thoughts and energies, and it would be a national calamity if they were diverted, even for a short time, to contentious discussions of what was or might have been a year or two years ago. But the Report which has just been published, in the circumstances and manner of its publication, and in the use which has been made of it, seems to me, after full consideration of the public interests involved, to render it necessary to say something at once, not in my own interests only, but in that of my late colleagues on the War Council, including distinguished members of the present Government and, above all, one who is no longer able to speak for himself—the lamented Lord Kitchener. I spoke a moment ago of the circumstances and manner of the publication of this Report, which I think are unexampled in our history. The Report deals critically, and in some cases animadverts, upon the conduct of a number of servants of the State—statesmen, sailors, and soldiers. It purports to be founded upon and to give the effect of the testimony of a number of witnesses. In almost every paragraph the evidence is either textually cited or referred to in the margin, with the number of the particular question and answer. Without the means of verifying those references, and reading at length and in its full context the testimony which is vouched, it is impossible
      1754
      for any reader to form an opinion of any value of his own, either as to the fullness or fairness of the case as presented, or as to the justice of the conclusions which are based upon it.
      4.0 P.M.
      But when the evidence is asked for, in order that these elementary conditions of fair judgment may be observed, we are told that, in the opinion of the Commissioners, it is contrary to the national interests that it should be published till the conclusion of the War. Then I am bound to ask this question: Why, in the name of common sense and of common justice, was not the same consideration put forward in regard to the Report itself? It will be observed that I am not saying the evidence ought to be published. I am not saying anything of the kind. I can well imagine it contains much that even now might be embarrassing to the conduct of the War. But that, it seems to me, does not justify the publication of the Report without the evidence. The dilemma is complete. If you publish the Report and suppress the evidence you run grave risk of injustice to individuals. If, on the other hand, you publish the Report with the evidence you run grave risk of endangering the national interests. There was only one course by which you could safeguard both national interest and natural justice, and that was to withhold publication altogether until a time when it could be made without compromising either the one or the other. I am not making any attack against the Government. I quite see the difficulty of the position in which they were placed. The result is that any man who approaches the consideration of the whole subject does so under the most serious disabilities, under conditions in fact which make it impossible to secure adequate discussion' or an impartial and comprehensive judgment. In these circumstances it is not my purpose to initiate or to invite a survey of the whole field covered by the Report. My object is simply to deal with two or three specific points in regard to which if I kept silence I think a wrong, and in some cases an unjust, impression might be created.
      I wish, in the first place, to say a word or two as to the war organisation which existed when the operations which this Commission was directed to inquire into were begun. I see that they express the opinion that, for the first four months

      1755
      of the War, the machinery was both clumsy and inefficient. That, of course, is a mere obiter dictum, for the time in question was outside the scope of the Commissioners' Inquiry. Nor am I aware of any evidence which would entitle anyone to come to that conclusion. The first four months of this War presented problems as numerous and as complicated as has ever fallen to the lot of statesmen to deal with. I am quite content to leave the manner in which they were confronted and handled to the judgment of history. But, at the time in question, the time I mean which is actually covered by the reference to the Commission, the War Organisation was in substance as they have described it—the Cabinet, the War Council, which corresponded in its composition almost exactly with the old Committee of Imperial Defence, and the heads of the Executive Departments, the War Office and the Admiralty, with their staffs and expert advisers. The daily conduct of the operations of the War was in the hands of the Ministers responsible for the Army and Navy in constant consultation with the Prime Minister. When serious questions involving new departures of policy or joint strategic operations arose, the War Council, which was a reproduction of the old Committee of Imperial Defence, with expert advisers of the Army and Navy, and sometimes the Foreign Office, was summoned. The proceedings of the War Council were exactly similar to those which prevailed in the old Committee. When a conclusion was reached it was formulated in writing. It was read out either at once or at the end of the meeting by the Chairman, as had always been our practice. The only change which I made when the War began and the War Council sat under War conditions was that for greater certainty and security those conclusions were immediately after the meeting circulated in writing to all the Departments concerned. There was never any excuse, and I say it with full knowledge of all the facts, for vagueness or want of precision, and in the case of a particular conclusion to which the Commissioners refer in their Report—that was, I think, on 13th January—as to which a certain amount of uncertainty is said to have prevailed at the meeting, I myself and that most able and efficient public servant, Sir Maurice Hankey, who acted throughout, and I believe still acts, as Secretary of the Committee, pointed out
      1756
      to the Commissioners that the conclusion was circulated that very same afternoon at the Admiralty and the War Office.
      I will say one word in regard to the position of the experts on this Council, because a great deal is said about it in this Report. The position of the experts was precisely the same as it had always been in the Committee of Imperial Defence. They were there—that was the reason, and the only reason, for their being there—to give the lay members the benefit of their advice. For what other purpose were they summoned? I have sat, mostly as Chairman, for ten years on the Committee of Imperial Defence. We had there as expert advisers—exactly the same position—all the most distinguished soldiers and sailors during that time, including Lord Fisher, Sir Arthur Wilson, and the gallant Field-Marshal Lord Nicholson, who is one of the signatories of this Report. I am borne out, I know—it appears from this Report—by the evidence of all my political and civilian colleagues, including the present Prime Minister, when I say I have never known them show the least reluctance to give their opinion, invited or uninvited. Indeed, it was their duty to do so, and very great benefit has resulted to the best interests of the State from the perfect freedom with which expert opinion has always been welcomed and considered, first in the Committee of Defence and then in the War Council. To suppose that these experts were tongue-tied or paralysed by a nervous regard for the possible opinion of their political superiors is to suppose that they had really abdicated the functions which they were intended to discharge, and that the Committee lost the benefit of the whole of their presence as its expert advisers. As regards the Cabinet, I should like only to say this. It never abdicated in. my time its ultimate authority, but very properly, as I think, it was content normally to delegate the active conduct of the War to the Ministers concerned in the War Council. All important steps were reported to it, and there were times when it took an active part in the conduct of the War. I say nothing about the Admiralty. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill), I dare say, has something to say upon that point.
      I pass from the political side of the organisation to deal with a matter about which I feel peculiarly concerned,

      1757
      namely, the animadversions made by the Commissioners in their Report on the War Office and its administration by Lord Kitchener. As we all know, to our lasting and infinite regret, Lord Kitchener some months, I think, before this Commission was appointed—certainly some months before it began to sit—lost his life in the service of the State, and with him perished also Colonel Fitzgerald, his secretary and confidant, who was more in Lord Kitchener's confidence than anyone else in the world. When the Commission was appointed, and was about to begin its labours, feeling myself to be, in a peculiar sense, the trustee of the memory of Lord Kitchener, I felt somewhat apprehensive whether what I may call his case—I am not using the word in a contentious sense—would be adequately presented in the course of the inquiry. He had gone, and Colonel Fitzgerald had gone. Though I, personally, knew a great deal of what went on, there were many things in connection with the War Office which I did not know. Accordingly, before the Commission sat, or at any rate at the time of its earliest sittings, I sent for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is the present Attorney-General. I pointed out these facts to him, and I suggested to him that it was desirable, if he could make it consistent with his other duties, that he should appear before the Commission and represent what I may call Lord Kitchener's interests. My right hon. and learned Friend, as might be expected of him, expressed not only his willingness but his eagerness to comply with that request. He had sat in the Cabinet with Lord Kitchener for more than a year, and knew all the circumstances, and he said he was ready, as far as was consistent with his other duties, to lay everything aside in order that he might perform this obligation to his old colleague and friend. I am speaking now on his authority. He accordingly went to the Chairman of the Commission and placed these facts before him, but he was assured there was no necessity for his attendance, and that he might be quite sure that Lord Kitchener's interests would be amply safeguarded. I very much regret it. I am not making any imputation upon the fairness with which these Commissioners have conducted the inquiry.
      Mr. ROCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that refers to this stage of the inquiry?
      Mr. ASQUITH: Yes.
      Mr. ROCH: It was never brought before the Commission, and when the Attorney-General spoke to me about it, I certainly understood him to refer to the later part of the inquiry, not to the preliminary part.
      Mr. ASQUITH: It referred to the whole inquiry. I dare say it was not brought before the Commission, but I do not know. I am only speaking on my right hon. and learned Friend's authority as to what passed between him and the Chairman. It was to be from the beginning. I want to say, in passing, that I very much regret that his request was not complied with. The Commissioners have presented a picture—or, at least, have suggested a picture—of the position and procedure of Lord Kitchener at the War Office at the time to which their Report refers, which, I venture to think—I hope they will forgive me for saying so—is very much out of drawing. Lord Kitchener by no means was the solitary and taciturn autocrat in the way he has been depicted. When the War broke out I was Secretary of State for War, but I realised at once that it was impossible to combine the two offices which I held at the time of war. The only person—and I should like this to be put on record—whom I ever thought of as my successor was Lord Kitchener, who happened, by a stroke of good fortune, to be at that moment in this country, on the point of returning to Egypt. I mentioned the suggestion to one or two of my colleagues, and I think it right to say that the one who most strongly urged the propriety, and even the necessity of that appointment, was my Noble and learned Friend Lord Haldane, who was then Lord Chancellor. Lord Kitchener's appointment was received with universal acclamation, so much so indeed that it. was represented as having been forced upon a reluctant Cabinet by the overwhelming pressure of an intelligent and prescient Press
      Lord Kitchener, as everyone who knew him will agree, was a masterful man. He had been endowed by Providence with a formidable personality. He was by nature rather disposed to keep his own counsel, and no doubt that natural predisposition had been encouraged by the fact that he had been for so long conversant with and immersed in the affairs

      1759
      of the East; but it is a complete mistake to suggest or to suppose that Lord Kitchener lived in isolation, and did not consult military opinion at the War Office and elsewhere during the conduct of this War. I am speaking of what is in my own knowledge, and I can absolutely deny that that was the case. On the other hand, it was perfectly true that Lord Kitchener acted during all these earlier months of the War as what I might call the Chief of his own Staff. He was a great soldier, with a most varied and illustrious record, and there was no one in this country at the time to compare with him in military authority. It is suggested in this Report that he should have availed himself more freely of the services of his Staff. As a matter of fact, when the War began, the General Staff at the War Office, consisting of almost all our ablest and accomplished officers, were sent to the front. There was hardly one of them left at the War Office. They were dispatched to do a duty which was more urgent in the public interest than that of giving counsel here at home. Their places had to be taken—I will not say filled, because they could not be filled—by officers who had been in retirement, or, at any rate, were relatively of much less experience. I am perfectly certain there was nobody, either in the Army or out of it, during that time with which we are here concerned, who would not have said that the Government were right in doing what they did—namely, in purely military affairs to defer to the authority of Lord Kitchener as, on the whole, the best and highest authority within our power. At a later stage, in the autumn of this very year, 1915, we reconstituted, with Lord Kitchener's complete and loyal concurrence, the General Staff at the War Office, first under Sir Archibald Murray and then under Sir William Robertson, and reconstituted it with generals and officers who had had experience at the front in the War—first-hand experience of the novel conditions under which warfare is now carried on. It was absodutely impossible, at the stage of the War with which this Report deals, for any such Staff to have been brought together; and I do not think that any one of my colleagues who then sat upon the War Council will differ from me when I say
      1760
      that we were bound in military matters to defer to the judgment of the great soldier who had patriotically undertaken the duties of Secretary of State for War.
      I need not point out to the House how many and how varied were the calls upon Lord Kitchener's time and energy. He was responsible for the conduct of the War in its various theatres. He was engaged in raising these New Armies here at home. I suppose upon no man in our history has a heavier burden ever fallen than fell upon him, and nothing in connection with this Report—it may be no imputation upon anybody connected with the Report itself—has filled me with more indignation and disgust than that the publication of the criticisms made in it of Lord Kitchener's conduct and capacity should have been taken advantage of by those who only two years ago were in a posture of almost slavish adulation to belittle his character, and, so far as they can, to defile his memory. Lord Kitchener's memory is in no danger. It lives, and will live, in the gratitude and admiration of the British people and of the whole Empire.
      If the House will bear with me for a few minutes longer I will go on to deal with one or two other points. I do not dwell, because it is common ground, upon the political, strategic, and economic importance of the Dardanelles operation. The Commissioners admit, and it is fairly recognised, that if it was a practicable operation it was the best that possibly could be taken. That is a matter which cannot be seriously disputed. The serious question upon which I want to say two or three words is this: whether, admitting its political, its strategic and economic importance, the Government at the time were justified in considering it to be a practicable, I will not say a possible, expedition. Everybody, of course, would have preferred—there is no difference of opinion about that—if it had been possible, a joint naval and military expedition. In the first instance, what was resolved upon and what was carried out was a naval expedition alone. Why was that? It was because Lord Kitchener, who strongly favoured the project, declared and proved to the satisfaction of all his colleagues that he had not available a sufficient number of troops to make the expedition a joint operation. The Commissioners—and that is the reason why I refer to it—in their third

      1761
      finding blame the War Council for accepting Lord Kitchener's statement, and taking no steps to satisfy themselves by reports or estimates as to what troops were available, and they evidently think that if we had done so, we should have found that Lord Kitchener was wrong, and that we ought to have overruled him. Upon this, in justice both to Lord Kitchener and ourselves, I feel bound to make two observations. In the first place, so far from the Council taking no steps to satisfy themselves, they spent the best part of three whole days, the 7th, 8th, and 13th of January, in surveying in the most comprehensive manner and in the greatest detail all of our available resources in men, and the calls which had to be made upon them. I have refreshed my memory within the last two days by reading the accounts of those meetings, and I can assure the House that I am not in the least exaggerating in the statement which I have made. Sir John French was sent for from France for the purpose of assisting us in making that investigation complete. My next observation is this: Even if we had felt reason to doubt Lord Kitchener's opinion, this was purely a military question upon which it would have been in the highest degree presumptuous for us laymen to have over ruled him.
      It became apparent in these circumstances that if the attempt on the Dardanelles was to be made, it must be in the first instance purely, or at any rate mainly, a naval expedition. That was the scheme contemplated on the 13th January at the War Council, which directed the Admiralty to prepare for a naval expedition. The Commissioners say that, in their opinion, there ought to have been a short adjournment to enable the expert advisers of the Government to make a thorough examination of the facts. That is exactly what took place. The decision of the 13th January undoubtedly implied that a prima facie case had been made out. It directed the Admiralty to prepare and explore the ground. We adjourned for a fortnight. We did not come to our final decision until the 28th January, with the very object of gaining in the meantime from the Admiralty and our naval advisers the best possible opinion that they could obtain. The greatest possible trouble and energy and skill were, as I know, exercised by the Admiralty in exploring all the difficulties
      1762
      and possibilities of the case. The French Admiralty were consulted. They gave their opinion, that it was a prudent and far-seeing operation, and expressed their willingness to co-operate, and when we came to the meeting a fortnight afterwards—on the 28th January—a most important meeting—I say, without any hesitation, that the whole naval expert opinion available to us, whether our own or the French, was unanimously and consentiently in favour of this as a practicable naval operation. There was not one dissentient voice.
      Lord Fisher—whose opinion, of course, was of the highest value—it is quite true, expressed to me on the morning of that day, and I know to my right hon. Friend the then First Lord of the Admiralty, an adverse, or at least an unfavourable opinion, but not upon the ground of its merits or demerits from a technical naval point of view, or on the ground that this was an impracticable naval operation. Lord Fisher's opinion and advice, as the Commissioners have found in their Report—I have stated it there, and they express complete concurrence with my opinion—were not founded upon the naval technical merits or demerits of this operation, but on his avowed preference for a wholly different objective in a totally different sphere. I repeat that so far as naval technical opinion is concerend it was, so far as we knew and so far as I know now, absolutely unanimous. Some comment is made by the Commissioners, who in this matter have done, I may say, rather scant justice to Lord Fisher, that at this meeting he did not develop his adverse view. I do not think, looking back upon it now, that what Lord Fisher did was in the least degree unnatural. So far as the objective was concerned he was, as he knew perfectly well, in the opinion he had expressed, in a minority of one. Everybody else was in favour of the other objective, though undoubtedly if the objections taken by Lord Fisher had been objections on naval technical grounds, both I, and I suppose many other people there, would have pressed him about it. Yet, as they were not technical, but really were objections which were quite as much political as they were naval—I mean that it was the transfer of the operation to a totally different sphere of the War—I can quite understand Lord Fisher saying to himself, "It is no good my pressing this; it is no particular part of my duty as a

      1763
      naval expert to do so," and while indicating clearly, as he did to everybody, that he would have preferred something else, not developing his own views or arguments. I do not think that any reproach can be made to Lord Fisher on that score.
      But so careful were we that there should be no misapprehension about it, that we adjourned the meeting, and it was resumed later in the evening, when Lord Fisher returned with my right hon. Friend, and we were assured that he had expressed his willingness to undertake the operation, if the operation was considered desirable. I venture to assert that, in those circumstances—I have told the House the whole of the facts—we were perfectly justified—after a fortnight's intermediate deliberation and consideration and the non-production of any adverse naval opinion, and the final assent of Lord Fisher to undertake the supervision and conduct of the operation—in saying that this was a feasible and practicable undertaking. Now I pass to the point which was made—I do not want to discuss the general merits of the whole subject; I only want to discuss particular points which were made against people, some of whom cannot defend themselves—namely, the delay after the decision of the 16th of February in sending troops which had become available since the early days of January, partly by the setting free of the 29th Division, which had been earmarked elsewhere, and partly by the repulse of the Turkish attack upon the Canal, which had set free a large part of the garrison of Egypt. The Commissioners, I will not say pass a vote of censure, but they make very strong animadversions upon the conduct of Lord Kitchener in delaying the dispatch of those troops.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Only the Majority.
      Mr. ASQUITH: I am speaking of the Majority Report. I agree. They say, which is a fact, that troops, including the 29th Division, having been ordered to be sent on the 16th February. Lord Kitchener countermanded the order on the 20th. The matter was brought before the War Council on two or three occasions, and was the subject of considerable discussion and controversy. The War Council yielded to Lord Kitchener's views, and it was not until 10th March that he raised his embargo, and the 29th
      1764
      Division was set free to go. The Commissioners point out that that delay of three weeks in the sending of these troops probably gravely compromised the ultimate success of the land attack. I can speak more freely in this matter myself, because, taking the view that I did, to which I see the Commissioners assent, that time was all-important, I strongly urged Lord Kitchener to send the 29th Division; but I think that it is most unfair to him, in passing any judgment on his conduct in this matter, that the world should not realise what his difficulties were. There was nothing in the way of what is described here as vacillation or hesitation in his conduct. What was it that operated on his mind? There were two main considerations. In the first place, the Russian position in the East, a very bad one at that time, which led Lord Kitchener to apprehend that the Germans might withdraw, and probably would withdraw, considerable bodies of troops from the Eastern to the Western Front, and thereby render the situation in Flanders and in France much more difficult than it was. In the next place—a matter which operated on his mind still more strongly—the situation on the Western Front itself was at that moment very critical, and a strong and urgent pressure—there is no harm in saying it now so long after the event—was brought to bear upon him, not only by the English, but by the French commanders in the field, that the 29th Division should go to France, and that it should not be withdrawn to any other sphere of action.
      Lord Kitchener may have been right or wrong, but no one can doubt that those are grave and weighty reasons, and it is perfectly monstrous to suggest that we, the civilian members of the War Council, in view of that veto—that temporary veto—from our great military authority, should have interfered to overrule him, and say, "You must send out the 29th Division, and send it at once." If we had done so, what would have been said of it by those who are now criticising our actions? It is so easy to make war after the event. Nothing is easier in the world; I can do it myself. It is easy to make war after the event—either in the House of Lords or anywhere else—when all the doubts and uncertainties and possible contingencies of an undeveloped future are translated into the rigid lineaments of accomplished facts. What you want in dealing with a situation of this

      1765
      kind is a little imagination and perspective, and to put yourself into the position—the actual position—of the men who were dealing on the spot, and at the time, with all the. uncertainties of the future in what was going on, and what was likely to happen. To suggest now that Lord Kitchener, having taken that view in regard to the dispatch of the 29th Division, ought to have been overruled, is to make a suggestion which those conversant with the conduct of the War could not support, and, had we acted upon it, Lord Kitchener very likely would have said, "I can no longer be responsible; I must resign," and that would have exposed us to the universal and just condemnation of our fellow citizens.
      There is one other point to which I am bound to advert. The Commissioners, I think, in the last paragraph, say this:
      "There was no meeting of the War Council on 19th March and 14th May. Meanwhile important land operations were undertaken … In our opinion the Prime Minister ought to have summoned a meeting of the War Council … and if not summoned the other members of the War Council should have pressed for such a meeting. We think this was a serious omission."
      I have one or two observations to make about that. In the first place, this Report purports to be confined to the origin and inception of the Dardanelles operations—a period which is defined by the Commissioners themselves several times as having come to an end on the 23rd March. Any criticisms, therefore, of the procedure after that date, would seem primâ facie to be gratuitous and irrelevant. But a fact more important is this, that though I presented myself as a witness before the Commission, and was examined, and in quite a friendly way cross-examined, my attention was never called to this supposed breach of duty. I was not asked for any explanation, none of the Commissioners addressed to me a single question on the subject, or suggested that there was anything of the kind for us to debate. They call it a "serious omission"—I think that was a serious omission. But, more important still, if they had done so—and I venture to think they ought to have done so—my answer would have been a very simple one. The operations which were carried on after the 19th March involved no new departure of any kind in policy. They were the actual and necessary consequence of what had gone before, coupled with the decision of the admiral not to continue the naval attack. From the 23rd March onward the operations were in
      1766
      the hands of the naval and military authorities on the spot. They were, of course, closely supervised from home, and I myself, during the time referred to by the Commissioners, was in daily and even in hourly communication and consultation with Lord Kitchener, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Foreign Secretary, and other colleagues. But that does not exhaust the matter, because I find, on reference to my record during this time so referred to, that no less than thirteen meetings of the Cabinet were held, at which, of course, Ministerial members of the War Council were always present. At eleven out of the thirteen meetings the operations of the Dardanelles were brought up for report; and at several of the meetings—I have myself a very vivid recollection of the circumstances—these operations were the subject not merely of report, but of long and careful discussion. Indeed, I do not remember at any time, in this stage of the War, when the particular operations were not the subject of more conference and more vigilant consideration than they were during this period which the Commissioners single out as our "serious omission." I think that before a charge of that kind was formulated and published to the world at least those who were concerned might have had the opportunity of meeting it and explaining it, as I have now explained it to the House.
      I am not going to endeavour to anticipate the verdict of the Commissioners, and still less the verdict which history will pass as to the causes which ultimately brought about the failure of this operation to attain the main object. But to describe this, as we sometimes see it described, as a tragedy or a catastrophe, is, in my opinion, a complete perversion of the case. It saved the position, absolutely saved the position of Russia in the Caucasus. It prevented for months the defection of Bulgaria to the Central Powers. It kept at least 300,000 Turks—and, with all due deference to the Commission, I am very glad Lord Kitchener's estimate was a moderate one—it kept at least 300,000 Turks immobilised, and, what was more important, it cut off and annihilated the whole flower of the Turkish army. The Turks have never recovered from that blow inflicted upon them, and it is certainly one of the contributory causes to the favourable developments which we have happily witnessed to-day in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and in Persia.

      1767
      I have endeavoured, in what I have said, to confine myself to what, as it appeared to me, seemed necessary from the point of view of pure justice. I myself deplore, as we must all deplore, recriminations over what, for better or worse, is the irrevocable past. I could not feel it consistent with my duty, however—I pass by, as I have often passed by, charges which I think unfounded and unjust to myself—I could not feel it consistent with my duty and the obligations which I owe to the memory of Lord Kitchener, to have allowed this Report to be published to the world in silence and without comment upon it. As I have said before, I know that his memory does not need any vindication, at my hands, or anybody else's. When the history of the War comes to be written, no figure will stand out more prominently, and this nation which is not an ungrateful nation, and this Empire which is not an ungrateful Empire, will, in all its parts, accord its tribute to the man who, under conditions of unexampled difficulty and danger, rendered a service, or rather a continuous series of services, to his country which probably it was not in the power of anyone else to render. Let us be candid. I am not going to elaborate these matters, at any rate until the War is over. We ought to remember with gratitude those who have served us, rather than turn to criticisms of those whose conduct you think may have fallen short of what might have been expected, and it seems to me that at a time like this it is the future should engage all our energies and all our thoughts.
      5.0 P.M.
      Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I feel the very greatest reluctance, after the speech of the Leader of the Liberal party, to say more than a single word on the subject with which he has dealt. I intervene in the Debate in regard to the Report which was issued, and to say something of the methods which attended its presentation to the House. The course which the Government have pursued, however, in restoring those passages of the Report which had been excised, has removed many of the objections I should have felt it my duty, as a private Member of this House, to raise, and therefore I will confine my remarks to one or two sentences. The very fact that under the pressure of public opinion inside and outside this House the Government have made amends for the alterations they made in the Report of a
      1768
      Statutory Commission, which they were, by all legal and Parliamentary consideration, bound to present unaltered, unabridged, and unamended to this House-in regard to all these obligations which were upon them, and which they for one reason or another, and I believe with perfectly good and honest intentions, were put on one side, they have made amends, under the pressure of public anxiety inside and outside the House. Therefore, I offer no apology for the brief remarks which I desire to address to the House on this point. We are here not in our individual capacity as more or less prominent men of greater or less ability and capacity to conduct public affairs, but we are here as the representatives of great communities outside this House whose liberties in the past have been obtained by the maintenance of our rights inside this House, and I think it is very essential to point out that those rights were invaded by the procedure of the Government—first of all in the excision of parts of this Report, and next in the proposal, which I gather they have abandoned, to distribute the unabridged Report to three or four of the Members of this House.
      I understand that you, Sir, were singled out to be one of the recipients of this Report, but, for one reason or another, I am not careful to inquire into that, you either have not received or have declined to receive such a Report. There were three other Members—leaders of different sections of opinion in this House—who also were selected for that very dubious and invidious distinction. I quite agree that if anyone was to be so selected, the Leader of the Liberal party, the Leader of the Labour party, and the Leader of the Irish party quite rightly have been selected for that position. But, as private Members of this House, they have no right to be selected to receive information which in denied to the rest of the House—official information—because, if they do this, the authentic source of information which all Members of this House ought to possess in common is denied to the greater portion of the House and reserved to a small and metriculous minority, and at once all criticism is poisoned at its source, and is rendered less valuable and less informing—less informing not only to those who make it, but to those who are the subjects of the charges brought against them by a Special Commission, such as has been

      1769
      created for this purpose. Therefore it diminishes the purpose for which that Special Commission was set up. When the Act creating this Special Commission was brought before the House the composition of the Commission was itself challenged, but when the names of the persons composing it became known the objections which had been entertained to the possibility of that Commission being packed were removed and the House contented itself by adding one or two names of private Members of this House, well known for their personal independence and capacity, and with that addition to those members who had been entrusted with the special duty on behalf of Members of the House of inquiring fully and impartially into the facts, the House was contented with the form and composition of the Commission.
      They were, if I may say so, singularly well fitted for the consideration of the very subject which comes up in connection with the excisions of this Report. It was suggested by the Government that indiscreet additions which had been made to the Report ought to be excised because foreign Governments objected, or were supposed to object, or had been invited to object, to them as creating embarrassments, especially in their own domestic spheres. The Commission went fully into this particular aspect of the case. They refused to present Lord Fisher's memorandum to the late Prime Minister or to include it in their Report. They also refused to include the alternative plans of operations to which allusion has been made in the speech to which we have just listened in their Report. They themselves take special notice in the earlier part of their Report of the obligation upon them to be discreet in what they report. The composition of the Commission showed that they were capable of dealing with that aspect of the case, and therefore all I can say is this, that there would seem at first sight to be no reason why in the ease of a Commission so carefully selected as this was from that point of view, why the Government should remove anything from the Report at all. The right hon. Gentleman who leads the House told us when he first warned us of these excisions that they had been made on the urgent request of foreign Governments. He did not tell us—but if he speaks or if anyone speaks from that bench on this point perhaps they will kindly tell us—whether these excisions were the re-
      1770
      sult of a spontaneous invitation to foreign Governments or whether the suggestion was made by the foreign Govments, whatever they were, that they might embarrass those Governments in their domestic relations.
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I can answer that at once. The Foreign Secretary thought it was necessary, before making reference to documents of any foreign Government, that the documents should be submitted to those Governments.
      Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I think the point I was going to make need not be made. The answer which has been given is perfectly satisfactory as far as I am concerned. There is one other thing I should like to ask my right hon. Friend. The Foreign Office having got certain paragraphs removed from the Report, the War Office and the Admiralty came upon the scene, according to his account, and they too asked that certain portions of the Report should be omitted. I understand, so far as I can judge, that the restored passages of the Report are those which concern the Army and Navy—the War Office and the Admiralty.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: With the dangerous parts left out.
      Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Would it not have been better for the Government to have exercised its own independent judgment first of all, apart from the War Office and the Admiralty, and put in the original of this excised Report? Let me remind my right hon. Friend what happened the other day. A Report was presented to this House which, I am told, was in large measure the Report of a military tribunal, which has attracted universal attention in this House, and I am credibly informed by three or four Members of this House who claim to have seen that Report, that it was not the Report of the military tribunal, but that it was an abridged, altered, revised and edited Report, and though no guilty man was found innocent as a consequence of this abridgment of the Report, a verdict of non-proven was submitted to the House, whereas, I am told, the original Report of the Committee was in fact a verdict of guilty. It may have been done in the interests of the State. I believe it was done with perfectly fair and honest intentions. But the alteration, abridgment and editing of Reports submitted to

      1771
      this House creates an atmosphere of suspicion which prevents any Government doing either justice to itself or to the persons whom it defends or to the persons whom it accuses. If once it is known that the Government can remove from a Report subject-matter of that Report as it affects individuals, or Governments, or a great public Department, then all confidence and all trust in the integrity of the persons by whom the Report is submitted or to whom it is submitted is removed, and a great evil will come upon the system of examination by private and trustworthy persons whom this House has placed in a position of great confidence, and has shown, up to a few weeks ago, symptoms of placing still greater confidence in them.
      There is only one other remark I need make upon this Report. We, as I have said, the bulk of us, are in this House as the representatives of great communities outside, and we ought to be afforded information on the affairs of this Empire in an ample and equal manner, in order that we ourselves may make our criticisms and decide upon the issues before us. But the Government in this and in many other respects have made innovations which have not worked out for the good of this House, and, I believe, have not worked out for the purity of examination and administration. I would ask the Government—and I do not wish to suggest in any way that they should stand in a white sheet for anything that has been done—but I should be very glad if my right hon. Friend, should he speak in this Debate, will repudiate on their behalf a continuance of this practice which, even if it were only done twice, was done twice too often—I ask that he will repudiate any intention to do this, at all events in respect of that Report which must be submitted to the Government so far as regards the further conduct of affairs in the Dardanelles, and any Report that may be made in regard to the conduct of the War in Mesopotamia. It is essential when we judge these questions that we should have the whole facts before us as ascertained and reported upon by the Commissioners ordered by this House to examine and Report to this House. The Report was removed from the purview of the Government and given to this House in order that all the facts might be ascertained and might be reported. Because there has been, though with the best intentions, some departure from the practice which the House
      1772
      authorised and approved, I, as a private Member of this House, thought it my duty to bring it to the notice of the Government and the House, and I trust we may get the assurance which I have asked for from the Government.
      Colonel Sir MARK SYKES: I should not have taken part in this Debate were it not that I have two or three points which I felt, as the matter was to come under discussion, I might usefully put before the House. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in the point he has raised. I would rather come back to one or two of the points mentioned in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith). I should say personally, as a private Member, that I believe there is a feeling of some irritation and vexation as to the publication of the Report. I think people feel that such a Report as this, although made with the very best intentions, could only lead to a loss of confidence. It has nothing whatever to do with getting on with the War, which, after all, is the first business of the nation. It seems to me also that the Report as it stands is unsatisfactory from the point of view of the people of this country as a whole. If people are supposed to have done wrong, I suppose you accuse them and take evidence against them and then someone speaks on their behalf and someone speaks against them, and some day you say they have done it or not. This Report does not seem to run on those lines at all, but gives scraps of evidence here and there. It does not give one a fair picture of the whole thing. It seems to damn with faint blame all along, with a little faint praise here and there. There is no real opportunity for those who are accused or blamed of really speaking fully on these points. Even after the War, when the whole thing could be carefully gone into, we will never get to the whole truth of the matter because of the death of the two principal witnesses. I happened to know those two. who both died nobly at the post of duty, very well privately. I think the House will be interested to know that in Colonel Fitzgerald you had one of the most remarkable men this War has seen. He was a man who relied very little on notes and took very few notes and could carry the whole thing in his head in a most extraordinary way. I think that would be borne out by any hon. Member who had any transactions with him.

      1773
      This Report, though it does not profoundly censure Lord Kitchener, has certainly been the cause for other censures. The people of this country, no matter what is said, will always remember fundamental things, and the fundamental things about Lord Kitchener are these, that when the crash came he took the responsibility of taking charge, and it wanted a big man to do that and he saw two essentials which I believe no other expert did, namely, that it was going to be a war of years and a matter of millions and not thousands of British soldiers. He saw those two things clearly at the beginning and for that reason our land war did not sink into disaster. I feel that the House will excuse me if I bring in one personal point. It is suggested somehow in this Report, and the ex-Prime Minister perhaps gave the same impression, that Lord Kitchener was a kind of taciturn man. The only time that the Dardanelles operation ever arose in conversation between myself and Lord Kitchener was under the following circumstance. It was some time ago, but some time afterwards I wrote it down and kept a record of it. I was sent for by Lord Kitchener to see him about some quite other business. I was talking about that other business. He gave me his views, and suddenly said this, which I put down as best I could remember it:
      "My head aches very badly to-night. I have not slept for three nights, because I have had a picture before my eyes the whole time of those poor men being drowned and massacred on the beaches at Gallipoli. What a relief it is to me to know that they are safely off."
      He showed me a telegram, and that was the first news I had of the evacuation. I only want to mention that because at a crisis of his career—for anybody like him must have known it was a crisis for him—he was not thinking of his reputation or of his place in history, but, like a good soldier, was thinking of his men. I believe it was subconscious knowledge of this trait in his character that caused men to cry in the streets when they heard the news of his death. There are two points to which I wish to refer, and which, I think, are of very great importance in the Report itself, because they seem to suggest to me that the Report has been got together in a rather hasty manner. On page 40, paragraph 118, there occurs the following:
      "We have already mentioned (paragraph 76) that the loss of prestige in abandoning the expedition, which at one time caused great anxiety, was in reality inappreciable."
      1774
      Going back to paragraph 76 there is the following:
      "It may confidentally be asserted that anyone conversant with Eastern affairs would have predicted in January, 19l5, that if a serious attack on the Dardanelles was made, and if it failed the result would be to give a shattering blow to British prestige and influence throughout the East. As a matter of fact the attack failed, but so far as at present can be judged the political consequences, although a serious check to British arms was shortly afterwards experienced in Mesopotamia, have been so slight as to be almost inappreciable."
      I submit to the House that perhaps people may be entitled to write like that fifty years hence, but you cannot suddenly judge as to whether your prestige has gone or not. I do not know upon what that is based. I do know this, with some fair knowledge of the East, that nobody who lived in the Orient at that time would have felt the same after the evacuation as before. I think that if we examined what was going on in Persia immediately after the evacuation it will be found that there was a certain loss of prestige. I do not suppose that German agents in Persia failed to take advantage of it. I do not suppose that the Amir's position was made easier. This I do know with certainty, that the anti-war party from the day of the evacuation in Turkey was dumb, dead and gone, and the Committee of Union and Progress was firmly placed in the saddle for another long stretch, and hopes for Armenia and hopes for the Syrians were wiped out. Because India was loyal, because Egypt was well garrisoned, because the magnificent Civil Service in India and Egypt bore a double burden and did not break down, that is no reason for saying that we lost no prestige. It would be a very great pity to imagine that these sort of adventures can be embarked upon and dropped and let go with a loss of no prestige. I feel so seriously on this point that I certainly would not have referred to it, but I think personally our prestige went from a hundred to zero. I think that by the capture of Bagdad we have gained back 75 per cent. of it, but only 75 per cent. of it.
      The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Sir F. Cawley): Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman referring to the Expedition to the Dardanelles or the evacuation?
      Sir M. SYKES: I was talking of the whole matter.
      Sir F. CAWLEY: We have not got that length yet.
      Mr. PRINGLE: The point referred to deals with the whole question.
      Sir M. SYKES: Perhaps in the course of the next ten years or so the Commissioners will have time to make a full investigation of the whole matter, but it will take ten years to find out the truth of the matter It is possible that I misread the actual meaning of the Report. But there is another point which seems to me far more serious and as to which I propose to read three extracts from the Report. I skip certain portions as they do not seem to matter. In paragraph 118 the following occurs:
      "The attempt to force the Dardanelles and to reach Constantinople failed. It would, however, be an exaggeration to say that the expedition, considered as a whole, was a complete failure. Such was by no means the case. The enterprise was originally undertaken in order to create a diversion in favour of the Russians. In this respect it may he said to have been very fairly successful."
      But only "fairly successful." Further on in that paragraph there is the statement from the late Prime Minister's evidence that Lord Kitchener
      "said to me (Mr. Asquith) a hundred times it contained and immobilised nearly 300,000 Turkish soldiers for the best part of nine months."
      The Commissioners' comment on that paragraph 118 is:
      "We are generally in agreement with the views expressed by Mr. Asquith and Lord Grey, but we regard Lord Kitchener's estimate of the number of Turkish troops immobilised for nearly nine months as conjectural."
      Lastly, the conclusion is:
      "We think that although the main object was not achieved, certain important political advantages, upon the nature of which we have already dealt (paragraph 118), were secured by the Dardanelles Expedition. Whether those advantages were worth the loss of life and treasure is, and must be. a matter of opinion."
      I submit, in the first place, as to the doubt as to whether the lives were wasted or not that it is only after the most profound and most careful investigation that any man ought to commit himself to express an opinion like that.
      Mr. PRINGLErose—
      Mr. SPEAKER: It would be better to permit the hon. Member to make his own speech.
      Sir M. SYKES: I submit, seeing that this is a matter of opinion, that it really must bring the most painful thoughts into the minds of any person who has lost anyone there near and dear to them. I hope that something may be said from a far more authoritative source than myself on this question. I should like first to suggest that the Commission really has no right
      1776
      to say this is a matter of opinion when it shows that it has not made full investigation. It admits that when it says that Lord Kitchener's figure of 300,000 is conjectural. To Lord Kitchener it may have been conjectural, but unless you have all the information of the archives of the English General Staff, the Russian General Staff, and the French General Staff, you have no right to say it is conjectural until you have been right to the bottom of the whole question and examined it thoroughly. If it would take too long to find out whether that number of troops was immobilised, let them say so, but do not throw doubts and talk about a thing being conjectural until you have been right to the bottom of the matter from one end to the other. I think it is not difficult to prove, without going into the archives of the General Staff or compiling all the intelligence to see, that something very like that number was actually in the Dardanelles.
      First let us examine the mental attitude of the enemy. What does the adequate defence of Constantinople mean under the circumstances of the Dardanelles Expedition? It means a surplus number of contact troops to make defence certain, enough troops to safeguard Smyrna and the Asiatic shore, enough troops to guard against an extra landing at Midia, because so long as the expedition was in progress and likely to be a success Bulgaria was always likely to come in, and therefore it must have contained additional troops on the Bulgarian frontier. It is admitted that so long as the expedition was likely to be a success there was always the danger of revolution in Constantinople, so that you have to add to that the extra internal troops. Then you have to add casualties and I am sure it will be found that Lord Kitchener's 300,000 is a calculated under-estimation of the actual number. If it was not, where were these Turkish troops? Take the situation at this present moment. There are Turks in the Dobrudja, there are Turks at Salonika, there are Turks in the Caucasus, there are Turks in Sinai, there are Turks in Arabia, there are Turks in Persia, there are Turks in Mesopotamia; and add to that two and a half years of casualties, two and a half years of losses by epidemics, such as typhoid, typhus, and small-pox, all of which have ravaged the Turkish Army, and two and a half years of road losses. I hope I am not being too practical with the House if

      1777
      I mention this question of Turkish road losses, the losses of Turkish troops when moving from one place to another. I have a diary of a Turkish officer who started from Constantinople and was on the move for about four and a half months. He started from Constantinople with a battalion 1,400 strong. He got to the other point about four and a half months later, "after losing only 250 men in action, with only 350 men left in the battalion." One has to remember that the Turkish Army is one that, by reason of the difficulties of the country, so long as it is on the move is dwindling at a much faster rate and suffering much greater losses than armies which have the advantages possessed by Armies in Europe.
      But where were these troops in 1915? The Turks, with their offensive ideas, are not the sort of people to keep 300,000 men at home. They were not in the Caucasus or on the other fronts. Where were they, then? The Turkish idea was offensive. Their one purpose in going into the War was offensive, and I am certain that when history comes to be really examined on this point you will find that far more than 300,000 men were immobilised by the Dardanelles Expedition, and that is one military achievement. But there is another military achievement, and it is this—I think it was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith)—that the nucleus of the Turkish Army was practically destroyed at the Dardanelles, and that is equivalent to the destruction for us of our Expeditionary Force, or the destruction for Germany of his Prussian Guard and his best Brandenburgh troops, and more than that for the Turks, because the Turks' 150,000 nucleus troops they always kept in the vicinity of Constantinople, and they had to look to them for the technical skill and the discipline which they were to infuse into their large levies from the country, who were slow to train, because they were illiterate peasants and diverse in language. The leaven, the thing that was to make the Turkish Army into a first-rate European fighting machine, was practically destroyed at the Dardanelles. It was arrested in its work of leavening the whole, and it was very severely crippled and damaged, and for that reason the Turkish Army in this great War has never quite got up to the European standard. The Turkish Army, the leaven having been shattered at Gal-
      1778
      lipoli—far be it from me to under-estimate the strength of it to-day; it is a fine fighting force and a formidable fighting force—is not the perfect German-made machine which it would have been if that technically trained staff had not been destroyed at the Dardanelles.
      The other achievements of the Dardanelles Expedition one might go through quite quickly. I will not take Lord Kitchener's 300,000. The Commission says that that is conjectural. At least, 150,000 is not conjectural, and supposing the Turks in 1915 had had only 150,000 men contained at the Dardanelles whom they might have launched elsewhere, and supposing they had sent them to the Caucasus, what would have been the result? I think it is pretty easy to say. The actual contact between the Turks and the Russians in the Caucasus in the early part of 1915 was practically a draw. If 150,000 extra Turks had gone to the Caucasus it would have doubled the Turkish forces, and if it was a draw at equal forces, certainly it would have been a clear and easy victory for the Turks at double forces. And you must remember that the Russians could not have sent reinforcements to the Caucasus, because the Russians did not depend on drafts of men; they were short of rifles, and where there are no rifles you cannot reinforce an army by drafts of men with sticks. The loss of the Caucasus was prevented, and, so far from it being a doubtful success, that was a great success.
      What a disaster it would have been if the Russians had been driven out of the Caucasus by an army two to one stronger than it was! It would have meant the loss of Baku and the oil wells; it would have meant 300,000 recruits, for the Turkish Army, because the Turks in the Caucasus, who began to rise when the Turks came, would naturally have all been recruited by force once the Turks obtained control; it would have meant the certain loss of Teheran, and with Teheran and the Caucasus in Turkish hands, there would have been no question of our having little parties of men trying to catch German agents in Persia; it would have meant that the route across Persia and the route to India and Afghanistan would be open, not to invasion, but to a constant supply of all arms, of gold, and of agents-provocateur, who would have given us the very greatest difficulty and trouble, and immobilised far more troops perhaps eventually than were immobilised at the Dardanelles. But that was one alternative. The 150,000 Turks

      1779
      could have taken another alternative. Supposing the 150,000 Turks had been available, there was nothing to keep the Bulgarians from coming in on the Turkish and German side. Supposing you added 150,000 to the Bulgarian Army in June, 1915, just as the Russians were retiring from Przemysl, that would give a decisive force of 650,000 men thrown on the German side at a decisive moment. Take the longest view of all and the last alternative. Supposing the German General Staff and the Turkish Staff had foreseen the turn that this War would take, and presuming there had been no Dardanelles Expedition, and that the Turks had kept the nucleus of 150,000 trained men, and said, "We are out-and-out Western Fronters; we are not going to commit ourselves to anything in the Caucasus, or Mesopotamia, or Egypt, but we will be on a rigid defence and husband our resources." Supposing they had taken that long view, then I say that without the Dardanelles Expedition to have broken the nucleus, Turkey would have a surplus probably of between 600,000 and 700,000 men, carefully husbanded through the War and brought up to absolute European standard, a decisive force ready to cast at any point.
      I submit that those are points and considerations which, if the Commission is going on, it might consider in the future, but they want very careful investigation, and, personally, I do not urge the Commission going on at all. When I see this list of people, thirty or forty in number, in high positions, whose every ounce of energy and time ought to be devoted to the War and to their office work, being called up before the Commission to give evidence, I say it is a waste of time. It may be that that is a question for the Government and the House to decide, and I will not go into it; but if anything is going to be said of an authoritative nature from the Front Bench to-day, I would suggest that there are two points which might be made, and they are not matters which would give rise to any party dissension, and I think the House would be absolutely unanimous upon them. I think it should be stated, firstly, that the whole House absolutely repudiates the attacks which the very gentle censures of this Report have been made the vehicle of—the abominable attacks on Lord Kitchener's memory. One does not want to use strong language about it, because
      1780
      passion runs high, and the thing is mean enough as it stands, but, if possible, I think a very definite expression of opinion ought to be given by this House in regard to Lord Kitchener's memory. The other point is that if it could be possible it would be well for someone of high position and of weight and authority to say that those men who died at Gallipoli not only died deaths of heroes, but that no men purchased greater advantages for the cause for which they were nghting than they, and, if it is possible for human blood to be appraised in terms of value, that those men's blood was shed perhaps to-better advantage than any others. If that could be made clear, I think an act not only of policy but of charity would be done for those numberless relatives in England, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand, of men who perished there.
      Sir GEORGE REID: I should like if I might to express my great approval of the speech which the hon. Baronet the Member for Hull has just addressed to this House. In regard to his remarks on the question of the prestige of the Empire, I think that that question is often overlooked. The whole of this gigantic fabric of Empire rests upon the prestige of the administrative powers possessed by our race, and whilst I have no criticism to offer with reference to inquiries which may be productive of good in the management of the Imperial powers, I view with grave anxiety the publication of Reports such as this, which reflect, I believe unfairly, upon the powers of the greatest figures in the history of this country. The effect of such Reports is, I think, greatly to be regretted. There was no earthly call for the production of this interim Report. I have yet to be told that the Government called for it; I do not believe the Government did. I think that the Report, as the late Prime Minister has said, deals entirely with things which are past, and I regret to say that it deals in a way with affairs of the past which, after very careful perusal of it, I cannot at all appreciate.
      The references I am going to make are based entirely upon the evidence which is reproduced in the Report. I cannot go, and do not wish to go, outside that evidence. In the first place, I wash, if I may say so, to represent the strong feeling which prevails in the Dominions of this Empire against excursions into controversial matters which are not connected with the War. Nothing offends Colonial

      1781
      sentiment more, after the Colonies nave sent their boys by thousands and tens of thousands to give their lives for the Empire, than to see, as if this awful conflagration was not enough, new fires started in this House upon controversial questions. There is plenty of time for that.
      This interim Report is an unfortunate example of the kind of thing to which I have referred. I confess that my anxiety was as to the findings of this Royal Commission in reference to the Secretary of State for War, who, as the late Prime Minister has said, is unable to make any explanation or give any evidence, and Colonel Fitzgerald too, a man that I knew for many years. I desire to say that the hon. Baronet (Sir Mark Sykes) has never done a more simple act of justice than what he has said concerning one than whom there was no more efficient military confidant. Both Lord Kitchener and Colonel Fitzgerald have gone. None other of the great living actors in this transaction have gone. I was very anxious to see from this interim Report what were the findings of the Commission. I should have thought that an interim Report would not have committed itself to findings, but that the findings would have formed part of the final Report. I take up these findings and I discover very soon this, which—with great respect to the Commission—I think displays an astounding ignorance of elementary facts in connection with the War Office. On page 13 of the Report we read:
      "As regards administrative methods, we think it is much to be regretted that the principles of the devolution of authority and responsibility upon which the War Office system was based were ignored by Lord Kitchener."
      The principles upon which the War Office system has been based come to this: That a civilian has been Secretary of State for War, and, of course, in a position of that sort the authority of the Secretary of State must devolve because he has no expert knowledge. How can a civilian Secretary of State for War govern the military operations of the State without reference to his subordinates? But when the greatest military organiser that our race had ever produced becomes Secretary of State for War, an entirely new set of things comes into existence. The authority of this nation has never, in the War Office, been placed in better hands than when Lord Kitchener so cheerfully took office. We know the miserable failures and mismanagements of the Boer
      1782
      War. We, out in Australia, remember that when we offered to send the best of our horsemen to South Africa, with horses, we were told that "mounted infantry was not required." That was the sort of system which prevailed in the War Office at the time when a comparatively small war was engaging the attention of the Empire. The moment Lord Kitchener went into that office he became the military authority, as well as the Secretary of State. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) points out in this Report, when the Admiralty officials came to deal with the War Office, they found all the officers with whom they were accustomed to transact business had gone, and properly gone, to the front. This Commission blames Lord Kitchener for that which it would be well if it prevailed more in public positions—for overworking himself! Thank God we have some men who will overwork themselves in positions of public trust. The fact is that the greater personal authority and interference of Lord Kitchener, so far as the work of the War Office was concerned, was not worse, but better for the public interest.
      There is another matter to which I should like to refer in respect of these findings. It is, however, only fair to say that the Commission in several passages in the Report makes a most laboured effort—which has to some extent excited my admiration—to say pleasant things about that great military administrator. But in their findings, which is the thing that goes out to the public, and the thing which everybody hears or reads about, there is not one word referring to Lord Kitchener which gives the slightest acknowledgment of the strain under which he worked. Take the findings at the end of the Report:
      "We are of opinion that Lord Kitchener did not sufficiently avail himself of the services of his General Staff, with the result that more work was undertaken by him than was possible for one man to do, and confusion and want of efficiency resulted."
      One would have thought there were a dozen Lord Kitchener's in the War Office, and that he could safely transfer his personal responsibility to some of his distinguished subordinates. But the fact was this: Lord Kitchener's best men had gone to the front. Lord Kitchener put his heart and soul into this terrible crisis. Now he is to be blamed because he did so. It is found as a cause of offence against him that instead of making the most of his

      1783
      subordinates in the War Office, the greatest military administrator and organiser we have ever had in the Empire in this awful crisis himself did the things which a civilian Secretary of War would have had to refer to his subordinates. He is censured for that!
      Now as to the Dardanelles Expedition. In this matter this Report again, I must say, is singularly unfair in its conclusions on Lord Kitchener. This was to be a naval attack. It was so decided. We must all remember that. It was not until 26th March—three days after the time stated in this Report, and there are several little slips here which can easily be seen—when a military attack with the support of the Fleet was decided upon. Lord Kitchener is said in this Report to have conclusively abandoned the idea of a naval operation. Two telegrams are cited for that proposition. They show that Lord Kitchener did nothing of the kind. In one of these telegrams Lord Kitchener said:
      "If the naval attack has not succeeded by that time."
      That is stated to be conclusive proof that he had abandoned the naval plan of attack. That is rather a conclusion, I submit, -which seems wide of the mark. The fact was that Lord Kitchener relied upon the naval attack. When General Hamilton was instructed on 13th March, Lord Kitchener told him that there was no idea of a military attack at that time. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roch) brought that out most clearly in the question when he asked at one of the sittings of the Commission. The answer to the hon. Member for Pembroke was this—this was on 13th March—that
      "Lord Kitchener never thought of a military attack, but a day or two after he was able to release those troops."
      The Commission say that the fact that these troops were delayed gravely compromised the success of that expedition. What are the facts? The facts are that the attack was not made until 25th April, and then the 29th Division had got there days and days before in spite of the delay. It seems to me a thousand pities that, although doubtless the Commission had no desire to do anything but justice to Lord Kitchener, that they practically put on him the blame for the failure of this expedition. In previous phrases they speak of his anxiety about the safety of the Western Front. In their findings this is the language they use in reference to that. On page 42 they say:
      1784
      "On 20th February Lord Kitchener decided that the 29th Division, part of the troops which by the decision of 16th February were to have been sent to the East, should not be sent at that time."
      Let me stop there for a moment. On another page they say it was
      "owing to his anxiety about the safety of our Western Front."
      Why could they not have said that in their findings? Why could they not have said that it was owing to this anxiety of Lord Kitchener that this decision was arrived at? The public get the censure and not the explanation, which is given by the Commission itself in another place. We read:
      "Colonel Fitzgerald, by his order, instructed the Director of Naval Transports that the transports for that division and the rest of the Expeditionary Force would not be required. This was done without informing the First Lord and the dispatch of troops was thus delayed for three weeks. This delay gravely compromised the probability of the success of the original attack made by the land forces, and materially increased the difficulties encountered in the final attack some months later."
      The fact is that the first attack was not made on 25th April, and that all the troops got there at least a fortnight or three weeks before the attack was made. The Australian troops had arrived in Egypt, and required military training, and all these things have to be taken into account. So far as I can represent the feeling in the outlying Dominions of the Empire, I want to say that a thousand such Reports and a thousand such Commissions will never besmirch the fair fame of that man, who, in the greatest difficulty and danger of this Empire, produced those splendid Armies which are now, we trust, approaching a glorious victory.
      6.0 P.M.
      Colonel Sir M. WILSON: I have listened with great interest to the speeches this afternoon. Those speeches are more particularly interesting to soldiers like myself who have had the privilege of serving in the Dardanelles campaign. While I dwell upon one or two points I would claim the indulgence of the House. I would like to emphasise the fact that there has always existed a school of thought which had been strongly opposed to any offensive operation of any sort except on the Western Front. Operations in France have, very naturally, always enjoyed the larger share of interest and prestige, and from its earliest inception the Dardanelles Campaign has met with a lot of adverse criticism. Its failure has reaped a proportionately large harvest of blame. But was it such a

      1785
      failure? These results, at least, were achieved. First, as we have been already told, the Turkish concentration of 200,000 men on the Peninsula which our Expeditionary Force held up was the flower of their Army. It was officered by some of the finest experts that Germany could provide. The Turkish resources of men, food, munitions, and transport were strained to a great extent by the difficult operations on this front. During this time the Turks were unable to threaten Egypt seriously, and the pressure on our Russian Allies in the Caucasus was appreciably lessened. How near we got to victory on the landing at Suvla Bay is common knowledge. The element of chance must always play a far greater part in war than strategists and politicians will ever allow. Such points are well known to military experts and recognised even by those who have most loudly criticised this Expedition. I believe that, viewed by the truer perspective of later years, the Dardanelles Campaign, although it failed to fulfil the grand ambition of those who initiated it, accomplished more than we can now appreciate. And here I should like to pay a tribute to the imperishable glory of the Australian units, our comrades in arms, whose valour has written for them at their first trial in Europe a shining page of history. Grave mistakes were made, misjudgments and blunders, for which we have paid a heavy toll of blood and treasure, but I should like to protest against the kind of criticism which has been levelled against those distinguished leaders responsible for the conduct of the campaign. They have been attacked in a spirit that is entirely foreign to our. national character, and which, to my mind, can serve no useful end. More, I venture to say that those who mourn the fallen, those—and there are many of them—for whom this Campaign has changed "the aspect of the earth and the imagery of Heaven," can feel nothing but regret at the controversial and bitter spirit which has usurped the place of just criticism.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not intend to approach in any controversial spirit anything that is said by the Commissioners in the conclusions of their Report, nor any expression of opinion which they have submitted. Although I do not wholly agree with their conclusions, I say quite frankly, in so far as the Admiralty is concerned, I welcome them as, at any rate, an instalment of fairplay. They have swept away
      1786
      directly, or by implication, many serious and reckless charges which have passed current broadcast throughout the land during the long months of the last two years. They have reduced these charges within the limits of modest and sober criticism, and, further, by laying before the nation the general outlines of the story—a long, tangled, complicated story—they have limited the responsibilities which have been thrown on me and under which I have greatly suffered. The burden I have hitherto borne alone, for although my right hon. Friend, with his customary chivalry and loyalty, early in 1915 took upon himself the main responsibility for the Dardanelles operations, the current of public opinion and the weight of popular displeasure, were mainly directed upon me, who was at that time responsible for the Admiralty. The burden that I have hitherto borne alone is now shared with the most eminent men which this country has produced within the lifetime of a whole generation in Parliament, in the Army, or the Fleet.
      Therefore, from a personal point of view, putting aside altogether the question of whether it is wise to publish this. Report or not, putting aside for the moment the question of the non-publication of the evidence, I am bound to say that I welcome the publication of the Report. If the Commission had confined themselves to conclusions and to expressions of opinion I think it would hardly have been necessary for me to intervene at all in the Debate, except perhaps to urge some general considerations upon the House. But the method which the Commission have chosen is to build up a narrative—a very interesting and very exhaustive, although not in all respects a complete narrative—by a great number of clippings and snippings from documents, and by single sentences from the evidence of witnesses, and these have been pieced together with the greatest patience and the greatest skill to form a connected narrative. I know how earnestly the Commission have desired to be fair and just to everyone, but it is a fact that this method which they chose is in conflict with all the accepted principles in regard to documents and evidence, because it is the fundamental principle that if a document is quoted, if an extract from a document is taken, one should know what the context is, and if one answer of a witness is cited, that answer can only be judged in relation to

      1787
      the whole of his evidence. I should like the House to observe that these interesting quotations, which are taken from the evidence of witnesses, have in some cases—I might almost say in many cases-attracted more attention and been made the foundation of more comment or criticism in the public Press than the carefully weighed and considered conclusions of the Commissioners. I cannot see that there was any reasonable halting ground between the Commission confining themselves to conclusions and expressions of their opinion, pure and simple, and the general publication of the evidence.
      I should like to give the House one or two examples of the detriment to personal and public interest which arises from this course. Would the House kindly look to the top of page 26, paragraph 83? The Commission are there describing my relations with Lord Fisher at a certain period. They say:
      "Shortly after the meeting of 13th January, Lord Fisher's attitude underwent some change the real divergence between his views and those of Mr. Churchill became more apparent than heretofore. The latter thus describes what occurred."
      And then they proceed to quote a passage which is taken textually from my narrative which I supplied to the Commissioners. This passage in my narrative refers, not to what occurred after 13th January, but to what occurred after 23rd March, when the naval operation was broken off altogether, and it has been wrested violently from its context and from its proper place in the sequence of the story, ante-dated nine weeks, and in its present place in the Report it does not represent the truth or anything like the truth. Would the House very kindly look to the opinion expressed by Commodore de Bartolomé, in paragraph 62? Commodore de Bartolomé's opinion was expressed before the Commission in the following terms:
      "My impression was always that the naval members would much sooner have had a combined operation, and that they only agreed to a purely naval operation on the understanding that we could always draw back—that there should be no question of what is known as forcing the Dardanelles."
      That is the only account taken of Commodore de Bartolomé's opinion. Of course it is an absolute travesty of his opinion. It bears no relation whatever to his main opinion on this question. He was strongly in favour of the exact method of attack which we adopted, and he testified on oath to that opinion. But the point to
      1788
      which I am particularly drawing the attention of the House is the use of the word"forcing"—
      "that there should be no question of what is known as forcing the Dardanelles."
      The moment I saw this in the Report I was convinced that a mistake had been made, and that what the Commodore meant was "rushing," because the House has realised by this time that there was the gradual method of forcing by reduction, as opposed to the old method of rushing, and I was certain that what the Commodore meant here, although he is correctly quoted, was not forcing but rushing. The very next answer which he gave was:
      "When I say forcing, I mean a delibetate rush."
      That is entirely omitted, and the whole sense of this passage, and the whole opinion of this very important and very competent officer is completely misrepresented, though unintentionally misrepresented.
      I wish to urge upon the House another point connected with this argument. I could bring a number of other particular points to the attention of the House which would further illustrate it, but I do not wish to take up the time or trespass upon the indulgence of hon. Members with matters of detail. The serious point to which I wish to draw attention is one of principle. The foundation of the advice which I offered to the War Council on behalf of the Admiralty, and on which my right hon. Friend and his colleagues took their decision, was not the opinions of experts. It was based on the plans of experts, and on their readiness to carry out those plans. I trust the House will appreciate the all-important distinction between the two. A mere opinion that a thing can be done, or perhaps can be done, or perhaps cannot be done, is an expert opinion, but it is not comparable to a definite, detailed, reasoned plan. If an engineer expresses the opinion: "A river might be dammed. It would be a very difficult business, but perhaps it might be done. I do not say it could not be done, "that is an expert opinion. But if he puts a detailed, elaborate plan with specifications, and if that plan is of a nature which when shown to other engineers commands their assent and professional agreement, I say you are on an altogether different plane from that which you are if you are dealing with questions of opinion.

      1789
      I am going to take the House as shortly as I can through the catena of plans on which the decision of the Government was based, and let me say this matter is of public and not personal importance, because the foundation of the orders which reach the Fleet is of high importance. Anyone reading this Report, and looking at Admiral Carden's telegram of 11th January, in which he unfolded his plan, would suppose that he had confined himself to a few general expressions of what was possible. "The operations possible," he says, "are," and then follow A, B, C and D. I am not at all complaining of the course which the Commissioners have taken but that extract gives no fair idea of his telegram. His telegram was a reasoned, detailed, intricate naval plan, occupying, I suppose, about a page of one of these official publications. Admiral Garden, of course, was invited to say whether he felt that his hand had been forced or that he had been unduly pressed by my telegram to him. He resisted every suggestion of that kind. He was asked whether he felt that the First Lord was sending him an order. He said, "I took it to be an inquiry." He was asked whether the First Lord wished it to be done. He said, "I thought that he wished it to be done if it could possibly be done." He was asked whether his judgment was unfettered. He said, "Yes, he felt that his judgment was unfettered." Those are very important points, and, when the suggestion is that this officer's judgment was influenced by the form of my telegram where I referred to the high authorities, I feel it is a material fact, and that in common justice it should have been included that he said that his judgment was unfettered.
      Admiral Garden's detailed plan was next remitted by me to the War Staff and to Sir Henry Jackson for their consideration, and, after careful examination of it, they both expressed their concurrence in it. Sir Henry Jackson, in his memorandum of 15th January, four days after the Garden plan had been received, wrote a full and reasoned criticism and comment on the plan. It occupied, again, about a page, and it began with the words, "Concur generally in his plans," which words are printed by the Commission. Then followed the very important words, "Our previous appreciations differed only in small details," which the majority of the Commission omit, though that defect is happily supplied by my hon. Friend the
      1790
      Member for Pembrokeshire. This was not a formal concurrence; it was a detailed, critical, reasoned concurrence. Following this, and following on the decision of the War Council with which the Prime Minister has dealt, the Chief of the Staff of the Admiralty prepared the war orders for the Fleet. These occupy about three and a half pages of a publication of this size, and of course went into every minute professional detail connected with the operations. The Chief of the Staff is a very important officer. He is in a position where he is almost in the Council. He is certainly not in a position where he is a simple, irresponsible executor of decisions taken above him. Admiral Oliver was appointed by me on Lord Fisher's advice in November, 1914, and under every change which has taken place in the Admiralty he has continued to retain what I believe is a growing measure of confidence of all with whom he works. Admiral Oliver says about these orders, "I made these orders. I believed in them. I considered that they were sound. I considered that they offered a reasonable, practical chance of success. I was working in the closest contact with Sir Henry Jackson. I saw his work. I saw that it was done with the utmost exactitude." He was asked the direct question, "Do you consider that Sir Henry Jackson was for it or not?" Admiral Oliver says, "I think he was for it." And then all we are told about Admiral Oliver, the Chief of the Staff, who has given his evidence and made his plans, is that Admiral Oliver, nevertheless, acquiesced. I say that is an abuse of language.
      Finally, we come to Sir Henry Jackson's memorandum of 15th February. There never was an operation which was less rushed or less hurried in its preparations than this one. Sir Henry Jackson's memorandum of 15th February occupies four pages of this class of publication. He had taken nearly six weeks to prepare it. He had begun it in the early days of January, before the Garden telegram had been received, and it is to the beginning part of this memorandum that this sentence, "Our early appreciation differed only in small details," referred. This memorandum comprises a minute examination of every gun and every fort in the Dardanelles, and it shows how each fort can be attacked in succession. It examines the calibre, range, and are of training of every piece of ordnance with

      1791
      which our ships would be brought into contact; it points out all the places of dead water where ships could lie out of range of particular guns to fire at particular forts; and it makes elaborate suggestions where cross observation ships should lie. The Commission have published the guarding sentence at the end of this long memorandum which Sir Henry Jackson added about the importance of having troops at hand, of having strong landing forces to support the action of the Fleet, of having the transports ready to enter the Straits the moment it was seen that the forts were going to fall, and so on. But apart from this guarding sentence, which if anything is a little out of the general tenor of the memorandum, no one would get any idea—I am not making a reproach against the Commission; I am showing the difficulty under which I lie—of the careful, thorough, elaborate plans which Admiral Jackson made. We sent this memorandum of Sir Henry Jackson's out to the Admiral to be taken as a guide and not as a ruling, but it was, in fact, substantially the method of attack which was adopted, and every condition which he prescribed in the guarding sentence which will be found on page 55 as to the troops, and so forth, was in fact carried out and carried out to his satisfaction, because on the 11th March, after the operation had begun and when we had already reduced the outer forts and were making some progress up the Straits, Sir Henry Jackson, who had been furnishing the war group at the Admiralty with his daily appreciation of the progress of the operations, minuted to me and to the First Sea Lord as follows:
      "Admiral Garden's report of the 10th instant on the progress of operations in the Dardanelles shows he has made good progress, but that his operations are now greatly retarded by concealed 'batteries of howitzers, etc…These points have all been foreseen, and a small military force supplied to deal with them, but the Vice-Admiral was instructed not to risk this force on shore in positions where they cannot be covered by ships' guns without further reference to the Admiralty. The position has considerably changed recently. There are now ample military forces ready, and J. suggest that the time has arrived to make use of them."
      Up to the 11th of March that was his opinion of these operations, which had been in progress ever since 19th February. Sir Henry Jackson said to the Commission that he accepted responsibility for this memorandum and this staff paper which he prepared. If this House will kindly turn to paragraph 60, where Sir Henry Jackson's
      1792

      part in these affairs is dealt with, they will see how very little representative of the account which I have given is the published account of the Commission. We see in the forefront Sir Henry Jackson
      "Did not consider that an attempt made by the Fleet alone to get through the Dardanelles was a feasible operation. 'He thought that' it would be a mad thing to do!'"
      I expect that last expression has been quoted more widely than any of the sober conclusions of the Commission. It has run from one end of the country to the other, and it is extremely important, not only for me, but for the late Government and the present Government, because, remember that the dignified and proper method by which you conduct your affairs is a matter of high public consequence. It is of great importance to know to what precise operation Sir Henry Jackson's expression, "a mad thing," refers. It is quite clear that it does not refer to the Carden plan, because he had written concurring generally in his plan of previous appreciation differing only in small details. It is quite clear that it does not refer to the Admiralty War Orders founded on the Carden plan, or that it does not refer to Sir Henry Jackson's own memorandum, every condition of which was fulfilled. I am of opinion that if the examination had been more-precise, and the question had been posed with proper exactness and precision, it would have emerged that what Sir Henry Jackson called "a mad thing" was an. attempt to rush the Straits without having these strong landing parties available and transports ready to enter them when the batteries were seen to be silent, and without making a serious and sustained effort to sweep the mine-field, and destroy the primary guns before running past.
      If that is so, it is no reflection whatever upon the Admiralty, because we never attempted anything in that nature. Nothing of the kind was ever approved either by the Admiralty or the War Council. The House will see that the total omission—I do not say it is not necessary to omit them—of these elaborate detailed plans will speak for themselves, which are entirely the work of professionel men, and the evidence accepting responsibility for them and affirming their soundness which was given by all the naval officers concerned, constitutes a serious injustice and hard-

      1793
      ship both to individuals and to the Government, and all the more is this so when, instead of these sordid written expressions of opinion before the event, we have a bevy of unpremeditated expressions uttered long afterwards when all this business is involved in prejudice and failure, and some of which apply to operations which were not the operations which we undertook. The Chief of the Staff then prepared a shorter variant of the Admiralty War Orders on the Carden plan, which was submitted to the French Minister of Marine and the French Government. The French Government took some considerable time to examine these, and they expressed an opinion—which would not have seen the light of day but for the Minority Report of my hon. Friend—in which they pronounced them to be prudent et prévoyant. It would not be right to quote further the detailed terms of their reasoned acceptance and approval.
      Commander BELLAIRS: You have quoted it already in your apologia.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not quoted further than "prudent et prévoyant." The French are the most competent artillerists in the world, and is it to be conceived that they would have committed themselves in these terms which, as the Chief of the Staff has stated, are without precedent and parallel in the whole course of the War in respect to any operations discussed between these two admiralties if they had thought these plans contained gross defects and were not a reasonable and practical basis for us to proceed upon. I have dealt with the plans. There are two ways of testing expert opinions one is by plans; can they put it into a plan? The other real test is, are they willing to carry them out and to put them into operation? Those are the real tests, and not where men are hesitating or halfhearted, or cordial or enthusiastic, to be ascertained by consultation, by examination long after the result is known. Now I come to the agreement of the experts to carry out the plan. Consultation implies divergence of opinion, and decision implies that those divergencies have been sunk in a common agreement. When agreement has been reached everyone who is party to it is bound by it, and previous misgivings and differences of opinion are blotted out and ought not to be referred to. In every walk of life, in every sphere of human activity, this is the invariable
      1794
      rule, and it is the only safe and honest rule. Take our Cabinet Government. What would be said of Ministers, of individual Ministers, after the Cabinet had agreed upon a course of action, who went about explaining that they had deep misgivings, and that they had not been in agreement with it at all? They would get very little sympathy from the House.
      Mr. PRINGLE: What about the Prime Minister?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: If this is true of the ordinary affairs of peace, how much more sternly should this principle be applied to the harsh, terrible, momentous decisions of war! When an enterprise is resolved on, the result of which no man can predict, the success of which no man can guarantee, which if it succeeds will bring credit to all concerned, and if it fails will bring misfortune and blame to all concerned, it is of the highest importance, it is imperative, that men should be strictly held to their agreement and whether they be politicians, whether they be officers of the Navy or Army, they must feel that by their word they are bound. Let the House understand that I am not endeavouring in my argument to relieve myself of any part of my responsibility. I take the whole responsibility for the advice tendered to the War Council. I am not trying to pass that responsibility on to the naval authorities. I have never tried to shelter myself behind them or behind Lord Kitchener in regard to naval operations, but I am determined to show, firstly, the great precision and thoroughness with which all our action was taken; and, secondly, that no one has a right to say that naval expert opinion was not marshalled, arrayed, and massed behind the Admiralty action. I say that the methods pursued by this inquiry of trying to ascertain whether the experts were enthusiastic or cordial towards an enterprise long after it had failed and become involved in prejudice—when a search is being made for culprits such methods are pernicious in the last degree to the efficient and resolute conduct of the War, and they render mutual confidence and common action impossible. Precise plans, not vague opinions, and definite agreement to carry out those plans, afford the only foundation for naval and military action.
      The agreement of Admirals Carden and Jackson with the course which we took is involved in the plan which they spon-

      1795
      taneously prepared and which we specifically adopted. When I spoke before I said that Sir Arthur Wilson's opinion was that we should attack the outer forts, and that our future progress would depend upon the degree of the Turkish resistance. Sir Arthur was asked, "Was this a fair account of your view?" and he said, "Yes; I think it expresses my opinion fairly well." Admiral Oliver stated that the whole War group was agreed to begin the attack on the outer forts and consider from the results derived from it how much further it could be pressed. Admiral de Robeck, who comes into the story at a later stage, a brand new admiral, not involved in any way, with a free hand and a clean slate, after being given the command, is asked by me specifically, pointedly, directly, "Are you in full agreement with the Admiralty telegrams and Admiral Car-den's replies thereto; and do you consider that, after separate and independent judgment, that they are wise and practicable? If not, do not hesitate to say so." To which he replied, "He was in full agreement, and that the Admiralty telegrams expressed his intentions exactly, and that he would attack at the first favourable opportunity." He did attack, and I say after the attack is over no man has a right to ask him what his inner feelings were, whether he had doubts or misgivings or other questions of that character.
      This War is a very grim business, and it must at every stage be "Aye" or "No," and there is no room for these nice shades of opinion. Most important of all—I am dealing with the agreements of the experts—is Lord Fisher. Paragraph 92 of the Report is the only paragraph in the narrative in which I am criticised at all. I am not at all complaining of the treatment the Commission has accorded me. In paragraph 92 we are told that I urged Lord Fisher to give "a silent, but manifestly very reluctant, assent to the undertaking." No, Sir; I did nothing of the sort. I urged him to undertake the operation, but what was the good of a silent assent of the First Sea Lord to me. He had to do the job. He had to order the Fleets to steam and the guns to fire. He had to organise and arrange them and reinforce and sustain them in the operation. The phrase, if I may say so, betrays a complete misapprehension as to what are the duties and functions of the First Sea
      1796
      Lord. The First Sea Lord moves the Fleet. No one else moves it. Suppose that I had failed to persuade Lord Fisher at this intermediate private meeting between the two meetings of the War Council on 28th January. Suppose I had failed to persuade him to undertake the operation? There would have been no need for him to altercate, or to resign or even to argue. There was no need for him to speak in the Council, although he was quite free to do so, unless he wished, because nothing that was said in the Council could alter his complete and absolute discretionary power to undertake or not to undertake an operation of this character, and unless he agreed to undertake it it could not possibly go forward. If Lord Fisher had said to me, "I am very sorry, First Lord; I cannot do it, or I will not do it, for this reason or for no reason at all." I should have gone back to the Prime Minister and the War Council and said to them, "We cannot carry out your wishes in regard to the bombardment of the Dardanelles as the First Sea Lord does not agree to undertake the operation, and the Admiralty can do nothing to help you in the Mediterranean at this time." Then it would be for the War Council themselves or the Prime Minister to settle whether they would have a new Board of Admiralty or abandon the project altogether. But Lord Fisher did not decline. He agreed. After balancing and weighing-all the circumstances and plans in every direction—the margin of the Grand Fleet, the hopes of the undertaking, the whole of the objections which there were, the new possibilities of the more powerful guns, and all the other calculable and incalculable factors—Lord Fisher definitely consented to undertake the operations, and he and I and the Chief of the Staff—the First Lord, the First Sea Lord, and the Chief of Staff—it is not possible to have a more perfect authority in fact or in form—went over together to the War Council and announced that we would undertake the charge which they so earnestly desired us to undertake. When Lord Fisher was asked by the Commission:
      "Was not Mr. Churchill quite right when he said that yon definitely agreed to undertake it?"
      he said:
      "Absolutely right. I undertook it unreservedly at. that time—"
      or words to that effect. Lord Fisher kept his word. I am not making any criticism.

      1797
      or attack. I am showing you the sequence of these affairs. Lord Fisher kept to his word. He exerted himself to the utmost to carry out this operation. At one time, as he told the Commission, he even applied to go out himself and take the responsibility for the naval attack when it reached its critical phase. He told the Commission that of his own accord. It was not until the Admiral on the spot changed his mind, and not until the new situation arose, when the Commander on the spot was no longer willing to go forward with the operation, that Lord Fisher said he would not press him, and that our differences for the first time began. I want to know whether this account I have given—I am very grateful to the House for their attention- is not a perfectly simple, plain, straightforward series of transactions, and whether it does not constitute unshakeable ground of expert authority and agreement for the action which the Admiralty took? I say that you have no right to go behind these solemn agreements and definite plans and to search for those doubts and misgivings which arise in every breast when these great hazards of war are decided. No one who has not had to take these decisions can know how serious and painful are the stresses which search in every man's heart when he knows that an order is going to be given as a result of which great ships may be lost, great interests may be permanently ruined and hundreds or even thousands of men may be sent to their last account. After all, what is the public advantage in leaving the sure ground of definite plans and agreements and coming to all these odd expressions of opinion, and questions of the degree of emotional enthusiasm with which the experts give their views?
      The process pursued by the Commission and the impression given by their narrative constitute, if true, a most humiliating reflection on the chiefs of the great services, upon which our safety depends from day to day. Here are at least six of the most important Admirals and Admirals of the Fleet in the Royal Navy, three of whom have held the position of First Sea Lord, covering in the aggregate, I suppose, nearly ten years. One of them is the Chief of Staff to-day. Both of the others have held important commands afloat. Some of them are men with reputations for strength of personality, and whose reputation for having strong and formidable personalities is almost world-wide. We are invited to believe that here is a
      1798
      plan to which they were all averse, which was full of errors, tactical errors, which the Commission could easily find out. Yet not one of those Admirals, not one of these great officers we are invited to believe, had the gumption to put his finger on a defect in the plan, and not one of them had the manhood to stand up and say to the First Lord, "I, for one, will have nothing to do with it." If that were true, it would constitute a most humiliating reflection. Further, we are asked to believe that they carried their subservience to such a point that not merely did they say "We will acquiesce, we will stand aside, we make no protest," but that they actually carried their subservience to such a point as to repress their views in these long, technical, elaborate Staff plans which were the basis for our action. Is it not much more reasonable, is it not much more natural, is it not much more agreeable to our interests and to the probabilities, to believe that these officers were all of them, in different days, greatly attracted to the plan, to believe that they had solid hopes that it would succeed, that they thought the proposals were technically sound, that they were willing and anxious to make exertions for the common cause, and that they were willing and anxious to make exertions for the common cause, and that they realised the difficulties in which we stood at that time? That is a much better conclusion for all the authorities concerned and for the interest of this country.
      I elaborate these details to the House, first of all, to defend myself against the false impression spread abroad by building up a story out of these little clippings and snippets from documents and evidence, which do not represent the documents and which do not represent the evidence. I am defending myself, but I am defending other interests besides my own. I am defending the Government of which I was a member. I am defending the chief under whom I served, and who had acted on the advice which I had tendered. I am defending the authority and dignity of the Admiralty, because, believe me, you could do it no greater injury than to weaken the confidence of the officers and men of the Fleet in. the orders they get from the Admiralty by favouring the impression that those orders had been made in a reckless, careless, amateur, and a haphazard way.
      Commander BELLAIRS: The right hon. Gentleman has constantly spoken of the Admiralty. It is on record that the Second, Third, and Fourth Sea Lords were never consulted about all these operations.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I will deal with that point. It is a very good moment to deal with it, although I had intended to do so later on. The Board of Admiralty was never in my time, nor, I believe, in my successor's time, consulted about war operations. The whole of the Board was never consulted about war operations. I do not believe it was consulted in any great Wars in the past. It is no more consulted than the Army Council is consulted about war operations. War operations are in the province of the First Sea Lord, with the Staff acting under him, just in the same way as military operations are in the province of the Chief of the General Imperial Staff, with the General Imperial Staff acting under him. It is pure ignorance to suppose otherwise. I am very much surprised that it should be supposed, because I should have thought that everyone in these warlike days knew the difference between "G" and "Q" sides, and knew the rigid distinction which is made between the administrative functions which are discharged by members of the Army Council and members of the Board of Admiralty and the operations and functions which are conducted by the heads of some Departments alone. What substance is there in the suggestion that the members of the War Council on the 28th were not aware that Lord Fisher's opinion was adverse, and were not aware of the grounds of his opinion being adverse? I say that his view was well known to all the principal persons there. I knew it, at any rate. There can be no dispute on that. My right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister knew it, for he had been discussing it with Lord Fisher just before the Council. Lord Kitchener knew it, because he undertook the business of persuading Lord Fisher. The Commission in their Report indicate that the three men who were responsible for managing the War at that time were the Prime Minister, Lord Kitchener, and myself. If that be so, the three people on whom the great responsibility is laid were all properly seised of Lord Fisher's views. That is not all. Mr. Balfour—I beg the House's pardon, I mean the present Secretary of State for
      1800
      Foreign Affairs—knew his opinion, and said that he knew it was adverse, and that he understood the reason. The present Prime Minister said in his evidence that he knew Lord Fisher had an objection, but that he thought he knew what the objection was and that he thought the objection had subsequently been met. Sir Edward Grey said he got to know between the 13th and the 28th that Lord Fisher held views of his own. The present Prime Minister received from Lord Fisher a copy of this memorandum the next day—he said it in evidence—after the Council was over and that it made no special impression on him, because it scarcely related in any way to the possible merits of the operation. Lord Fisher himself, far from complaining that his views had not been put before the Council, when asked in evidence
      "Do you think they knew?"
      said—
      "Of course they knew. Do you think that all these men would have sat there silent if they did not know my opinion?"
      All this evidence is blotted out, in so far as in this Report we are left with the vague statement that it was an obligation on the First Sea Lord and on the Prime Minister to see that the views of Lord Fisher and the experts were put before the Council. Lord Fisher and the First Lord knew where they stood. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) knows that that is the case. When I look back on all the number of persons who were informed about this naval operation, who were consulted upon it, and who agreed to it in writing—because, carried away by my sanguine temperament, I always insisted upon obtaining written assents—I wonder, when I look back on that, how it was we ever made progress at all. Many more important things have been decided with a less full marshalling of authorities. Why, Sir, when the Fleet was sent to its War station on the 29th July, 1914, I submitted that proposal to the Prime Minister alone, and he told no one else. I think the House will be laying down an altogether injurious rule for the conduct of the War if it sought to hamper responsibility in great matters by over insistence upon the number of persons to be consulted.
      7.0 P.M.
      The most formidable criticism against the naval attack which is contained in the Commission's Report is that it compromised the chances of a joint attack later. That is the most formidable criticism which I felt on reading the able conclu-

      1801
      sions. That criticism is valid only on the assumption that if there had been no naval plan there would have been a joint attack later; and that assumption is not, in my opinion, true. Let us see what would have happened if the Garden plan had been remitted to the joint consideration of the Admiralty War Staff and the Imperial General Staff. It is suggested that in that case you would have had a perfect plan for a joint amphibious attack, and this would have followed in due course, and we should have won a complete victory. I know perfectly well what would have happened. The first stage of this expert consultation would have been that the Garden plan would have been discarded in favour of a joint operation. They would have said, "A joint operation is a better way to do it than a purely naval operation." They would all be agreed upon that. There was nothing new in that. The next stage would have been to consider how many troops were needed for a military operation, and they would have set to work to make elaborate and generous calculations as to the force which would be required. I cannot conceive that it would have been less than between 100,000 and 150,000 men, with large supplies of high explosive ammunition and artillery. Then you would hare come to the third stage, which is that all the military experts unanimously would have said that the men were not available, and the ammunition could not be spared from the French front. All would have come to that decision. If the question had been put a little later on, at the advent of the spring offensive, the answer would have been still more emphatic, and General Headquarters would have sent their representatives clattering over to reinforce this opinion, and to protest against a dangerous diversion of our forces, and no doubt General Joffre would have been called in aid to write the strongest letters of protest, and offer the brightest prospects of success if only all the troops were concentrated on the Western front. And so after ten days of this sort of discussion you would have come back again to the very place where the War Council started, namely, that there was at that time no force which was available except a naval force, and that there was no operation which was practicable except what was mainly a naval operation, and that operation was a speculative one, but that never-
      1802
      theless the need was urgent, and if nothing was to be done the public interest would be gravely damaged. That is the inevitable course which events would have followed. I should like to point out how the Commission deals with expert advice. We know of people who in religion are so happily circumstanced that they are able to decide exactly what is true and what is false in dogma. The Commission does not lay down the principle that we should not overrule the expert. On the contrary, they blame the Prime Minister and the Government for not overruling the military experts. On the other hand, they criticise me not for overruling, but for over-persuading the experts. The principle which the Commission lays down about the experts is one of great value. It is that you must always overrule an expert when he is wrong. The Commission believes that there was a considerable Army available. It believes there was ammunition available. It clearly indicates that it should have been sent early in the year to the East. I agree with them. I agreed with them at the time. I held these views most strongly, and expressed them in definite, written memoranda, but the military authorities did not agree. They would most strenuously have resisted, and were only compelled to part with the troops with the very greatest duress and stress of events.
      Will the House allow me to deal with the case of the naval attack. The Commission say that their Report closes on 23rd March. They then proceed to dwell upon the terrible loss of life and treasure which the Dardanelles operations involved. Terrible loss of life and vast expenditure of treasure were incurred in the military operations which began after the 20th April, but, so far as the naval operations were concerned—and they are alone within the purview of this interim Report—there was very little loss of life and hardly any loss of treasure. The French lost the "Bouvet" with her crew, but, so far as we were concerned, only two British battleships were sunk. They belonged to a class which, as the Report now shows, were already being scrapped. They were already having their guns pulled out of them and put into the monitors, and they were retrieved from the scrap heap in order to discharge this important duty at the Dardanelles. So you may estimate their value from that fact. All these old ships, of which we had from twenty to twenty-five, were valueless except for

      1803
      bombarding purposes. All must have been thrown out of commission by the immense inrush of new construction of the greatest power which we had provided for, and which was already coming to hand. Yet here, in the Dardanelles, these old vessels under sentence of death might change the history of the world and by shortening the duration of the War save millions of lives. Surely it would have been better for them to be employed in fighting for the greatest prize ever offered the Royal Navy, instead of rusting ingloriously upon the mud bank and the scrap heap. So much for the materiel which was lost. I say it was valueless according to the standard of modern naval warfare.
      As to the loss of life, God forbid that I should underrate that, but everything is relative, and, compared with the losses of a military attack, compared with losses which have been incurred elsewhere, compared with the prize which would have been won, the loss of life was singularly small. My hon. Friend (Mr. Roch), in his admirably lucid account, mentions the terrible fire directed upon the trawlers which were sweeping the mine-fields. I daresay it was very terrible, but out of 500 or 600 men employed on three successive nights, only seventy or eighty casualties were incurred. On the Western Front they would use another epithet for that. The Report speaks of the bombardment of 18th March as if it were a great disaster. How many men does the House suppose were lost in this great disaster? Sixty-one British officers and men were killed, wounded and missing in this formidable operation. Up to the end of the naval attack, up to the period when this Report comes to its end, only 350 casualties among officers and men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, including losses on shore and in the minefields, had been incurred. That is less than a battalion will lose on the Western Front in half an hour in their assembly trenches, or moving up to the attack. It is only about a third of what is test on the Western Front on an ordinary day when nothing is going on. We must cultivate and observe a sense of proportion in these terrible matters. I may be accused of being reckless or sanguine, but I shall plead that if I am it is because the sense of proportion with which I have judged this War from the very beginning, is different in important respects from the accepted standard.
      1804
      I have told the House what was lost. What was gained—not might have been gained, but was gained—by the naval attack, which is all that is before the House now, and which is all that this Report deals with at present? The Commission says we were committed to a demonstration by Lord Kitchener's telegram to the Grand Duke on 1st January. We were committed to a demonstration in the Mediterranean. Lord Kitchener was of opinion that such a demonstration could only be effective at the Dardanelles. There is no doubt he was right. There was universal agreement that if a demonstration had to be made it should be an attack upon the outer forts of the Dardanelles. Their reduction would constitute for the time being a perfect demonstration, though if we went no further the effect of the demonstration would stop. If that demonstration was effective it meant that troops would be directed to the spot. In so far as it was effective troops would be directed to the spot, otherwise there would be no relief for the Grand Duke. Therefore it was clear that if we made this demonstration we were spoiling the place for a future joint operation, and yet we were committed to a demonstration. What would have been said, I should like to know, if when the outer forts collapsed, as they did collapse, and it looked as if the Turkish resistance was going to break down altogether, as many good judges thought, we had been found with no plans to go any further, no ammunition to carry on the bombardment, no ships to push on up the Straits, with no mine-sweeping apparatus—if we had been content simply with the empty bombardment of the outer forts and had never looked ahead to take advantage of their collapse? Should we not have been blamed for having thrown away all the chances of future operations in the Dardanelles for the purpose of a futile bombardment of the outer forts? I say that if you were to have a demonstration at the Dardanelles and to bombard the outer forts you were bound to make preparations to exploit to the full any success which might come into your hands. Every authority was agreed to bombard the outer forts. When they had fallen every authority, without exception, was agreed to press on further until more serious resistance was encountered.
      Let us see what was gained by this demonstration. Was ever any demonstration in the whole history of war more

      1805
      potent? The relief to the Grand Duke was instantaneous. Within a fortnight the Turks were moving back to defend their capital and to strengthen the front of Adrianople against Bulgaria. The whole attitude of Bulgaria was altered in our favour. The imminent and terrible danger in which Serbia stood was averted by the naval operations for the time being. As for Greece, she had almost joined us. And let me point out what a difference three Greek divisions would have made to the subsequent military operations. Lastly, there is Italy. The War Council's decision of 13th January was twofold in its character as far as it affected the Admiralty. There was the decision about the Dardanelles, and there was another request for us to consider the possibilities of action in the Adriatic. The naval attack on the Dardanelles served, and was meant to serve, both these purposes, and was so presented to the Prime Minister in a minute by the First Sea Lord and myself. We believed that it would attract to itself the attention of every Power in the Mediterranean, and that followed at once. During the progress of the naval attack those negotiations began which finally, in the hands of the then Prime Minister, who dealt for all the Allies in that matter, culminated in Italy's entrance into the War at the moment when her entrance was most needed and most favourable, and before she could be discouraged by the defeats of the Russians in Galicia which began a few weeks later. These were the results of failure. Judge, then, what might have been the consequences of success. It is a torment to dwell upon them, and to think how near was the naval attack to success. Was there ever really a reasonably fair chance of its succeeding if it had been persevered in and pushed on? Much turns on this from the point of view of the final judgment which history will form of this transaction: indeed, everything turns on it. One of the factors which we always had in mind in deciding upon this attack was the possibility of the Turkish defence not being up to the level of the defence of our other enemies; of their guns being ill served, their ammunition being insufficient or defective, and their defence not being properly organised. Were we wrong? It was not possible for me to lay all the information I possessed on this subject before the Commission. It was
      1806
      not possible for the Commission to print in their Report all the information which they received, and it was not possible for the Government to publish all the information which is furnished in the Commission's Report. You, therefore, have a three-fold sieve of this matter, at the end of which emerges a dark, vague, and criptic sentence to the effect that there was information that the forts were running short of ammunition, which information was subsequently found to be well grounded. We have to be content with that, and quite right; but one day the truth will be known about this, and we shall know exactly how many rounds there were in the forts at Chanak and at Kilia Bahr on the night of the conclusion of the engagement of the 18th. We shall know how far they had exhausted their stock of improvised floating mines, and we shall know how much of their permanent mine field had been deranged and swept away by our operations. Surely it is prudent, it would be prudent, to wait before passing final judgment on the action of those who were responsible for these operations, until these all-important facts can be ascertained with historical certainty.
      I am much obliged to the House for having listened to me with so much attention, and I have only one further word to say before I sit down. In these great times everyone has his responsibility for what is going on. Not only the people who are in favour of an operation, but those who are opposed to it have their responsibility. The responsibility for the failure at the Dardanelles and the subsequent military operations do not rest wholly with those who advocated them. Very strong currents of opinion in this country were opposed throughout to these operations. The great authority of the military chiefs in France was undoubtedly adverse, and from there a steady stream of adverse opinions came. I suppose that something similar must have emanated from the Grand Fleet, who naturally feared a diversion of their forces. Very powerful parties in the House of Commons and in Parliament, and enormous influences in the Press were working continuously to discourage, to terminate, and to wind up these operations at the Dardanelles. Against that powerful undertow nothing could make headway. As the House remembers, a Government was shattered in the process of these operations, and we received an incursion of Unionist statesmen, many of whom

      1807
      were profoundly and fundamentally opposed to these operations, and only some of them were subsequently and laboriously converted to them. My recollection, looking back on this story, is that it was one long struggle from the beginning to the end—one long, agonising, wearying struggle to get every ship, every soldier, every gun, and every round of ammunition for the Dardanelles.
      The light of victory was shining clearly before us, and the path was clearly illuminated, yet we could not get the strength, the power, and the driving force to follow it. We could not get the strength and the resources which were needed to carry it through. It will always be in-creditable to future ages that every man in this country did not rally to an enterprise which carried with it such immense possibilities, and which required such limited resources to carry it into effect. It will always be incredible that for the sake of a dozen old ships and half a dozen extra divisions, more or less, and a few hundred thousand rounds of high explosive shells we failed to gain a prize specially adapted to our Oriental interests and our amphibious power, and which by cutting Turkey out of the War, and uniting in one federation the States of the Balkan Peninsula, would have brought us within measurable distance of lasting success. When this matter is passed in final review before the tribunal of history, I have no fear where the sympathies of those who come after us will lie. Your Commission may condemn the men who tried to force the Dardanelles, but your children will keep their condemnation for all who did not rally to their aid.
      The Lord ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): I should not have intervened were it not for the fact that I was one of the group of Commissioners who were appointed by Act of Parliament to make inquiry into this expedition and whose Report is the subject of Debate. Particularly for the reason that I am speaking as a Commissioner and in no other capacity it is no intention of mine to attempt in any shape or form to make an answer to the complaints with regard to the Report which have been made by the right hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) or by the right hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith). Indeed, so far as the first of those two right hon. Gentlemen is concerned, the House has, I dare say, guessed
      1808
      that I had heard the vigorous, able, and. persistent speech which he has delivered this afternoon already before the Commissioners. There is not a point to which he has referred relative to the facts on which judgment depends, not one single fact to which he has referred which was not fully and- amply before the Commission. Accordingly, if I were answering—which I am not and could not—what he has said, my answer would be, "you will find my opinion, as well as that of others who considered all these things, in the conclusions of this Report" It must be remembered that while the case presented may seem to be very convincing, and may be in itself a very powerful case—which that of the right hon. Member for Dundee is and was—it does not at all follow that when the whole facts and circumstances of all the cases are laid before the tribunal which is to judge that the actual determination reached should be in favour of any one of the cases presented. It is true, and the right hon. Gentleman does not complain of that.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I complain of your conclusions.
      Mr. CLYDE: The conclusions are an. effective part of the Report. It is quite true that the right hon. Member for Dundee differed from most hon. Members who have spoken, and particularly the ex-Prime Minister, in saying that he welcomed the Report. There are some parts of the Report to which he objects. I think I do him no great injustice when I say that he objects to those parts of the Report which he finds do not support, or fully support, the case he thinks himself entitled to make, but, of course, it is another thing with those parts of the Report which happen to harmonise with the view of the case which he thinks is true and which he thinks ought to prevail. The ex-Prime Minister took a different view, I dare say, because the Report contains, as it undoubtedly does contain, some perfectly definite criticisms on him. That brings me to what is really the gravamen of the things that have been said about the Report of which it is either right or proper that I should take notice as a Commissioner. The complaint that is made about the Report is not merely that it has been published, but complaint is made about the circumstances and the manner of the publication. We were told by the ex-Prime Minister that to publish the Report with-

      1809
      out the evidence was unfair to some men, and to publish the Report with the evidence would have been unfair to the larger and more important interests of the country and the Empire. I notice in that connection—and it is this that emboldens me to deal with it—that he said he made no attack in that connection upon the Government. Then I suppose the criticism is mainly upon the Commissioners. Let us take it so.
      It ought to be remembered that this Commission is almost unprecedented in character. It is not a Royal Commission, and it is not a Committee of this House. It is a Commission appointed specially by an Act of Parliament. When the Commissioners began to sit and we were all a little in difficulty about our true procedure in regard to evidence, I tried to find some precedent, but I failed. I do not know whether there is one. The only one that was anything like it was the Parnell Commission, but Parliament did not attach to the proceedings of that Commission the condition that this House attached to ours. The Parnell Commission took all its evidence in public, and so far as I am aware was not restrained in that respect. We were told, and in terms. In other words, we were enjoined, "having regard to the interest of the public and of naval, military, and diplomatic considerations, to allow, or refuse to allow, the public or any portion of the public, to be present during any proceedings of the Commissioners, provided that a full and complete Report in shorthand shall be kept of all evidence taken, whether in public or in private." While I am quoting from the Act of Parliament, I beg the House to remember that we were also enjoined to "Report, as soon as may be, to Parliament." It is all very well to complain that we made a Report, although we knew if we did that we could not take the evidence in public, and that the great bulk of it was such that its publication in any form could not be thought of at all.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: The evidence?
      Mr. CLYDE: Yes, the evidence. It is true to say that we made our Report, notwithstanding. The answer to that is that we did what the Act of Parliament told us to do, and we did it under the only conditions under which you would allow us to do it, and that was that we were to take care that wherever there was any
      1810
      interests that could be prejudiced, of the kind mentioned in the Statute, we were to exclude the public from the evidence. The meaning cannot be that, having excluded the public from the evidence, we were then to publish it. That applies to the bulk of the evidence. An enormous mass of the evidence which the Commissioners had to collect and consider was not verbal at all, but in the form of documents many of them of the utmost secrecy indeed so secret that complete and unlimited access to them was not given to all members of the Commission, although for practical purposes I do not suggest that anything was kept back. The publication of those documents was not only impossible then, but it is impossible now, and I would like to say to those who complain about evidence not being published, that, so far as my comparatively inadequate means of judgment enable me to form an opinion, there are. a great many of them that will never be published in any circumstances at all. I do not doubt among other things that it was that very circumstance that led this House to tell the Commission, "you have got to make a Report, but though you must keep a shorthand note of everything you must remember that there is a great deal in the way of evidence which you will be unable to publish." So much for written material.
      There was also a great deal of verbal evidence given, and it is true that if you could chess-board a man's evidence it might well be that the white squares which you could publish would be greater in number than the black squares you could not. But, as everybody knows, you cannot treat evidence like that. First you do not exactly know what a man is going to say when he comes into the witness-chair, but you do know that it may be at one point, and it may be at almost every point, his evidence will touch or may touch things which it is necessary to keep quite as much private as the document to which I made reference a moment ago. More than that, even if it be true that there are more white squares than black squares in a particular man's evidence, I am afraid we should be told that it was very wrong to publish the bits we did if we did not publish all of it. We are criticised for using what the right hon. Gentleman called snippets in this Report, and therefore the complaint that the evidence is not published along with the Report is a complaint which I respectfully say does not lie in the mouths of those who were,

      1811

      as the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Prime Minister was, to a large extent personally responsible in connection with the Act of Parliament which established and the directions which were given.
      You may say to us, "You ought not to have reported until the War was over." If that was meant in the Act of Parliament, you ought to have told us that. You did not tell us that. You told us that we were to report as soon as may be. In order to make sure that that was done, you expressly said that those Reports which were to be laid before the Houses of Parliament were not necessarily to be final Reports, which in a thing of this kind might take a long time, but were to include interim Reports. It was because of the enormous mass of the thing. Remember we had to collect and read and do our best to digest an enormous amount of written evidence, and we had to listen to and consider the evidence of a very large number of witnesses; and, so far as I am concerned, I admit that I should have been totally incapable of carrying that material in my mind and being able to discuss it afresh if the thing had been postponed until such time as the evidence with regard to the whole of the operations had been obtained. We were told, "You are to get the Report into shape," and, having done that, what excuse should we have had if the Report had not been sent in? Just consider these things. It is known that the Commission has, in point of fact, applied its mind to a certain section of the subject of this Inquiry and has got it into the shape of an interim Report. Do you suppose that we could have kept it back? It would have been asked by this House, "Why, after all this time has elapsed and all this trouble has been taken and all these witnesses examined, has no Report been made to the House, when the Commission were told to report as soon as may be what their opinions were?"
      No, if there is to be any criticism about presenting a Report without evidence that criticism recoils on the right hon. Gentleman who made it. Apparently this House does not now want the Report. It would be a great facility if, at any rate, this House would indicate to the Commissioners—I am no longer in a position to sit as a Commissioner now—if that be their view, that they now want no more either of Reports or of evidence. But to blame us, to say that it was wrong of us to take this step, that inevitably led to
      1812
      the publication, or that we were wrong in the manner or circumstances of it, comes ill from those who are responsible for compelling us to do this very difficult piece of work, precisely under the conditions of whose effect the right hon. Gentleman makes complaint. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee made another objection with which if I may say so, with much respect, I have great sympathy. He said, "the form of your Report is objectionable in this respect, that it treats the narrative part very largely," indeed, I think he might have said as far as we could, "by way of quotations from witnesses." Even apart from narrative, where it becomes more crucial still, instead of giving our own account of what we thought their views were we were trying to express these by selecting passages which seemed to us to do so. That was a very great difficulty, but the point is, that, although opinions may well differ as to whether we took the wisest way or not, we should be equally exposed to the same kind of complaint if we simply expressed the thing in our own words.
      Mr. CHURCHILLdissented.
      Mr. CLYDE: The right hon. Gentleman thinks not. I rather think that we should, in the absence of the evidence. There are two ways in which the thing can be done. One is to put it your own way and say exactly what you think somebody else's opinion was. That is all right if you could refer to his evidence and check it. Another way is not to say yourself what you think he said but to make from the things he said the best selection you can, as indicating what you think was the true drift of the statement of his opinions. It is dangerous, I acknowledge, but you have to choose between the two ways, and, knowing that we could not produce the evidence, in these circumstances we preferred the second way.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I would much rather have had an opinion of the Commission on the evidence of the witnesses, when they had studied the evidence as a whole, than to have merely samples from which the public may draw erroneous deductions.
      Mr. CLYDE: I cannot say a word about the evidence, but I am not aware of any passage quoted from the evidence intended to express or indicate what the witnesses' opinions of any of these things were which has not been selected so as, as far as possible, to present what we thought

      1813
      the opinions were. After all, it stands to reason. It was not our business to select passages suited to one view or another. They did represent what we thought these peoples opinions were. We may be quite wrong about that. That is another matter. I quite agree that that method of presenting the result of evidence lends itself to criticism, of which I do not in the least complain. The right hon. Gentleman makes this point when he says, "if you had selected another set of passages you might have altered or you would have altered," as he would say, "the shape of that man's evidence." That may be, but the thing was done in the form in which it was done because, on the whole, we thought that that was the better course, and not at all because it is a course that would commend itself to anybody if we had the means of publishing the evidence and letting everybody judge whether our views were right or wrong.
      I may add a general remark. It touches a point of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) made a strong matter. He went so far as to say, with regard to there having been no meeting of the War Council after 19th March until a date in May, that that finding of the Commission took him by surprise. I am sure it did, if he says so. Again, I cannot refer to the evidence, but I do not think that it ought to have done anything of the kind. All the same, I understand quite well how misapprehension of the kind may arise. In my own profession when you litigate a case there is a definite proposition or set of propositions put forward by one side, and a definite set of propositions on the other, or, if you like, there is a charge or a series of charges made against somebody, and it is the business of the Court to say whether these charges are well founded or not. But when you come to an open inquiry like this, at which charges may be made—and in the case of the right hon. 'Gentleman the Member for Dundee charges in the nature of public criticism were made—then so far as the Commission inquiring into it is concerned the first thing which it should do is to purge its mind of the idea of charges against anybody. If you begin to examine your witnesses from the point of view of bringing a set of charges against him you start from a prejudiced point of view, and you have in an open inquiry to be as judicious and as gentle and considerate as you can
      1814
      in your examination of witnesses. It is not conducted on professional principles at all. You have, as far as you can, to elicit the material and to allow the question on which you are going to be critical, and to express an opinion so to speak, to evolve itself from the mass of information. Therefore, it may be that somebody is taken by surprise, although not only was there no intention of taking by surprise, but I think that if we could have the material we should be in a better position to make up our minds as to whether there was really any ground whatever for the complaint which the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
      Mr. ASQUITH: I have considered that twice over, and the statement which I made is perfectly accurate.
      Mr. CLYDE: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise that it is quite impossible for us to settle the controversy without the production of the evidence, and that is out of the question. I entirely accept the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's mind was taken by surprise, but he cannot ask me to admit that he ought in fact to have been taken by surprise. But there that controversy, like many others, must lie, until and unless the whole of the evidence ever comes to be published and put before this House, or some other tribunal, to judge. The right hon. Gentleman will not consider me discourteous if I do not propose to say anything about the other points which he raised, about their being vagueness or want of decision in the War Council, about the experts not expressing their opinion, or his comments upon what he called a picture, which he described as out of drawing. I do not propose to say anything about those points. Why? it may be asked. I can make no answer without the evidence.
      Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Then why is the evidence not produced?
      Mr. CLYDE: I have already dealt with that question. It would be quite easy, of course, to raise possibly even controversial matters with regard to these points on the mere terms of the Report. After all, the Report represents what we think, but with regard to such questions as to whether there was vagueness or want of decision as to the experts not having the opportunity to express their opinion, I do not propose to express any view. After all, what the Report says is that these experts did not express their

      1815
      opinions, and that it was not their business to do so unless they were called upon; but nobody seems to be able to tell us why on earth they were there if they were not to express their opinion.
      Mr. ASQUITH(was understood to say): They expressed opinions when asked.
      Mr. CLYDE: It seems to me immaterial whether they did or did not, but let there be no mistake about this—what we say about the experts' opinions, and the way in which the experts' opinions were used or indicated, represents exactly what, in my opinion, is the fair and accurate result of the evidence which was submitted. Lastly, it is easy to make an appeal which is irresistible, from one point of view, with regard to any criticism whatever of Lord Kitchener, but I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who made so much of this point, whether we were to remain silent about Lord Kitchener? If we were not to remain silent about Lord Kitchener, were we not to say exactly what we thought was the result of the evidence? Again, you may say that we are wrong, but it is very easy and cheap to say that we are wrong, when we have no means of bringing each other to book, without the evidence. The real point, and the only point, was that which was raised at the beginning of the Debate with regard to the presentation and publication of the Report without the whole of the evidence along with it, and for that neither the Government nor the Commission has any responsibility. That was the inevitable result of the Act of Parliament of which the right hon. Gentleman himself was largely the author, and the inclusion in that Act of Parliament, almost at the last minute, by a sudden change of front of the Dardanelles as well as Mesopotamia.
      Commander BELLAIRS: If I may have the attention of the Leader of the House for one moment or of some member of the Government, I should like to put to him a request. We have heard at great length the very best defence that can be put forward for the Members of the War Council who have dealt with the events of the Dardanelles. Will it be possible for those experts, whose conduct has been impugned or reflected upon by the right hon. Member for Dundee, to put forward their defence whether they are on the Active List or not, in the newspaper Press? Will they be free to do so?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obvious that is not a question which I can answer without consideration.
      Commander BELLAIRS: It is obvious if they are not permitted to put forward their defence with that freedom which civilians can exercise, they are at a disadvantage, and the position is hardly fair to distinguished officers. I ventured to interrupt the right hon. Member for Dundee on a very important point. Throughout his speech he spoke as if Lord Fisher had not agreed on the matter, it would have come before the War Council, and it might have been necessary for the War Council to change the Board of Admiralty. My point was this, that the Board of Admiralty, so far as the war operations were concerned, had ceased to exist, and the right hon. Gentleman had recognised that the procedure was wrong, because, in answer to a Minute from the Second, Third and Fourth Sea Lords pointing out their position, he stated on the 22nd May that:
      "It would appear desirable that in future the war situation should be reviewed each week by the naval members of the Board under the presidency of the First Lord."
      In other words, he had conceded the position that they had been working on a wrong basis. The Member for Monmouth stated in evidence to the Commission that if he had found it necessary to consult anybody outside the Board he would have changed the Board. Then, when we come to the evidence of the late Prime Minister, he stated that the members of the War Council "were entitled to assume" that any view laid forward then by the First Lord of the Admiralty "was the considered opinion of the Board of Admiralty as a whole." It was evident from that, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee had failed to acquaint the then Prime Minister of the organic change which he had made in the Board, or in the authority of the Board of Admiralty. When we turn to the memorandum which the Junior Sea Lords and all the Sea Lords, except the First Sea Lord, submitted to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, on 22nd November, I find that they condemn the action of my right hon. Friend in very strong terms. They said:
      "On 22nd November, 1915, the Junior Sea Lords addressed collectively a minute to the present First Lord (Mr. Arthur Balfour) in which they said. The principle on which the Order in Council is based

      1817
      that the supremacy of the First Lord is complete and unassailable has been pushed too far and has tended to imperil, and at some future time may again tend to imperil, national safety..... The present time may not be the proper one for effecting drastic changes, but of this we are certain, it is the proper and opportune moment to again call the attention of the First Sea Lord to these matters and to express our conviction that had the naval members of the Board been regularly and collectively consulted on large questions of war policy during the progress of the present naval campaign, some at least of the events which the Empire does at this moment deplore so bitterly would not have happened, and that until the authority and responsibility of the Sea Lords is enlarged and defined, there will be no adequate assurance that similar disasters will not recur in the future."
      I do not desire to pursue controversies which would be proper in peace time in connection with this Report of the Commission. My first intention had been to do so; but, having heard the speeches, I think the temper of the House is against continuing the controversy; but that must be on the understanding that the whole question will come up for discussion and review in this House after the War is over, because otherwise there is no way in which this House can fix the responsibility of statesmen, and place the relations of statesmen, soldiers, and sailors on their proper basis. I myself protested strongly against the holding of this Commission during the War, because I foresaw the difficulties in which we would be placed. I said that it would be a great waste of the time of officers, who were constantly employed, that the result would be to cause cliques among the officers defending their reputations, and that there would also be possible difficulties with Foreign Powers. I further pointed out that it would not be possible to publish the evidence in the same way as could be done were the Commission held in peace time. One is in this vicious circle, that although one desires to make criticisms, those criticisms would only lead to want of national unity. But there is one point on which I must make a protest and that is in connection with the late Prime Minister's speech. He was chairman of the Defence Committee for seven or eight years, and he had every opportunity of putting the relations of soldiers and sailors and statesmen on their proper basis. In fact he sent the right hon. Member for Dundee to the Admiralty in 1912 to prepare the Navy for war. To a large extent he chose the experts. He also came to this House and proposed a Bill which appointed the judges who have pronounced against him; he now finds fault with the Report of those judges, and
      1818
      I do not think such a procedure will commend itself to the House or to the country.
      8.0 P.M.
      Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I rise for the purpose of saying a few words with a specific object. I think proceedings of this kind should not be allowed to pass without protest. In my opinion this Debate should never have taken place. The House should not have departed from its dignity by discussing a Report of this character presented to us after it has been edited by Government authority. I have done my best to investigate into, this matter, and I can say, without fear of contradiction, that never, in the whole history of Parliament, was there such a procedure as this. Never in the whole history of Parliament has any Government undertaken to give the House of Commons only such parts of a Report as they think proper to give. This Commission was created by Statute. It was not only empowered, but it was directed by Statute to present its Report to Parliament, and it did present its Report, but instead of that Report reaching the House of Commons the Government first of all considered how far the House of Commons should be allowed to see it. Again I say whether a Report be an interim report or a final report I have never, in my long experience, known a Report which has not been presented along with the evidence on which it is based. I have never known a Report which has in any form come before this House for discussion without the evidence on which it was founded.
      I really could pity the Lord Advocate in his difficulties in endeavouring to justify the procedure of the Government in regard to this matter, because the whole procedure is totally unlike any previous procedure. It reminds me of the case of a well-known gentleman of legal experience who came into this House as Attorney-General and, having listened to an ordinary discussion, observed, when asked by one of his colleagues what he thought of it, "I never saw such a thing as gentlemen making speeches or statements without an affidavit to support them." This is a discussion taken part in by certain gentlemen who support their views by certain extracts to be found in the margin of the Report and hon. Members who have been listening to them are not given the questions, and therefore

      1819
      have no means of forming an opinion themselves. I want to know, first of all, why this Report was published at this time, and next I would like to be informed why it was not laid in its entirety before Parliament, and why, too, it was not supported by the evidence? The whole procedure is an utter subversion of every principle of constitutional Government. It is an utter contempt of this House, which is the grand inquest of the nation, and it is as nearly as possible paralleled by the suppositious ease of a grand jury having found a true Bill and a prisoner being forthwith tried on the bill of indictment without any evidence being adduced to support it.
      When the Report had been produced, when we had been refused an opportunity of seeing the evidence, and copies of the expurgated parts of the Report, certain Gentlemen who are themselves affected, and properly affected, by references which they conceive do a wrong to the memory of Lord Kitchener, insisted that the Report, as presented, should be amended, and then the astonishing thing occurred that we were furnished with certain notes. I asked what was the meaning of those notes. Were they extracts from paragraphs previously suppressed? I was told that they were partly, and that partly they were condensations. They were, in fact, simply the ideas which the Government chose to offer us. I want to know who authorised that. The essence of the constitutional relationship of Members of the House of Commons one to another is that of absolute equality in reference to all privileges. I am not complaining personally, because if I had the Report in full I would not read it. But I agree, after hearing the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee(Mr.Churchill) and of the ex-Prime Minister, that it would be an improper thing to present a Report confidentially to certain Members of this House. Leaders of parties in this House have no Parliamentary status. If the Report had been presented to Mr. Speaker in his private capacity, everything might have been right. But I do not think Mr. Speaker as the representative of the House—and I say this with great respect—I would enlarge rather than reduce his powers—and as the mouthpiece of the House in his official capacity should be furnished with any information which is not conveyed to the humblest Member. These are my objections to the Report and
      1820
      the way in which it has been treated. With regard to the censures passed upon Lord Kitchener, I must say I do not think that the person who passed the chief condemnation comes cut at great advantage, while certainly the ex-Prime Minister has shown a great genius of friendship. It appears to me on the whole the Debate proves that Parliament is, under the present system, losing its power, becoming steadily degraded, and is wanting in proper self-respect. Its functions, in fact, are being steadily paralysed under the present Government.
      Mr. BILLING: I rise principally for the purpose of congratulating this Commission on its courage. They had a very difficult job, and they have shown admirable courage in their Report. I know nothing; about the Dardanelles question. I know nothing at all about the evidence which has been withheld, but I do suggest, in view of the fact that the Government responsible for the appointment of the Commission has fallen, that the publication of the Report might have been left until such time as it could have been given the fullest publicity. There is a feeling in the country that its publication was so timed as to be of great significance and advantage to the Conservative party. I regret that such a rumour should be prevalent. The other point I wish to raise is that this afternoon the late Prime Minister and myself are shown to have at least one thing in common. We have both risen from our seats in this House to defend ourselves against the findings of a Committee, and the only difference between us is that while the Prime Minister appointed his own judges, I had to be satisfied with the judges appointed for me by-others. I do not think any further comment on that is necessary. I only wish I had possessed that Parliamentary ability which was evidenced by the late Prime Minister this afternoon when I was making my case against the Committee, and pointing out my objections to its findings. Had we in connection with the Air Service had the happiness of having on our Committee such gentlemen as were chosen for this Commission, I think the future of the Air Service would have been assured. As it is I think we shall find it necessary to have another form of inquiry, and I only trust if we do have one that the Air Service will be fortunate enough to have such a Committee as was appointed to deal with the Dardanelles question.
      Colonel AUBREY HERBERT: I think until we had the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) every speaker who had taken part in this Debate was unanimous in regretting the publication at the present moment of the findings of this Commission. But it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good, and those who call the right hon. Gentleman their friend may congratulate him not only on having had an opportunity of defending himself, but upon the characteristic ability with which he did so. When the Lord Advocate was standing at the Table just now he stated that the late Prime Minister was responsible for this Commission. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman was so technically, but as a matter of fact there are a great many other people who share that responsibility, and I am clear in my memory how this business arose. It started in one of the Committee Rooms upstairs. I was just back from Mesopotamia, and we were extremely anxious to do something for the men there. I remember that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull were extremely anxious to leave the Dardanelles alone, and to concentrate our efforts in doing all that was possible to help the men who were at that moment suffering from every sort of deficiency in Mesopotamia. Unfortunately, when that question was brought down to this House, a number of Gentlemen with ulterior motives would not treat it with the simplicity we had suggested. I think we must all regret the publication at the present moment. There is only one argument in favour of it used by Gentlemen who say that it illustrates our national frankness. I think they should really say "stupidity," because this Report does at the present moment everything that you least desire. It illuminates weaknesses which are now, I hope, past, and it shows the sort of sub-war we had in the past between Departments Again, it has produced the kind of discussion we heard this afternoon, when I think a lot of information highly undesirable is given to the world. I suppose we are all agreed that an inquiry may have been essential, but I cannot see why, under those circumstances, another Act should not have been passed to have delayed or have entirely forbidden the publication of this bowdlerised Report. Who is helped by it? Is this going to create greater confidence in this country or raise our prestige
      1822
      abroad? Is it going to help either our great dead or those who now hold very responsible positions in this Government? Is it going to strengthen the position of the Government? And, after all, the position really of this Government is that it is a sort of Siamese twin with the last Government by a different father, and also cannot get away from the responsibility. No one, so far as I know, has wanted this Report. The Australians certainly did not want it.
      Let me, if I may, give one personal experience to the House. It has been my fortune and my honour to be in many places in this War where the spirit and endurance of men have been tried. I never saw them respond to it better than they did in the Dardanelles, where I happened to be with the New Zealanders on the 25th of April. Everybody knows what happened there in the way of fighting prior to and at the time of the Suvla Bay landing. In all that we had very great losses. At Suvla one used to see at night the cemetery, almost like a living thing, creeping up towards the hospital, and the wounded overflowing from the hospitals almost down towards the cemetery. Everybody was very tired, and I used to hear at night discussion by the men around me. I lived in an old Turkish fort with sixty New Zealanders, the remains of a. battalion. At night they used to argue as to whether the Dardanelles Expedition had been a mistake, or had not been a. mistake, and in the end their main comment was this: "It does not matter whether it has or has not been a mistake; in a war on this gigantic scale you must have also mistakes on a gigantic scale. Our decision was to come and fight for freedom, and it is relatively unimportant if we are killed in the Dardanelles or in France. There, I think, was a magnificent spirit, and that is the spirit that answers the cry for the publication of this Report. What I think this Report might have done, and so far as I see does not do, is this—it might have remarked on the fact that this was one of the most unselfish expeditions that have ever occurred in history, and if it was a mistake it was a mistake that had the most selfless and most gallant backing that has ever been given. As the late Prime Minister said, and it is perfectly true, though as I do not want to put words into his mouth, I say it myself, it is absolutely true that the Dardanelles saved Tiflis for the Russians, and removed peril

      1823
      from Cairo, and did a very great deal towards the taking of Bagdad. There have been many criticisms upon those responsible, the majority of them levelled at the late Prime Minister. It is not for me, who have not sufficient knowledge either to criticise or to defend. I do not know if at the time he was omniscient or omnipotent, but what I do imagine is this, that there is also another side, and to those Gentlemen who put the Dardanelles Expedition on the debit side I would say there is also a credit side in connection with going into the War and with having our Expeditionary Force, which made a very great difference to our Allies.
      Mr. KING: The hon. Member for South Somerset (Colonel Herbert) has played such a distinguished part in this War, and always brings to our Debates such a unique experience and such freshness, that one cannot listen to him without great respect and consideration. But I cannot agree with him at all. I believe many Members will fail to agree with him when be says that this Report ought not to have been published. I believe that in time of war, especially when our hopes have been deferred and our plans have been subverted, and when the whole aspect, and, in a measure, the objects of the War have changed, there is nothing so stimulating, if necessary, as to look the full truth fairly in the face. About fifteen months ago I listened to a speech which made an immense impression upon me at the time, perhaps more than any other speech I have listened to during the War, and in that speech the speaker said, "Truth all round is the most fortifying thing in the world." He proceeded to deal with the Dardanelles Expedition, and he was the first man of public eminence who demanded that the expedition should be given up. I refer to Lord Milner. This afternoon, as I have observed in the House what hon. Members on the Front Bench, as well as the Back Bench, have been characterised by is this, that they do not want to face the truth. The truth is unpleasant, the truth is humiliating. It breaks some of our old idols, and therefore they say, "Let us not know the truth until after the War, and then there will be time enough." I do not know whether it is that I am constitutionally different from hon. Members, but I believe in great difficulty and great danger, and in times of
      1824
      great darkness ahead, such as the present, the truth all round is the most fortifying thing in the world.
      That is why I welcome the Report of the Commission. In doing so I should like to call to the memory of the House one man, a great and important man, whose name as far as I know has not been mentioned in the course of this afternoon. I mean Lord Cromer, who has only just passed away. The form in which this Report is is due to him more than to anyone else, and as I understand it the fact that it is published now is due to Lord Cromer more than to anybody else. I am given to understand, when the Royal Commission discussed whether they should defer the first Report until they could present it with the final full Report or should publish this Report now, it was the authority and strong determination of Lord Cromer that decided that the Report should be published now. In view of the extraordinary ability and experience of Lord Cromer, a man who has played a great part in diplomacy, a man who knew the Turkish Empire and the East as few other statesmen, a man who had all the ideas before him and dealt with them for a generation in Egypt—the ideas which are fermenting and forming opinions and policy in the East—the fact that he decided that this Report should be published, and not in the form in which we have it, but with the excised parts, which he himself put in, is a very remarkable one which ought not to be forgotten. I do not pass judgment upon him, and I certainly do not pass judgment upon the Report, but I do say that this Report as it was presented to the House in full had the authority of Lord Cromer, a fact which to my mind ought to be faced. There are just two points to which I propose to refer in the Report which I think ought to be more emphasised. The first is the fact that, as far as I can make out, the staff work of both the Army and Navy authorities, in view of the expedition, were lamentably exiguous; in fact, they hardly existed at all. I take the passage in the Report of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roch), page 59, paragraph 52:
      "The War Council never had before them detailed staff estimates of men. munitions, and materials, or definite plans showing: them what military operations were possible. The War Council also underestimated without any real investigation the strength of the Turkish opposition."
      I have read through this Report carefully twice, and one thing that has struck me in connection with it is the fact that there

      1825
      appears to have been practically no preparatory Staff work, and certainly not before the War, though there is evidence that in 1906 the idea had been present to the War Office that an expedition to the Dardanelles might be necessary in certain circumstances. On several occasions I have called the attention of the House to what I consider to be the inadequate position and achievements of the Higher Command, and I do not intend to go into that now, but the evidence of this Report as to the lack of proper Staff preparation is very remarkable. As far as I can make out, there is very little reference to it at all; but on page 32, in paragraph 100, there is a reference to the fact that a French officer who had formerly been military attaché at Constantinople thought that
      "a military expedition is essential for opening the Dardanelles passage to the Allied fleet, and it would be extremely hazardous to land on the Gallipoli Peninsula.".
      We and our Allies the French, and the Russians, too, for that matter, have maintained for years and years past military attaches at Constantinople. We have also had for years before the War a Naval Mission there, and the British Ambassador there always has a yacht under the command of a British naval officer. All these facts offered an opportunity of studying a question like this beforehand, but apparently all these opportunities were neglected, because, as far as we can make out, not one of these officers or officials was called in or asked for a report, and the very people who ought to have been preparing our staff for such an emergency were either not preparing them or were not called in to give any help when the emergency arose. That is lamentable. In my opinion, one of the reasons why we do not win this War more quickly and more decisively and at less cost of blood and treasure is that our Staff work here and elsewhere is most lamentably deficient.
      I wish to call attention to one more point in connection with that Report, and that is that the diplomatic and political importance of the Dardanelles Expedition have not been adequately drawn out here. There must be a great many more facts in connection with this expedition and its inception and origin than we had given to us in the first Report, but probably we shall have them given to us in the final Report. Let it not be forgotten, however, that in January, 1915, just as this
      1826
      expedition was in inception, the announcement was made in the "Times" repeatedly for a whole week, from 13th January, 1915, onwards, that Roumania would shortly enter into the War, and we actually advanced Roumania £5,000,000 at that time. There is also the extremely striking fact, which has just been given to us in the supplement to the first Report, that at the time of the inception of this expedition the British Minister in Athens telegraphed that M. Venizelos proposed to offer the co-operation of a Greek Army Corps, and that King Constantine of Greece himself had been sounded and was favourable to participation. I and several other hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch) called attention in this House over a year ago to the fact that Greece did offer to participate in the Dardanelles Expedition. The conditions imposed by the Allies as to her participation prevented her co-operation. That, of course, at the present time is a matter upon which we cannot pass judgment. I draw, however, from these facts this conclusion: that not only was the military preparation inadequate, not only were the steps by which the expedition was really begun badly conceived and badly carried out, but that the diplomatic story is probably and, an unfortunate story, too. If we had had the united military forces of Roumania and Greece, which we very nearly did achieve, and probably also Bulgaria uniting with our land forces at the time the naval attack was undertaken, we should have probably seen the whole of this expedition a great success instead of a great tragedy, and we should now probably have been able to congratulate ourselves on the conclusion of the War and of victory for our arms far more glorious, and achieved at a far less cost, than the victory for which we still hope.
      As to the speeches to which we have listened I must say that brilliant as was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee—and no speaker to whom I have ever listened in this House seemed to me to have a greater knowledge of his subject, or greater ability in treating it—I was not convinced by it. To my mind, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee comes very poorly out of this Commission's Report. I very much hope that he may have

      1827
      a great political future, but I hope he is not coming into office again during this War. His record is too bad for that. I hope this country may sec the War concluded before the right hon. Gentleman again takes office. I should like to remind him that his judgment on matters of the War, especially in connection with the Dardanelles Expedition, have been very unfortunate. When he left office in May, 1915, he immediately went to Dundee and delivered a speech there in June. He spoke on the Dardanelles Expedition at a time when its success was still possible, but very problematical. These are the words he used on that occasion:
      "The army of Sir Ian Hamilton and the fleet of Admiral De Robeck are separated only by a. few miles from a victory such as this War has not yet seen. When I speak of victory I am not referring to those victories which crowd the daily placards of the newspapers: I am speaking of a victory in the sense of brilliant and formidable facts shaping the destinies of nations and shortening the duration of the War."
      That was the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman when he had the facts, which ought to have led him to be much more temperate and less sanguine in his view. In my opinion again and again' the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman has been lamentably lacking. Though I have listened to him with very great pleasure to-night, I really do believe that his excursions into military affairs have not been fortunate, and I trust we shall not see him in office again.
      Captain TRYON: These questions of personal responsibility, I think, have played too large a part in this Debate to-day, and I would rather wish to turn to something which, I hope, may in a small way be helpful in regard to the future. There are in this Report two definite proposals of a constructive nature. They are not criticisms. I cannot help thinking that all these questions of personal responsibility in the past are rather of less importance than questions of national organisation in the future for the conduct of the War. The first constructive proposal is that the Chief of Staff and the First Sea Lord should be appointed members of the War Committee. The second constructive proposal is that joint naval and military operations should in future be thoroughly considered by a joint naval and military staff. I think there can hardly be any more important thing put forward for the nation and the Empire than this last proposal. In 1759, a year of
      1828
      great victories to our arms in almost every continent, a curious pamphlet was published which contained these words:
      "The Fleet and the Army, acting in concert, seem to be the natural bulwark of these realms"
      I do not think that the conduct of these Dardanelles operations by the Government at home can be held to be an example of what was recognised more than 150 years ago to be important to this country—that of the Fleet and the Army acting in concert. I believe that the matter to be considered is not the past, but the future. For the future we want to consider the constitutional machinery for conducting naval and military operations. What is the machinery at present as described in this Report? I am only quoting things which have already been published. Firstly, we have for the conduct of the War a large Cabinet, at that time consisting of twenty-two. from many of whom matters of great importance were kept back—it was said for the sake of greater secrecy—so that the actual Cabinet mainly responsible did not know, so far as many of its members were concerned, the decisions and plans which were actually in operation. That is the head of the machinery. The next piece of machinery was the Committee of Imperial Defence, whose functions, it is said in this Report, were laid down for the requirements of peace. One would have thought that the Committee, when it had to deal with war, would have found that it needed greater powers. We also have another mysterious body, to which I shall allude in a minute.
      How did this machinery affect the War? I believe this constitutional machinery was a great impediment to the success of our arms. In January, 1915, there came the request from the Russian War Office to our War Office, through the Foreign Office, asking for a diversion in favour of Russia. Apparently the War Office, in connection with this operation—which necessarily involved great naval questions, such as the safe conduct of the troops, the number of transports available, to how many ships could be spared from other operations to co-operate—came to a decision without any reference to higher bodies, and an answer was therefore sent to the Russian Government. So there we have another body attempting to conduct operations apart, to some extent, from the other bodies I have already mentioned. The next thing happened on 13th January, when the War Office told the

      1829
      Navy to prepare to take to the Peninsular naval forces and to attack a large piece of land and hold it in the absence of troops. The next thing that happened was that the Fleet was committed to action by the Admiralty, and the plan was developed with the idea of sending the Fleet into the Sea of Marmora, without apparently any military force being available to hold the peninsula in its rear and secure its retreat.
      In all these cases I desire to criticise, not the operation of the naval and military officers, but the working of the constitutional machinery to arrive at conclusions, because now we come to this new body, which is a most remarkable constitutional development. The Committee of Imperial Defence had in the meantime developed into a War Council which took some of these decisions. We find in the Report that on the 16th February—and this is a point which has not been developed in this Debate so far—some Cabinet Ministers, meeting informally, decided to -send the troops out. That is a most extraordinary proceeding. Here is a body constituted, we do not know how, but an extraordinary body collected together, and suddenly, at an informal meeting, committing the naval and military forces of the Crown to this great expedition. Finally, we come to the definite action of Lord Fisher, who, in spite of what the ex-Prime Minister told us, did definitely oppose this particular expedition. The ex-Prime Minister, in his speech, stated that Lord Fisher opposed this Dardanelles Expedition, not for its own sake or for its own faults, but because he wanted something else done in another direction. That statement of the ex-Prime Minister is not accurate. Lord Fisher wrote to him a letter on the date I have given, in which he objected to this very Dardanelles Expedition on four definite grounds: First, that it would scatter our naval strength. That has nothing to do with an alternative expedition, but was a definite objection to this particular measure. Secondly, that it was using a fleet for some purpose other than that of forcing a decision at sea. Thirdly, that it would weaken the Fleet; and, fourthly, that it would lose men who were badly wanted elsewhere.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: I understood that the statement made by the ex-Prime Minister was that Lord Fisher never objected to the attack on the forts on the ground that it was impracticable. He
      1830
      objected on other grounds, but he never raised the objection that the scheme as put forward was impracticable on its merits, and it was that expert opinion which they did not receive from Lord Fisher.
      Captain TRYON: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member, but the real point is the overruling of expert naval opinion. Lord Fisher definitely stated that this policy of attack on the Dardanelles was opposed to what he conceived to be the British naval policy, and that was handed in in a letter to the Prime Minister. Therefore, the statement that the naval experts did not raise any objection seems to me to be entirely devoid of foundation. I would turn to where I began and they are the only two points I wish to emphasise. I do think that with the War still going on, with the future to be looked at, and with the possibility of combined operations of the two forces of the Crown, the Navy and the Army, it is essential that there should be, as is suggested in this memorandum, a definite representation both of the Navy and of the Army, in the form probably of the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Staff, or whatever body may be entrusted with the task of forming a decision upon strategical questions. With regard to this expedition, we have heard to-day a great deal of protestation from those who are responsible. They have put forward in their own defence a great deal about the naval and military experts, behind whom, I think, they are rather inclined to shelter themselves. When the country looks back on this episode in its history, it will remember, not the statesmanship of those who spoke from the opposite benches this afternoon, but the bravery of the Australian troops, the Irish troops, and of all those troops who took part in that expedition. There is nothing more touching and more striking in this whole expedition than this fact. Here in England and out in Australia are white people, all of one race and of one Empire. Another Power was striking at the Suez Canal, and threatening the communications which join those two races. Against that danger the Australians who fell on the Gallipoli Peninsula were fighting. They were fighting to maintain their union, their communications with the Mother Country, and with all the troops who fought was an imperishable tradition of British gallantry. The children of the future, to whom the First Lord of that day referred,

      1831
      will, we hope, rather recall the gallantry of all those troops, Australians, Irish, English and the rest, rather than the statesmanship, or lack of statesmanship, which made their task so difficult.
      I would only say one thing more, and it is perhaps rather an anti-climax after the serious discussion. But I think the House will not treat with anything but amusement the reproach of the former First Lord of the Admiralty against those who failed to join in the expedition. People do not join a particular expedition; they join the Forces of the Crown. From the way the right hon. Member spoke, one might imagine that there were posters, "Come and join our Expedition to the Dardanelles, and follow the wisdom of all the leaders we have heard this afternoon." People join the Forces of the Crown to fight where they are sent and they do not join to show their approval of any particular expedition. What we are eititled to ask For and to get is that while we should rather pass by at the moment the personal question of responsibility, we should seek from this great national episode some hope of better constructed operations in the future, and a co-operation of our Army and Navy under one wise guidance, which will combine the wisdom of both Services for the prosecution of the War.
      Lord E. TALBOT: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  SUPPLY.— [8TH MARCH.]
    FOURTH ALLOTTED DAY.
    Resolutions reported,
    FOURTH ALLOTTED DAY.

      CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1917–18.— [VOTE ON ACCOUNT.]
      1. "That a sum, not exceeding £38,023,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for certain Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, namely."
      [For details of Vote on Account, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, cols. 594–598.]

      ARMY ESTIMATES, 1917–18.
      2. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 5,000.000, all ranks, be main-
      1832
      tained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."
      3."That a sum, not exceeding £l,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."
      First Resolution read a second time.
      Mr. DILLON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
      I wish to protest against the practice of putting down a Vote on Account at this hour of the evening. The invariable practice of this House has been to give two nights to a Vote on Account, and that practice has been affirmed ever since the change came about ten years ago of taking a very large Vote on Account, large enough to carry on to a late period in the year, whereas before that time two or three Votes on Account were taken during the Session. Since we have adopted these large Votes on Account, it has been the invariable rule to give one night to the Committee stage and another night to the Report stage. The Committee stage of this Vote was taken last Thursday week, and was got through in about half-an-hour at the end of a day's business, and to-night, at nine o'clock, we are asked to commence a discussion on the Report stage. I hope the Government will abandon that practice which is entirely unfair to the House.
      9.0 P.M.
      I put down this Amendment for the purpose of raising two very important question which are concerned with the executive action of the War Cabinet, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. The first of these questions is the definite refusal to publish the proceedings of the courts-martial in Dublin. In my opinion that is in two respects open to the very gravest possible objection, and I intend, as far as I can, to endeavour to induce the House to approve of the position I take up on these two questions. My first charge is one of breach of faith. It is a breach of a definite pledge given by the members of the present Ministry. Apart altogether from the question of a pledge, I think it is perfectly monstrous and absolutely inde-

      1833
      fensible that these proceedings should now, after a whole year, still remain secret. I think that was an outrage, and it was never dreamt of when we entrusted the Government without discussion in the early days of the War with the unlimited powers conferred under the Defence of the Realm Act The whole course of the history of this country, at all events for two hundred or three hundred years, has no case on record where men have been tried for the crime of rebellion, after the rebellion was over and order had been restored and the fighting had ceased, by secret tribunal. It is unknown as far as I can inquire in the history of this country. You have had rebellions in this country and we have had many in Ireland, but here, it is an absolute fact, that in this twentieth century we have retrograded so far, that in the suppression of this Irish rebellion a method of savagery was adopted wholly unknown to the history of this country, that is, to try men by secret courts-martial and deny to the public the satisfaction of seeing upon what evidence these men were convicted. First of all, I want to have a clear statement from the Government under what authority in law were these trials held at all? That question has never been fully debated and we have never been able to get a really clear answer to it. In the first place, martial law was proclaimed in Ireland and it is still in force there in spite of all the twistings and turnings of the Chief Secretary. Martial law was proclaimed in Ireland when the rebellion broke out. I have here one of the greatest authorities on martial law, and what does he say about it? He says:
      "Martial law in the proper sense of the term in which he moans the suspension of ordinary law and the temporary government of a country or part of a country by military tribunals is unknown to the law of England. Declaration of martial law is utterly unknown to the Constitution. Soldiers may suppress a riot as they may resist an invasion; they "may fight rebels just as they may fight foreign foes, but they have no right under the law to inflict punishment for riot or rebellion. During the effort to restore order rebels maybe lawfully killed just as enemies may be lawfully shot, but any execution independent of military law inflicted by a court-martial is illegal and technically is murder."
      That is the law of England apart from the Defence of the Realm Act, and therefore all these executions were murder. The same writer quotes the famous case of Wolfe Tone, who landed with the French Expedition in Ireland and was taken prisoner and who was tried, not by a secret Court but by a public Court. Curran, the great Irish lawyer, went to the Court of King's Bench and
      1834
      applied for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Court immediately granted the writ to take this man out of military custody. That case has become the governing case in the law of England, and it is a most remarkable case, because at that time the condition of Ireland was much more dangerous than it is at the present time, because they were constantly threatened with two invasions and the condition of the country was far more dangerous. Now, however, in these trials we have retrograded from the eighteenth century, and things which the Court would not tolerate in the eighteenth century were done in Dublin on this occasion. What makes the whole matter infinitely worse is the fact of the secrecy of the trials. In my opinion nothing can possibly be more odious, particularly in a country professing to be free like England, than secret trials, more particularly political trials followed by executions which were supposed to be peculiar to Russia, but Russia has set us an example which I hope England will follow. I can tell this House when it comes to propose any congratulatory address to the Russian Duma which I approve of, you will hear something from these benches as to the duty that lies upon you or following the Russian example. One of the first things Russia did was to throw open the prison doors and release all political prisoners.
      I now turn to the Defence of the Realm Act, because I think I have proved conclusively that these executions were, so far as the common law of England is concerned, without a shadow of justification. I hold in my hand a copy of the Defence of the Realm Act, and I would ask if any hon. Member thought when we were passing that Act that we were going to set up secret military court-martials with the power of life and death. Here is what the Defence of the Realm Act says. It says that for any offence tinder the Defence of the Realm Act, one of the most sweeping Acts ever passed, they can be tried by court-martial. There was some anxiety about the power given under that Act, and Section (4) says:
      "For the purpose of the trial of a person for an offence under the Regulations by court-martial and the punishment thereof, the person may be proceeded against and dealt with as if he were a person subject to military law and had on active service committed an offence under Section (5) of the Army Act.

      1835
      Provided that where it is proved that the offence is committed with the intention of assisting the enemy a person convicted of such an offence by a court-martial shall be liable to suffer death."
      That is the Defence of the Realm Act governing the present prosecutions, as I understand it, and the Chief Secretary when he comes to speak will correct me if I am wrong. That is the third Act, which repeals all the previous Acts and consolidates them. How can we know what proof there is of compliance with that proviso in the Defence of the Realm Act, which is the only justification for convicting these men? Am I not entitled to suspect that the reason the Government refuse to publish the evidence is that they have looked it over and are afraid if it were published that it might be made manifest to the whole world that they had exceeded the law and had not complied with the provisions of the Act? There are strong grounds for that contention. I say that to add to the horror of the unparalleled proceedings of executing men in this country as the result of secret military trials by keeping secret for a whole year proceedings which have sent seventy men, now in Lewes Gaol, to penal servitude and not allowing the public to form their own judgment of the evidence is, in my opinion, in the highest degree suspicious. Again, I challenge the Leader of the House if he has any precedent in the history of England to produce it. This is the kind of thing which is responsible largely for the present condition of Ireland and the tremendous problem which you have to face in that country. That is the first ground on which I claim the immediate publication of the proceedings at these trials, and I say again that if the Government persist in their refusal to publish the evidence, there will be a broad, deep-seated, and widespread suspicion that they dare not publish the evidence because it would be made manifest to the whole world that they had acted illegally in taking these men's lives. I now come to the second charge, and I think it is a very serious one. On several occasions last year I raised this question, and, after getting uncertain answers from the late Prime Minister, on the 24th October, 1916, I put the following question:
      "Mr. Dillon asked the Prime Minister whether he will now direct that the proceedings of the Irish courts martial shall be published?
      1836
      The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir: I will arrange for this to be done"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 24th October, 1916 col.919, Vol. LXXXVI.]
      Shortly afterwards a Ministerial crisis arose, and it was not done. Immediately the new Government came into office I raised the question again, and to my amazement I was met by the reply that the matter was under consideration. I directed the attention of the Government to this specific, unqualified pledge, and I was told that a new Government had come into office. I may say that the Under-Secretary of State for War, when I first raised the question, said that there were certain legal proceedings pending in London at which the trials had been challenged, and until they were over he could not give me a definite answer. The legal proceedings concluded a fortnight ago, and I raised the question again. The Leader of the House said that the Government had now carefully considered the matter, and had decided that they would not publish the proceedings. What is the idea of this Government as regards the pledge and undertaking of the late Government? Do they repudiate all the pledges of the late Government? It is perfectly plain that the late Prime Minister, when he gave me that promise to publish these proceedings, had had the matter before his mind, and, I assume, it had been before the minds of his colleagues for a considerable time. It was not a surprise. It had been a matter of previous questions, and he had considered it and adjourned the matter. Therefore. I take it I dare say I am really quite mistaken in my whole ideas of Parliamentary procedure and the obligations of honour on the part of Ministers—that when the Leader of the Government pledges himself on a matter of importance of this kind in this House he pledges his colleagues. In that Government the present Leader of the House was one of his most prominent colleagues. The present Prime Minister was his colleague, and the Chief Secretary was his colleague. The man responsible for the government of Ireland and the leading members of the late Government are leading members of the present Government. Are they now prepared to repudiate this pledge given in this House by the late Prime Minister with their assent and approval? That, in my opinon, is a breach of faith. Really now when we go to Ireland and talk about the pledges or promises of British Ministers we are hailed with jeers and shrieks of laughter, and that is one of our difficulties.

      1837
      I appeal to the House of Commons and I appeal to the Ministers who are sitting on that bench: Are they prepared to stand up and repudiate that pledge? If they are, are they not bound to state some grave and weighty reasons why they do it?
      I come now to the second point which I propose to raise to-night, and which is also, though in a minor degree, a very serious and important matter. On Friday last the Leader of the House, at the end of our proceedings, burst out suddenly and made a most amazing announcement. He said that if we persisted in the course which we have now adopted of opposition to the Government he viewed with considerable anxiety the possibility of an election and of that election taking the form of a campaign against the Irish party. All the Press of England has accepted that as a threat. I must confess that, with my long experience of Parliamentary life, I could put no other meaning to it. I have sat in this House now for thirty-five years and I have very rarely heard any Leader of the House use such a threat. When the Leader of the House tells any opposition that there may be a General Election as the consequence of their actions, what other interpretation can you put upon it except that of a threat? I do not, however, want to quarrel over words. The right hon. Gentleman yesterday said that he did not mean it as a threat. Let us call it a warning. He must have had some reason for alluding to such a matter. In the first place, I want to say that in all my experience I have never known a Leader of the House adopt so feeble an attitude.
      What is the opposition of which he complains? We have been in Opposition for ten days. It is rather soon for him to have hoisted the white flag. The Irish party in the old days were once described by the present First Lord of the Admiralty as the finest fighting machine ever constructed. The Irish party to-day is a very mild-mannered body compared with the Irish party of the old days. The truth is that, owing to long disuse, its weapons have been allowed to rust. I hope they will be sharpened up. I would tell the right hon. Gentleman, whose Leadership of the House is of a very brief period, that if the amount of opposition he has received from the Irish party during the last ten days so intimidates him and breaks him down that he thinks it necessary to have an election to deal with it, he had better go for a rest cure and come
      1838
      back strengthened in order to meet it. It is a very slight foretaste of what is before him. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back to last year, and compare the opposition of the Irish party during the last ten days with the opposition that was raised from the Front Opposition Bench by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), who left the Government, started a campaign—one of the most ruthless and savage campaigns I have ever seen in this House—in order to put down the Government he left, and, backed by an unscrupulous Press, poured hot-shot and poison gas into the ranks of the Government until he smashed it. To talk of the opposition of the Irish party as being unfair opposition is one of the most grotesque statements ever uttered in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College now sits beside the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House never threatened an election against him.
      Let me draw one small contrast between the character of the opposition over which the right hon. Gentleman is now so lachrymose and the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College. Some six months ago there was a raid by German destroyers in the Channel. Immediately the whole of the Yellow Press in this country opened fire on the right hon. Gentleman who was then the head of the Admiralty and who is now at the Foreign Office. They declared that he was asleep, that he was incapable, that he was suffering from senile decay, that he was unfitted for the post, and that the War was lost. From the Front Opposition Bench and the benches behind him, night after night, the most insolent attacks were made upon the Government for allowing the sacred British Channel to be outraged by the presence of German destroyers. Within the last fortnight two much worse and far more audacious raids have been made. There has been a slight difference in that, whereas the previous raid was made in a thick fog and the British destroyers were out and they thought they sank—they certainly hit—one of the enemy's vessels, in the recent raids nobody was hit; no British destroyers turned out at all. Then the coast of Kent was bombarded last week. There was not a single whisper of complaint. The ginger group is dissolved. That group was specially formed in order to save this country from bombardment,

      1839
      and to poke up the Government. Now that the leader of the ginger group is sitting beside the right hon. Gentleman, the Germans may bombard the coast as often as they like and there is not a whisper of complaint. While the Irish party are opposed to the Government, and will be opposed to the Government—we shall oppose it by every means in our power—I hope we shall adopt more honest methods and abstain from the unscrupulous methods which were adopted in this House to smash the last Government, and which succeeded. We will not, at all events, injure the country and interfere with the War in order to pursue our aims. We shall be able to deal with the right hon. Gentleman without having to do that.
      Doubtless this threat or warning was levelled at us because the right hon. Gentleman is informed by some of his Friends that the Irish party dare not face an election. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he never made a greater mistake in his life. I say that, not because I do not realise the gravity of the situation in Ireland. I say it because I do realise the gravity of the situation in Ireland. I know perfectly well that in an election we should lose some seats; how many I cannot say—nobody can say. Ireland is in a very uncertain condition. I know that we should lose some seats; some people say many and others that we should totally disappear. I have the reputation of being a pessimist in these matters, and of always taking very serious views. I got into very hot water in this House for warning hon. Members last June or July that the situation in Ireland was more serious than they realised. Events have borne out that warning. I do not think we should lose very many seats. The reason why I am anxious for a General Election is that it lies in the mouth of anyone to say to us of the Irish party, now for the first time in thirty years, that we do not speak for Ireland, that after the North Roscommon election we can no longer speak for Ireland until we get a new mandate. We want as soon as possible to put to the Irish people the question whether they have confidence in us and whether we are to continue to be responsible for their representation? Therefore, I tell the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as we are concerned, his threat carries no weight whatever, because we are, or at least I am anxious, for an election. The sooner it comes, the better.
      1840
      The right hon. Gentleman made another extraordinary statement. He said that since the speech of the Prime Minister in the Irish Debate the Government had received no communication from either of the Irish parties. He seemed to think that that was somewhat of a grievance. Did he expect to receive any communication from the Irish party? No, Sir, he received no communication from us. He and his Government had put it out of our power to make any communication. Last July, at the earnest solicitation of the Government, not at our request, but because the Government told us that it was in the highest interests of the Empire and that it was a most critical matter, we went into the negotiations. We lost enormously in political prestige and power in Ireland by those negotiations. We lost the confidence of large sections of our own countrymen. We knew it perfectly well. We went into those negotiations and after a terrible struggle, in which we strained our influence in Ireland to the very utmost, we succeeded in carrying our people with us, and we came back and we were turned down and betrayed, and you may be certain we are not going to be caught in that trap again. That is one reason why the right hon. Gentleman has received no communication. Another reason is this. By the executions and by your conduct in July you have created such a situation in Ireland that it is out of our power to negotiate. You have let loose hell in Ireland, and you have to settle the situation on your own responsibility. I urge the Government to take the thing in hand as soon as possible, because the longer they delay the worse the situation will become.

      Now I want to remove absolutely from the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that this threat of an election has any terrors for us. We shall oppose the Bill for the prolongation of the life of Parliament. We challenge them to have an election. We desire an election. The right hon. Gentleman, I suppose, imagines and believes that by an election his party under present circumstances will come back with a majority. I think that is quite likely and that is probably the reason why he let out the other day what was in his mind. I think it is quite likely that he will come back with a substantial Tory majority. But does he imagine that that would settle the Irish question, or that if you have a General Election you will get any nearer a settlement or make the settlement of the Irish question

      1841
      easier? Even supposing we lost half our strength or the whole of our strength, would that ease the situation 1 In the midst of a great war he has threatened us with a General Election, and has indicated that it would take the form of an anti-Irish crusade. Is that the way to win the War? Is that the way to unite the nation? I am perfectly well aware that there is in England a great deal of bitterness growing up against our people, largely arising from ignorance, from misrepresentation and from the destruction of recruiting in Ireland by the British War Office. It is a terrible misfortune. If you let that bitterness loose in the flood of an election you will not be able to curb it. There will be bitterness on the one side and bitterness on the other. If we are struck at we can fight too, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that many things will come out which neither he nor his Friends will like. We shall want to know, for instance, what brought Baron Kohlmann over to Ulster on the eve of the War. We shall want to know what were the relations between the leaders of the Ulster party and the chief spy of the Kaiser in Ireland. We shall want to know what about the dispatch which Baron Kohlmann sent from Ulster to Berlin, and which was seen by a friend of mine in Vienna, where it was sent, and on the receipt of which dispatch the Emperor determined to go on with the War. All these matters will be flogged out and debated on all the platforms in this country and Ireland, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will find that he has promoted harmony or good will. I think if he does declare war on the Irish people, and have an anti-Irish election, although we are few, and although he and his Government have succeeded in placing us before our own people between the devil and the deep sea, although some of his followers are triumphing now because they think our party has lost ground in Ireland, and that the forces of revolution have been let loose against us by the action of the Government, hard set as we are at present, and weak as are our forces, we have friends throughout the world, and I warn the right hon. Gentleman that an anti-Irish election in England will mean a disturbance and a division which will not be limited by the boundaries of these Islands, but will spread right through the whole of your Dominions and through the
      1842
      United States of America. I cannot conceive a greater crime committed against the unity of this nation and the imperial race, and against the prospect that most of you value of a better understanding with America, and bringing her on to your side, that this moment should be selected to declare unmitigated war upon the Irish race.
      Mr. HAZLETON: I beg to second the Amendment.
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I cannot help thinking that the material question with which I have to deal, which the hon. Member very courteously brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend and myself, is the question whether the recent decision of the Government that the proceedings of the courts-martial could not at present be published was a defensible decision, and one at which in all the circumstances of the case and of the time the Government might properly arrive. I do not at all underrate the importance of the other topics to which he has referred. I do not think it is essential that I should go at great length into the question whether the trials by court-martial require to be justified under martial law, as it is popularly called, or whether they were justifiable under the Defence of the Realm Act. That is a matter on which I have addressed the House on the invitation of hon. Members several times, and I have seen no reason to waver at all in the conclusion that the Defence of the Realm Acts and the Regulations were a sufficient answer to the attacks which have been made upon the Government. One or two hon. Members challenged what I said with regard to the position under martial law. I am sure that any man who will he at the pains to consult the leading authorities on the subject, and will not be content with a text-book, which is written for lawyers and not for laymen, and endeavour to get at the gist of the matter and to understand the foundations in legal principle upon which the decisions in these cases rest, will find, at any rate, that there is very good argumentative ground for the position which I have taken up—first of all, that the proceedings of the Government in Ireland, during and after the rebellion, did not need a defence on the ground of what is called martial law, and, secondly, that what is called martial law has not during my tenure of office been in use in Ireland.
      Mr. HAZLETON: Why do you continue it? Answer that question.
      Mr. DUKE: I told the hon. Member quite candidly some time since why it was continued. It was continued and has been continued because a Proclamation on the subject of martial law declaring martial law not to be in force might be misunderstood by people who are not capable of dealing with the legal question and misunderstood to their very great detriment. If by a Proclamation that there is no martial law people are to be led into acts of violence or insurrection in Ireland on the supposition that there is not power in the hands of the Government under the existing law, apart from what is called martial law, to deal with matters of that kind, I think they might have cause of complaint that they were told there was no martial law in existence.
      Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: That is too good altogether.
      Mr. DUKE: I am so accustomed to complimentary remarks from my hon. and learned Friend that I will not even complain of his carrying his compliments to that excess. I have never spoken with levity about this matter of martial law. During the early weeks of my tenure of office I took the view, as was pointed out, that it would be quite practicable to proclaim the withdrawal of the previous Proclamation of martial law without depriving the Government of any necessary resources for the defence of the country, and I believe any lawyer, inside the House or outside it, would say that that is a true statement.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Has not the right hon. Gentleman all the powers he needs under the Defence of the Realm Acts Regulations?
      Mr. DUKE: Yes. I believe the Government has, under the Defence of the Realm Acts and Regulations all the necessary powers in regard to the maintenance of order in Ireland? It is the maintenance of order which I have in view, without any regard to the political effect upon the interests of parties. It would be, to my mind, in the highest degree disgraceful for a man in my position if he used the powers which are vested in the Executive in Ireland, with a view to any party interest, whether it be the party interests to which he may himself have been a declared
      1844
      adherent, the party interests of an opponent, the party interests of hon. Gentlemen opposite, or any party interest whatsoever. My business is to see that, if it is possible, administration in Ireland shall be conducted so that there is peace and order in Ireland. Those are the elementary blsssings to which every country that has government at all is entitled. So far as I am concerned, I have directed my acts in this matter with that object, not to any provocative object, as is sometimes suspected, but with the simple object of seeing that the people who owe obedience to the law in Ireland should pay that obedience. That is necessary not merely in the interest of the general body of the population in Ireland and in the United Kingdom, but really in the interest, in many cases, of ignorant, easily-misguided people who can be led into doing acts the effect of which they do not appreciate at the time, and which may bring upon them disastrous, if not fatal, consequences. I have not concealed from the House or from hon. Members opposite my own belief that if steps had been taken in the early part of April of last year, such as have been sometimes found necessary since, the country might have been spared the misery and, as I regard it, the shame of the events of the latter part of April of last year. It is in that spirit that I have dealt with the problem of martial law, the problem of a new Proclamation, and all the technical matters which do not really touch the spirit of the administration of law in Irelend, but which, of course, are very useful for raising Parliamentary Debate.
      If we were in an ideal state of things, where nobody would be misled, and where there were not from day to day threats of violence, threats of organised action, threats of appeal for the help of a public enemy: if we were not in that state of things, and these circumstances did not exist, of course, one would not be justified in refraining from the issue of a Proclamation revoking the earlier Proclamation of martial law, if that was asked for by representatives of the large body of people in Ireland. The reasons are prudential reasons, and the main reason is that a Proclamation of that kind is easily misunderstood. In the inevitable state of Ireland for a long time after the events of April of last year, it is not desirable to provoke on to court misunderstanding, or even to render it

      1845
      possible by taking steps which are needless to be taken for any practical purpose. There is no honest, loyal man in Ireland to whom the Proclamation of martial law last April makes the difference of the dust in the scale.
      Mr. DILLON: That is what they said of every Coercion Act of the last 100 years.
      Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member will refer to any act of the administration during the time in which I have been responsible for it, and will challenge it on the ground that it can be only justified by what is called martial law, there will be substance in the taunt he addresses to me, but if, in fact, nothing has been done during the past eight or nine months which needs justification outside the statute law or the common law of the land, then the taunt which the hon. Member addresses to me has no force. To speak of it as coercion or anything of that kind does not move me. Coercion there is under some circumstances. The whole country is under the possibility of coercion by Defence of the Realm Acts. The whole object of the law of the land may be coercive, but I say not merely that martial law does not touch any man in Ireland, but that there is not a man who desires to obey the law, who desires the peace of the country, who is willing to abstain from acts of seditious conspiracy, and from an appeal to a foreign enemy for assistance—there is no man who comes within those categories who need have any apprehension either in regard to martial law or in regard to the Defence of the Realm Acts Regulations. I confess that does seem to me, if it is true, a fairly strong reply to the kind of criticism which one has from time to time to answer upon this subject. The hon Member must not think I am complaining of his challenge of the correctness of my view; of course he was entitled to do that. After impugning the correctness of my view, the hon. Member went on to deal with the trials by courts-martial, and with the question of whether they were justified by the Defence of the Realm Acts and Regulations; above all, whether secrecy was justified; and, finally, upon that branch of the matter, whether His Majesty's Government was in honour bound to publish the proceedings of the courts-martial so that there could be no change of mind in the changing circumstances in regard to that question? With regard to the Defence of the Realm Acts and the Regulations, the
      1846
      hon. Member, as I recall his speech, said that whatver was in the Defence of the Realm Acts the House never contemplated the use of them which was made after the rebellion in Dublin. The Legislature, as it happened, provided an instrument of law which was effective to deal with the state of things that arose in Dublin. If the hon. Member asks me whether the House contemplated in 1914 and 1915 that the Statutes which were being passed and amended would require to be used for the terrible purpose for which they were required in Dublin in the April and early part of May of last year, I would say, thank God nobody dreamt that there could be men so criminally insane in any part of the United Kingdom that this country would have to face an outbreak of rebellion in the city of Dublin. Nobody did contemplate that we should have an armed rebellion in Ireland to deal with; but we had to deal with it, and it happened that there was a law which had been framed in contemplation of a different set of facts which was effective for the purpose of punishment of persons who were concerned in that rebellion.
      Mr. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman man has not answered my point. Under the Clause which gives the right to try by court-martial under that Act the death penalty may be inflicted only if the prisoner is proved to have sought the aid of the enemy. What security have we that evidence was tendered that the Dublin prisoners had sought the aid of the enemy? If it was not proved, then they had no right to be executed.
      Mr. DUKE: May I remind the hon. Member of the facts which were notorious at the time. Everybody knows that at the end of the week before Easter Day in April of last year, as the result of an arrangement concerted in Germany with men in Dublin and men in the West of Ireland, a cargo of arms was brought down the West Coast of Ireland and kept off that coast for a day or two. Emissaries of the German Government were landed on the coast of Ireland and the cargo of arms ultimately found its way to the bottom of the sea. During that time, from Dublin on the east to Kerry and Galway on the west, the members of a particular body of volunteers in Ireland were assembled and under arms waiting for the arrival of those arms, and at the beginning of the week following, Easter Day, on Monday, a rebellion

      1847
      broke out in Dublin, the circumstances of which were notorious, and in the case of that rebellion in Dublin, which broke out in those circumstances, the men who were executed and the men who were sentenced to penal servitude were taken with arms in their hands.
      Mr. DILLON: My point is this—they were bound under the Statute, which ought to be interpreted very strictly, as it is a most terrible Statute, to prove by evidence against each individual man that he had sought the assistance of the enemy.
      Mr. DUKE: I neither assent to nor dissent from my hon. Friend that there was an obligation to prove that against each person. I need only remind the House of what were the notorious facts. A proclamation was printed and posted in Dublin which made the object of that conspiracy perfectly clear, which made the concert of the conspiracy with Germany absolutely clear, and which showed that the design of the conspiracy, of which the rebellion was the outcome, was the design of assisting the Germans in overthrowing the armed power of this country. To suggest in those circumstances that there is any doubt that the men who were taken in arms in that rebellion were engaged in that common purpose is really, I think, as bold a suggestion as can be found.
      Mr. DILLON: Why do you conceal the evidence?
      Mr. DUKE: I am coming to deal with the evidence. The hon. Gentleman always treats me with courtesy, and I am obliged to him for it, but I cannot deal with more than one point at once with any advantage. There is no disputing the proposition that the men who were sentenced to death and the men who were sentenced to penal servitude were men who were guilty, at all events, of combining to assist the public enemy and had taken up arms for that purpose. There was not a man who was not actually taken as a member of an armed force.
      Mr. DEVLIN: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. He says that there was not a man who was not found with arms in his hands. Is that true of Mr. John McNeill, who was not taken with arms in his hands, but had
      1848
      done everything in his power to stop the rebellion and yet was sentenced to penal servitude?
      Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member for West Belfast corrects me. I agree that probably there are some persons to whom I should not apply the phrase "arms in his hands," but upon the facts of the part which Mr. John McNeill played in the combination which resulted in the armed rebellion at the beginning of Easter week, in view of what is notorious to all of us, remembering that Mr. John McNeill was defended by counsel, and that the circumstances of his trial and all the matters relating to it are very well known indeed to numbers of persons, I suppose there can be no doubt that Mr. John McNeill was one of the body the leaders of which published that proclamation.
      Mr. DEVLIN: No!
      Mr. DUKE: That may be a matter of the accuracy of the findings of the court-martial, but on the facts as regards Mr. John McNeill there is no reason to doubt them. The facts are very well known. When I said with regard to this whole body of people that they were taken with arms it was a little wide of literal fact as to the actual position. But it is the fact that every person who is concerned was notoriously involved in that general design, which was prosecuted with armed force, and it is true to say that all except the minutest minority of them were taken under arms. Their complicity in the armed rebellion was notorious. There is no doubt about the fact, and nobody, so far as I know, has ever doubted the fact. What is said by those who vindicate the rebellion is not that these men were convicted of a crime which they did not commit, but that they did these acts, and that they and those who sided with them are entitled to glory; not that they did not take up arms against the State, but that they were justified in doing it. That is the real ground of the attack which is widely made by the persons to whom the hon. Member refers. As a matter of fact, in all the discussions which I have had on this subject in Ireland, and in all the conversations in which I have taken part, I never heard any man question the fact of the guilt of every one of these persons charged with

      1849
      being concerned in the armed rebellion. I am coming to the question of secrecy and of non-publication. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is the point!"] The hon. Member says that is the point, but the Member for East Mayo raised a great number of other points, and if I did not deal with them successively he would be entitled to complain that I had evaded something which he had brought to the attention of the House. I pass from the question of the guilt of these persons, in fact, to the evidence on which they were committed.
      10.0 P.M.
      The hon. Member for Hexham reaffirmed much of what was said, and asked why we should not publish these documents, so that the world should know precisely what was the guilt of these persons. Last month, as the hon. Member said, an inquiry was held upon the question whether the sitting of these courts-martial in camera was lawful, and that subject was discussed in this country by a tribunal which devoted two or three days to its consideration, and came to the conclusion that the proceedings were, in respect of secrecy, and in all particulars in which their validity had been challenged, absolutely well founded and properly conducted. There is nothing in point of law in the question of secrecy, or the courts-martial sitting in camera. On the question of the discretion of the Government to publish the trials, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House dealt with the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment earlier in the Session, and he said that the Government had to consider that matter de noco, by reason of the condition of things in Ireland, and he said that the Government had come to the decision that it would not perform its duty if it published the proceedings of these courts-martial. I would point out, that every one of these trials has in it the element of passion. I know as well as anybody what took place at these courts-martial; it was my duty to find out, and, with regard to every one of the trials, the tragedy of the story is very great; its publication would direct public feeling and attention in Ireland to the springs out of which the rebellion arose, and the whole story of the lamentable events would be given, while feeling in Ireland is subject to fluctuation, and while there are men in that country who never fail to seize occasion to appeal to those who sympathise with the rebels, who are still at large, many of them active in the country. In that state of things there is
      1850
      unquestionably an enormous element of danger in providing in every county where there was rebellion, this tragic story of what occurred in Ireland last Easter. The Government considered last year whether they should risk publication, and in the then state of the facts as they then existed, they came to the conclusion that it was a serious risk, but it might betaken.
      But things did not improve during the first two months of this year. The hon. Member for Mayo stated that in the speech which he addressed to the House about a fortnight ago. I said that feeling fluctuated in Ireland; at any rate, that was the state of things to which the hon. Member for Mayo referred, and which necessarily caused disquiet and some alarm. In these circumstances we had to consider the problem of publishing this literature of rebellion with the assistance of various dispassionate advisors, and we came to the conclusion that the risk was such that the Government was not warranted in taking it, in the conditions which actually existed in Ireland. It is said that the Government were guilty of a breach of faith. The Government had a discretion, and if on a given day in a given state of facts, on inquiry made, the Government announced through the then Prime Minister that it had decided to exercise that discretion in a particular way, it incurred no obligation.
      Mr. SCAN LAN: What?
      Mr. DUKE: I am speaking of obligation in a sense which the hon. Member for Sligo will well understand.
      Mr. SCANLAN: If the Government, through its Prime Minister, says it has come to the conclusion to exercise its discretion in a particular manner, is not that a pledge, and can the Government in decency resile from that pledge?
      Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member looks into the matter I think he will see that the declaration by the Government of its intention does not necessarily create what is commonly called an obligation.
      Mr. DILLON: In this case it was not a declaration; it was given to me across the floor of the House of Commons.
      Mr. DUKE: I cannot concur in that view. A bargain creates an obligation. A declaration of intention may, of course,

      1851
      bind a man and make it a point of honour, but it depends on the circumstances. Can it be that a Government which has answered a question as to its intention to do a certain thing is bound at whatever cost to the State to perform a promise which it knows or is satisfied cannot be performed except at the sacrifice of the public interest? I am convinced there is no principle under which the Government of any country which has made a promise which cannot be performed without prejudice to the public interest may not properly consider whether it is a fitting opportunity to perform it. The difference is between an obligation dependent upon a bargain and a declaration or a promise, and I say that the announcement which was made was, at the most, no more than a promise which the Government was bound to reconsider.
      Mr. DILLON: No wonder we would not negotiate!
      Mr. BILLING Mr. BILLING rose—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has no right to stand up in his place.
      Mr. BILLING Mr. BILLING remained standing.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has no right to stand up and interrupt the speaker who is in possession.
      Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. I think some Member should have risen in this House and protested against the statements from the Government Bench that a promise by the Government was not an obligation.
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
      Mr. DUKE: Now I come to the question whether in a state of facts which had arisen in this case it was the duty of the Government to act upon the declaration. It is a question of what was in the public interest with respect to the publication of the proceedings of these courts-martial. What is put forward on the other side is that, however improvident the declaration may be, notwithstanding its improvidence and notwithstanding the fatal consequences which might result from it, the Government is bound by that declaration. But the first duty of the Government of this country, in the public interest of this country, is to maintain security, peace, and order.
      Mr. DILLON: And honour!
      Mr. DUKE: Yes, and honour. If the Government, by giving effect to a declaration or promise of that kind, had precipitated disorder in Ireland and had possibly provoked bloodshed in that country as a consequence of the fulfilment of the promise at a specific time, I submit to the House it would have been held to blame, and deservedly so, by the great majority of the people of this country. On this matter opinions may differ, but the opinion of the Government on the subject was that it was the business of the Government to ascertain whether the promise made last year could be safely and securely performed at the time the question arose, and the Government came to the firm conclusion that that promise could not be performed with due regard to the safety of the public at that time.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Why was it not carried out when it was made?
      Mr. DUKE: I can only say that this is a matter on which the Government is in the judgment of the House. If the Government is right in the view it has taken that the paramount consideration is the well-being of Ireland and of the United Kingdom, this promise must be judged in the light of those matters, and then the Government was justified in the decision I have stated. I have spoken with regard to the alleged breach of faith as well as the allegation that the proceedings of the courts-martial were irregular, if not wrong. I come now to the matter to which the hon. Member referred in the latter part of his speech. He charged my right hon. Friend with having more or less threatened the Irish party that, by their action, they were invoking a general election.
      Mr. DILLON: That was what all the Press said.
      Mr. DUKE: I am not assured of the infallibility even of all the Press. There have been occasions when even the hon. Member has not been content to be judged by the verdict of all the Press. But, be that as it may, I think I may say what my right hon. Friend's intention was. My right hon. Friend has assured hon. Members that there was no intention on his part to threaten, and I should have thought that any man at all familiar with the Irish party in this House would have known that the last possible way to deal with them is by threats. On the other hand, the Irish Members, or at any rate many

      1853
      of them, are very astute Parliamentarians, and in fact it is presumptuous on my part, although I have spent a good many years in this House, even to pass judgment on them. There are many among them who are my seniors in experience in Parliamentary procedure. But is it an improper thing to remind a Parliamentary party or to remind the House of Commons that if, in time of war, the unity of the House is substantially broken, and if we become a divided House of Commons and if common support for a common end is not given to His Majesty's Government, then that Government must give place to some successor that can be found here who will command the general confidence of the House and avoid a breach of unity, or it must appeal to the country at large as to whether in its general proceedings, whatever incidental errors may attach to them—whether in its general proceedings it has the countenance and support of the people of the United Kingdom?
      Mr. DILLON: Why did you not appeal against Carson?
      Mr. DUKE: I appeal against nobody. I have never appealed against hon. Members. I see no reason to do it. But I feel the dangers to which my right hon. Friend referred, and to which the hon. Member for East Mayo has referred—that people who do not grasp the bearings of the difficult situation between England and Ireland may be misled in their judgment by the events of these times, and that would be detrimental to this country, and even more detrimental to the hopes of many Irishmen. My right hon. Friend intended to point that out. It is suggested that he pointed it out with too great emphasis. But it is a matter patent to many men in this House and out of it that if there is an impossibility of co-operation upon the general objects which the Government has in view with the members of the Irish party, their numbers, their ability, and their diligent attendance in this House make them so appreciable a force, that no Government can disregard the possibility of combinations which may from day to day result from the existence in the House of a large, watchful body of Members whose first object is to defeat the Administration. Such a possibility may render it necessary, before a public disaster of that kind happens in the face of the enemy, that the Government should ascertain whether its proceedings are not wholly satisfactory to the
      1854
      general body of people of the three Kingdoms. If that is a true view of the matter, then, with great respect to my right hon. Friend and the House, I say there is nothing improper in the reminder he gave.
      Mr. HAZLETON: The promise!
      Mr. DUKE: Hon. Members tell us that an election now or later on is not of great consequence to them. I think they are right. I believe I know accurately enough the condition of affairs in Ireland to be reasonably satisfied that that view of theirs is correct. The dominant consideration at the present time in this matter, as in all the other matters to which I have referred, which the Government has to consider is not what is good for a party or for a particular interest, however serious or important that interest may be, but to consider what is essential for the effective prosecution of the War. On these various matters on the grounds which I have stated, however imperfectly, the view of the Government has been that the steps which it has taken are the steps which it ought to take in view of the vigorous and effective prosecution of the War. In that view of the matter I have nothing to apologise for in any of those things.
      Mr. DEVLIN: I have listened, I will not say altogether, but largely, with considerable patience to the speech which has been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and I confess that never in all my life, and I have listened to many speeches in my time, have I heard so disastrous an attempt as that the right hon. Gentleman has made to cloud the issues with words. He has been challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) upon two clear and specific points. One of them was on the non-performance of a promise or the non-fulfilment of a pledge given by the Government to publish the evidence at those secret courts-martial, and the other was in regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. It would have been an extremely easy thing for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in half a dozen sentences to have laid down a new moral doctrine that a promise is not a promise, although we know on these benches that a promise is a promise unless it is made to Ireland by a British Minister. [An HON. MEMBER: "Scraps of paper!"] He has in his speech talked

      1855
      about the promise, and has occupied a large part of the time in distinguishing between a promise and a pledge, and having satisfied himself as to the distinction between a promise and a pledge, he then told us what an obligation was, and then entered into a metaphysical discussion as to what a declaration was. None of us on these benches, least of all myself, desire to enter into metaphysical or legal arguments or subtle arguments with the right hon. Gentleman. I have stated before, not in this connection, but in others, that those of us who are plain, blunt men—and we claim to be nothing else—know how to put a question and know when we receive a clear answer. What was the question that was put to the late Prime Minister? My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo asked the Prime Minister
      "Whether he will now direct that the proceedings of Irish courts-martial shall be published?"
      The Prime Minister's reply was:
      "Yes. Sir, I will arrange for this to be done."
      That may not be a promise, it may not be an obligation, it may not be a direction, it may not be a pledge, but to me it contains them all, and to any ordinary, simple citizen it contains them all. And when that pledge and promise was made, when that declaration was given from that Table by the Prime Minister that this evidence would be published, we accepted that pledge given across the floor of the House as a solemn pledge that would be kept and that its obligation would be fulfilled. What excuse does the, right hon. Gentleman offer for not fulfilling that pledge? He states that in the public interest it is not desirable that the pledge should be kept. What do you mean by the public interest? You mean your interest. Whenever you break a pledge towards Ireland you always tell us it is in the public interest, but the public interest is never Irish interest, but English interest, and British interest, and Cabinet interest, and dishonesty. The right hon. Gentleman stated that it was undesirable, owing to the conditions that existed in Ireland, that this promise should be kept. Did these conditions not operate when this promise was made? Did not the then Prime Minister come back from Ireland and say that Dublin Castle rule and all that it stood for had broken down and that you had nothing but a bankrupt and a discredited system in that country? And even when he made that statement he still
      1856
      declared that he would publish the evidence upon which these men were convicted. The Chief Secretary has said that he has taken advice, and that that is why this evidence has not been published. Who is the adviser? Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me his attention for a moment? He has stated that he has taken advice as to whether he should perform the promise of his own Prime Minister in the Government of which he was the governor of Ireland. Whose advice has he taken? Was it the advice of Major Price? Who are those dispassionate persons whom the right hon. Gentleman, with a most solemn unctiousness, always flings across at these benches when we ask that Irish opinion should be consulted? Who are these mysterious Solomons in Ireland with whom the right hon. Gentleman gets into communion when he goes over there?' Who are these wise men who are only to be found in the secret chambers of Dublin Castle?
      With all this windy oratory that we have heard in the House of Commons, one thing I must complain of. In any criticism I offer to the right hon. Gentleman I wish to make it clear that no one admits more intensely and sincerely than I do how deep and profound and sincere are his desires to do good for Ireland, and in criticising the right hon. Gentleman I always keep that in mind; but it is not Ireland that is suffering from a reign of terror. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is suffering from the terrorists in Ireland, the Russian reactionaries who are governing that country. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House smile, but if they lived in Ireland they would perfectly understand, as we do, that the worst form of reaction that existed in Russia before the nation liberated itself from thraldom was not anything comparable to the form of reaction in Ireland, because there you do it under the cover of democratic institutions. We want to know who are these dispassionate persons, who. in the secret chambers of Dublin Castle, advised the right hon. Gentleman not mark you, to satisfy us. but to carry out the promises to fulfil the pledges of the Prime-Minister of England solemnly given at that bench! When next he quotes advisers I trust he will give their names to the House of Commons, that the House of Commons, and the representatives of Ireland may be able to appraise the value

      1857
      of the gentlemen he has constituted his private advisers in matters affecting the interests of Ireland.
      I will tell you why the evidence is not published! You are afraid to publish it! These secret trials were the substance out of which you evolved the tragedy of Ireland in the last six months. You say that if the evidence is published it will evoke fresh manifestations of public passion and draw forth fresh manifestations of public indignation. Why? Are you afraid that it will be proof against you? That is why I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman a moment or two ago. One of the men who was sentenced to death before one of the secret tribunals, and the evidence against whom we desire to bring to the public eye, was Mr. John MacNeill. The right hon. Gentleman was making a sweeping assertion, but with the true skill of the subtle lawyer he tried to ride off on a side issue when I put the question to him after he had stated that all these men were caught with arms in their hands. I put the question to him: Was Mr. John MacNeill caught with arms in his hands? Would the House believe that not only was Mr. John MacNeill not found with arms in his hands, but that a day or two before the rebellion he sent messages all over Ireland to try to prevent the rising?
      Mr. John MacNeill was sentenced to death. That sentence was subsequently commuted to penal servitude for life, and many people believe that penal servitude is a greater horror than if the death sentence is carried out. We want to know, and the Government have a right to tell us, on what evidence the case was based, and what reasons can be given, or were given before this secret tribunal, why a brilliant Irish scholar, with whom I have frequently differed for the last five or six years on politics, and with whom I have engaged in many political contests, is kept in prison, not for carrying arms—because you know he did not do it! not for inspiring rebellion—because you know he tried to prevent it, and prevented many people from taking part in it! We want this information and we want it now. The idea of a great English lawyer and defender of constitutional principle standing at that box opposite and declaring that because bad blood would be created or passions aroused that justice should not be dope, is, in my
      1858
      judgment, a degradation of everything that man holds dear in the administration of justice in these islands.
      I come to the next question, that of martial law in Ireland. Why is martial law continued in Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman did not answer that question, although he had the assistance of the Under-Secretary for War. He replies, "Oh, there may be martial law in Ireland, but it is not put into operation. "Is it simply there as a picturesque monument to the glory of your rule? Are, you keeping it there as a public tribute to the tragedy you have created? Is it there as an English joke? Martial law is not in operation. We ask you to withdraw it, and you will not tell us you will. You say it is simply a Proclamation. Is a written document posted round the country to frighten potential rebels to be a sacrosanct piece of paper like a scrap of paper we are told about that was seered and scarred by German treachery. I never heard from anyone, much less from a great lawyer, that you are to keep a Proclamation in existence—a Proclamation that insults the country, and affronts the general good order of the nation—as a picture to remind us day after day of the tragic story and record of the last six months, a blot on your administration, a disgrace to the spirit of mercy that should have permeated your administration after the rebellion, and a record of one of those dark things that men want to clear away, to obscure and destroy if possible, if ever good relationship is again to commence between these two isles.
      The right hon. Gentleman not only engaged in a most unlawyerlike defence of legal principles and a most unconstitutional dialectical argument upon constitutional questions, but he gave us a little lecture upon peace and order. There was one word he did not use, and the other two words are only an insult without the third. There are three things which constitute the trinity of noble and inspiring things that make men proud—peace, order, and liberty. But peace and order are degradation without liberty. You want peace while you have martial law, and you want order in a country in which you are the chief architects of the disorder that exists. It is perfectly true—none feel it more deeply and profoundly than we do—how needful peace is to Ireland, that has So long with bleeding feet walked the thorny path of

      1859
      sacrifice and of agitation. We want order, because without order we cannot have that foundation of industrial and commercial greatness which we trust to build up on the new-laid foundations of a future free Ireland. But you will never have peace and order until you establish liberty, and I hope—I do not care whether it is in Ireland or in Russia, or what country in the world it is—I hope there will be neither peace nor order until the country has liberty. I am not a student of Russian affairs, but I have not the slightest doubt that there was not a miscreant in a high place in Russia who did not preach peace and order to the wretched, starving peasants, who, in the indignation and passion of their souls, tore down the foul system of government in Russia and breathed liberty and hope to that great land again. I am quite sure if the rhetorical reactionaries ascended the forum in Russia they preached to them peace and order, but if they preached peace and order the people replied, "Yes, peace with liberty and order with liberty." And that is what I say to the right hon. Gentleman in whose hands to-day is the custody not only of the peace of Ireland, the order of the nation, but the liberty of a country about which he knows enough to know that, whatever your material reforms may be, the soul of Ireland is insuppressible and the spirit of our race will remain for ever, and the Irish question can only be ended when you solve it upon those principles of freedom which have inspired the people of Russia to secure their own.
      I want to say one or two words with reference to the speech of the Leader of the House. I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he did not intend to make a threat, but the right hon. Gentleman rarely says anything in the House that he does not mean. If he has one admirable quality it is frankness, and the one fault I have to find with British statesmen is that they do not know how to be frank. The Leader of the House is always perfectly frank, but whether it was meant as a threat or not it had no terrors for us. We do not fear a General Election. For months I, for one, have longed for it. There is nothing that would give better satisfaction to those on the Nationalist Benches than to have an opportunity before our own people, grossly misrepresented as we have been, of testing all the issues involved in a conflict of that character in Ireland. I
      1860
      do not mind that part of it, but what I did mind was the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that this issue was to be fought out upon an anti-Irish cry. If you choose to have a General Election on that I wish you luck of the result, but you cannot assail Irishmen at home without assailing the gallant men who are fighting your battles. They are bone of our bone and blood of our blood. They went to fight because we asked them to go, and it would in my judgment be an extraordinary evolution in the political existence of this House of Commons and of the conflicts of British politics if while the magnificent gallantry of our sons who made their names glorious on the fields of battle in Europe you are stumping from county to county and village to village arousing the passions of the British people against those men who have been the glorious standard-bearers in the moment of your greatest Imperial necessity. And then when you have done it, if you did it, remember that the British people are not altogether blind and deaf, and they would be able to adjust matters at this election, and do you think you would find us in Ireland fighting for our existence because we fought for you in your time of trial, and that you could hold us up to the scorn of this country. There are still brave and generous hearts and brave men who would know how false was the assumption upon which you based your case when you assailed us before the British people, and then when it was all over, where would you be? You would not have a number of Irish members endeavouring to make wrong right, as we have only tried to do in those questions which have come up for discussion in the House. At the end of a tired Parliament of ten years you would have my colleagues and myself, and perhaps others, you would have Irishmen coming here unless you robbed us of the franchise altogether, and you could do that, and you could do it to show how generous England could be when Russia has broken the fetters that bound her to the chariot wheels of reaction. But while we have the franchise and Members are sent here will you find it easier when the Irish representatives come back to Parliament than you find it now? Will the course of British politics run more smoothly? Will the hand of the right hon. Gentleman be less heavy upon the Parliamentary machine than it is to-day? No, Sir; you may bring back angry Englishmen, but you will bring back angry Irish-

      1861
      men as well, and then what a happy hope for this Empire when the War is over, that your one success in Imperial statesmanship, even if you win on the field of battle, is that you have set two races we have tried to bring together at each other's throats! All the work of those of us who have preached the policy of conciliation and good will and who have learned to hear the names of British working men cheered upon Irish Nationalist platforms as we have heard the names of Irishmen cheered upon English platforms, is ended in further tragedy, and this is the civil triumph that you hand down to posterity with your great military triumphs in the field of battle! As far as we are concerned, we do not desire it. We will neither foster ill-feeling nor provoke it; but we will perform our Parliamentary duties and exercise our rightful functions in this House whether it suits your convenience or whether it does not.
      I want to know why I am here, and why my colleagues are here in this House? I put this question not only to myself and to every member of my party, but to members of all parties in every section of this House. Have we lost our manhood? Have we given up our freedom? Are we to trample upon the constitutional right which the constituencies have given to us to speak of the things we will in a Parliament which ought to be, and is, the vocal expression of the will of the people? I am not here to cross the "t's" and dot the "i's" of the right hon. Gentleman. I would not remain in any Parliament for twenty-four hours unless I were to be permitted, within the bounds of decency and moderation, to express what I felt to be my conviction and the conviction of my colleagues. The moment that Ireland is robbed of that right in this Parliament by the threat, or what is meant as a threat, or what is taken as a threat if it is not intended as a threat, of a General Election, the greatest blow is struck that can be struck at the constitutional freedom of this country and at the very root of democratic government, and in my judgment it is an insult to any democratic Assembly. Therefore, whether you have a General Election or not, we are perfectly indifferent. We do not want to be here to obstruct your business if you regard our criticism as obstruction. If you feel that you are sacrosanct statesmen, and you do not want anyone to criticise you or to question anything that you do, we do not want to be here to do it.
      1862
      Let us go back to our own country and to work in our own way and for our own nation, and you will have very little trouble with us, but while we are here you will not muzzle us. You will not muzzle the representatives of Ireland either by threats or by cajolery or by any other process. We have done nothing that I am aware of to make your task in the pursuit of the War difficult. Why we are angels, we are archangels, in criticism compared with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson). I watched him in his criticism of the last Government. I watched him stand at the Table. He was infinitely more ferocious than I am. I am afraid that, although he was infinitely more ferocious, he was infinitely more effective than I am, because he drove himself into the Ministry, and I am to be driven to face my Constituents. You see the intellectual and balancing powers of the wiseacres who now guide the destinies of this Empire.
      If, instead of being a humble private Member, with nothing behind me but the strength of my cause, I happened to be an aggressive and powerful politician, finding that rebellion as an overt act does not pay, but that rebellion as an intellectual posture frightens a Ministry, then I think the House will admit that the crime which my colleagues and I have committed is not a crime beyond repair. The proper thing is not to give moderate criticism to the Government but to make it violent, to form a ginger group, then to take them into the Cabinet and the ginger disappears. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo gave two specific instances, one where there was a shriek in the pro-war Press of this country for the dismissal of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty when something happened that the "Daily Mail" did not like. The ginger group was moved to manifestations of the most hostile and violent opposition to the Government because of this. The other instance was when a worse thing occurred a few weeks afterwards under the direction of the chief of the ginger group, who had found his place and lost his ginger. Then what was high treason in the old Government was an act of the most profound strategic naval skill. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we do not want to get into the Cabinet. We want simply to discharge our duty to our Constituents. We are here to speak for our country. I am sorry for the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

      1863
      I wish he were more frank in this House with Members of the House. No one questions his honesty, but I wish he were more frank. If he were to give us straighter answers, cloud his opinions less in words, give us not scientific and subtle dissertations upon constitutional law and legal principles, but simply hard facts and human feeling, he would find it would be better for himself and better for the country of which he is for the moment the Governmental custodian.
      Mr. HOLT: I wish to protest against the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman as to the validity of Ministerial promises. He told the House just now that when a Minister makes a definite promise he is entitled to repudiate it if on subsequent reflection he finds it is not, in his opinion, in accordance with his convenience to make it good. I believe the business of the House will never be conducted fairly if Ministers adopt the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to maintain. It is absolutely inconsistent with the fair conduct of business as between Ministers and Members of the House if we are to be told that a Ministerial promise can be repudiated at any moment the Minister thinks it suitable to do so. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a very interesting disquisition on the difference between the Defence of the Realm Acts and martial law. I defy anyone who heard it to find in it any reason which would not have been equally applicable to the proclamation of martial law in England, because he told us the proclamation of martial law in Ireland had no effect upon any respectable person. If that is true, why not have martial law over the whole country? It is as good an argument in one case as in the other.
      Then the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of the non-publication of the evidence and gave two reasons for not publishing it. The first was that it was notorious that all these people were guilty. I object altogether to persons being kept in prison on the statement of a Minister that it is notorious that they are guilty. That is one of the very worst reasons that could be produced for keeping people in prison. The other reason was that attached to every one of these stories is a very terrible tragedy. That may be quite correct, but is it a reason for not publishing the evidence? If it is true surely it is a fact that the public ought to know. How is the
      1864
      ordinary elector in England, to whom it is a vital business to settle this dispute between England and Ireland, to know in what way to shape his conduct if he is not told such a vital fact as that the foundation of this rebellion in Ireland is that there is a terrible tragedy in connection with the lives of a great many persons. Surely it is fundamental that if we, are to settle by democratic government great matters of statesmanship, the people of this country should know the whole truth. The two reasons given for the non-publication of the evidence are really very strong reasons why that evidence should be published. We in England at any rate ought to know for what reason a large number of Irishmen Have been sent to very long terms of imprisonment. There are a great many people, not only in Ireland, who do not trust the sentences of courts-martial, and, least of all, sentences on civilians who, it is alleged, were engaged in the rebellion. A court-martial is not a legal tribunal. It does not consist of trained lawyers; it has no civil element upon it, and it is necessarily biassed in favour of the military. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, for every reason, will reconsider his decision, and that he will make good the pledge made by the Prime Minister under whom he was serving twelve months ago, and publish the evidence which was promised in this House.
      Mr. BILLING: I rise to support the action which I took while the Chief Secretary for Ireland was speaking. I have heard during my very brief presence in this House some extraordinary statements from the Front Bench, but I did not think that I should ever live to hear a member of the Government say from that bench that a promise and an honourable undertaking given by the Prime Minister of the British Government is a thing that can be lightly broken. That is why I rose when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking. I think that no sufficient explanation was given by the right hon. Gentleman why this promise was not fulfilled. I do not propose now to go into the details of the case because they have been so admirably handled by the Irish Members, but I do say that on all these important matters, when a Member of the Front Bench rises, he tries to hide the issue in a wilderness of words. If you put down a question on an important matter and they cannot give an

      1865
      answer they try to confuse you. I considered that it was my duty to rise and to register at least my protest against the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made. If there is one thing that we have, or had, a right to be proud of in this country it was that the Government stood by its Prime Minister. What is the use of the cry that is made throughout the land on the question of other Governments breaking their obligations if we lightly break ours? I hold no brief for the Irish party or for any party in this House. I came here quite alone, and I do hold a brief for liberty, for freedom, and for freedom of speech in this House, and if this War has brought this country to such a pass that freedom in this House must be suppressed then I think the best thing the Government can do is to take the temper of the country. I have raised this point again and again that political tinkering in this House is as bad and as rotten to-day as ever it was before the War. The Conservative party to-day are using the present Prime Minister just like children have used Guy Fawkes for many years past. They are trundling him through the streets of the city, and if they go to the country they will trundle him through the streets of every town and city, and will say, "Vote for Lloyd George and National Government." What will be the result if they go to the country? Half the people are disfranchised because this Govern-
      ment will not give the franchise to the people, and because they will not give us a register. They will go to the country with the best blood of the country out of it, and with all the bad feeling of an Irish problem which they have absolutely failed to solve, because there is not a statesman among them. I think that the members of the Front Bench, both now and in the past, are living examples of the depths to which party politics can bring a country. They will go to the country, and they will—
      It being Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Report of the Vote.
      Question put, "That '£38,023,000' stand part of the said Resolution"
      Mr. BOOTH(seated and covered:) Perhaps, Sir, you did not notice that I wished to address the House?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I noticed it, but I also noticed the Standing Orders of the House, which tell me to put the Question at Eleven o'clock.
      Mr. PRINGLE(seated and covered:) What is the Standing Order that the Question be now put?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Fifteen, paragraph 6.
      The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 45.

      Division No. 16.]

      AYES.

      [11.0 p.m.

      Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Howard, John Geoffrey

      Astor, Hon. Waldorf

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Johnston, Christopher, N.

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      i Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

      Dixon, C. H.

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Barnett, Captain R. W.

      Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Fell, Arthur

      Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

      Bellairs, Commander C. W.

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Finney, Samuel

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Kerry, Earl of

      Bird, Alfred

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Black, Sir Arthur W.

      Gelder, Sir W. A.

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

      Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Boles, Lieut-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

      Grant, J. A.

      Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Gretton, John

      Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Buxton, Noel

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

      Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

      Macleod, John Mackintosh

      Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

      Hanson, Charles Augustin

      Macmaster, Donald

      Clyde, James Avon

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Maden, Sir John Henry

      Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Mallalieu, Frederick William

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Hewart, Sir Gordon

      Middlebrook, Sir William

      Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Millar, James Duncan

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Hills, John Waller

      Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

      Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

      Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

      Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Hohler, G. F.

      Newman, John R. P.

      Currie, George W.

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)'

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon William

      Robinson, Sidney

      Walker, Colonel William Hall

      Paget, Almeric Hugh

      Rowlands, James

      Watt, Henry A.

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Weston, J. W.

      Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      Whiteley, Herbert James

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

      Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

      Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      Pratt, J. W.

      Stewart, Gershom.

      Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

      Wing, Thomas Edward

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

      Yate, Colonel C. E.

      Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

      Thomas-Starford, Charles

      Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

      Tickler, T. G.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Touche, Sir George Alexander

      Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Primrose

      Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      NOES.

      Billing, Pemberton

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

      Hackett, John

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Hazieton, Richard

      O'Dowd, John

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Holt, Richard Durning

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Byrne, Alfred

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Roddy, Michael

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Joyce, Michael

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Cosgrave. James

      Keating, Matthew

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Crumley, Patrick

      King, Joseph

      Sheehy, David

      Devlin, Joseph

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Dillon, John

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Tootill, Robert

      Doris, William

      McGhee, Richard

      Whitty, Patrick Joseph

      Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

      MacNeill. J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Duffy, William J.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Field, William

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Molloy. Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr.Boland

      Fitzpatrick. John Lalor

      Nolan, Joseph

      Question put, and agreed to.

      Remaining Resolutions to be considered To-morrow.
      The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  FOOD SUPPLIES (IRELAND).
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question. "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. BYRNE: On last Thursday, and on previous occasions, I endeavoured to call the attention of the House to the scarcity of food in Ireland, and I asked the Chief Secretary if he would issue instructions to prevent the issue of any further licence for the export of potatoes or any other foods from that country. His answers to me were most evasive; they were like his speeches, rather long, evading the question which was put. The shortage of food is becoming really dangerous in Ireland, when it is remembered that only a month ago the President of the Department of Agriculture stated that there were only enough potatoes in Ireland at that time for Irish needs. Since then. I understand there have been several licences issued to exporters, and large
  1868
  quantities of food required for Irish use have been sent to this country. I certainly say that England must be fed, but as an Irish representative standing here, I say my first duty is to see that Ireland is fed. Your people in this country are earning very good money, and they are in a much better position than the Irish people to pay the enhanced prices of foodstuffs which is the result of both Government agents and agents of English firms travelling over Ireland from one town to another purchasing all the foodstuffs they can lay their hands on, and it is making it very difficult for the Irish people to get their ordinary supplies.
  As an instance of what is going on in Ireland, I may mention a case which will perhaps be considered personal, but it is something which has occurred within the last fourteen days. In the smoke-room of the House of Commons I was asked by a certain firm in England if I would take a commission from them. I asked what it was, and I was offered a cheque-book, to draw any money that I wished, and to go to Ireland and buy anything that I could lay my hands upon and export it to this country. I was told that I could buy butter, eggs, sheep, cattle, and anything I could get in the shape of foodstuff and export it from my own country to this country. The offer at the time was a rather tempting one to me, but I felt that

  1869
  my duty was first to my own people, and it is not my intention if I can help it to see any repetition of the famine of 1847. There are sufficient Members in this House to look after the needs of England without my aid. The latest returns we have got of the trade imports and exports for Ireland are for the year 1915. These show-that in 1914 farm produce alone was exported from Ireland to the value of £41,000,000, while in 1915 the value of the exports was £48,000,000, an increase of £7,000,000 in one year. We are also providing for 50,000 more troops in 1915 and 1916 than in previous years, and in view of these facts hon. Members of the House will agree it is time that something should be done to prevent any further exports of food from Ireland. To-day in the Irish papers I see it announced that the Government are to be requested to start food depots to provide for the poor in the city of Dublin. Potato factors state that their supplies are exhausted and that their employés are to be dismissed this week. In the words of an English paper of last Saturday, the time for crying that the wolf has come is past, and that the wolf is here. The wolf has come to the door of the homes of the poor people in Ireland, and, I am sorry to say, has got in, because there are no munition works there to help our people to earn the large wages that people are earning in this country. It is not necessary in Ireland to put up huge posters asking people to economise and not to buy pianos and other things, for the people have not sufficient money at the present time to provide themselves with the ordinary necessaries of life. That fact will be brought to the attention of the Chief Secretary within the next few days. There are no potatoes, no wheat, no garden produce coming into Ireland for the last twelve months. All those things are going out, and there must be some stop put to it. I only ask that whatever food is in Ireland at present shall be retained for the Irish people. I think the time has come for State control of foodstuffs and that the Government should commandeer all the food, have an equal distribution, and give an Irishman and his family the same amount as you are giving to an Englishman. I do not ask more for the Irish than I do for the English. I think it would be very easy to find out the quantity of potatoes that are in Ireland to-day and find out the population, and what is required to keep a supply sufficient to meet
  1870
  the requirements of the people, and if there is anything left send it by all means to this country.
  We are, as I have stated, providing for 50,000 troops. When I tell you that there is an application in at present, or an endeavour made by a representative in this House to obtain a licence for the export of 58,000 tons of potatoes from Ireland, I want to know when is it going to end? The President of the Department of Agriculture states that there is only a sufficient supply of potatoes in the country to meet the requirements of the people, and yet we have a Member of this House applying for a licence to export 50,000 tons of their needs. I ask hon. Members, would it be tolerated if you were asked to export foodstuffs from England required for English people? I do not think it would. It was pointed out in this House the other day that a Mr. Denniss stated that in the United Kingdom to-day you have only half a pound of potatoes per head per week for the population. If 50,000 tons of potatoes, or 100 tons leave Ireland, what will become of the half pound per head for our people? I only ask a fair due for our people, nothing more or less. It will be surprising to state that the imports into Ireland for the year 1915 are recorded in the Blue Book issued by the Department of Agriculture as the lowest on record, and the exports from that country are the highest on record, and it goes on to state that the wheat and flour imports into Ireland are the lowest ever known. Am I asking too much when I ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite favourably to consider my request to issue an order to prevent any further export of food from Ireland. The potato exports in 1914 were £634,000, and in 1915 £765,000, a difference of £130,000. The figures for 1916 are not to hand, but I understand that they are even far greater than those figures given. The exports of eggs in 1914 amounted to £3,383, and in 1915 to £4,799, a difference of over £l,400. [An HON. MEMBER: "YOU got a profit out of it!"] My hon. Friend says that the profit has been put into our pocket. That is one of my points. I object to one or two farmers or food exporters profiteering. I object to those people getting the money and lodging it in the banks and not expending anything on industries in our country and sending food over here and depriving our people of it.
  The export of fish from Ireland in 1914 was £451,000, and in 1915 £659,000, a

  1871
  difference of over £200,000. In 1912 the cattle exports to this country were £8,000,000, and in 1915 they were £15,000,000, a difference of £7,000,000. The Report goes on to state that the figures indicate with sufficient accuracy the importance of the part played by Ireland as a supplier of foodstuffs to Great Britain. I hope that Ireland will continue to occupy that position. Our country is an agricultural country, but I think that during a year of war, when there is a scarcity, and when it is necessary for people to pay fabulous prices for food supplies, the people who have not got the money to pay those prices should not be allowed to starve. We have had one year of it already. I put a question on the Paper to-day which was not reached, and I drew attention to the fact that out of four or five streets examined in the City of Dublin there were sixty-five families in one street living on wages of less than 10s. a week. There is a condition of affairs in a civilised country—a man and his family having to live on less than 10s. a week with potatoes 2s. a stone and with another is for the rent of a small tenement room My hon. Friend knows something of the deplorable condition of housing in Dublin. Imagine a man living on 10s., or £1, or even 30s. a week during the War! I could give many cases. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to prevent any further food supplies leaving Ireland, whether groceries, provisions, or potatoes, for it is his duty to see that the food required for home consumption shall be kept for the people of Ireland.
  Mr. DUKE: This is a wholesale proposal for cutting off the Irish producer of foodstuffs from the free market, which I am afraid will cause a good deal of alarm in all sections of his fellow countrymen, for they regard it as a serious proposition.
  Mr. BYRNE: During the War.
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member spoke of the condition of affairs in 1915, and of the exports of foodstuffs from Ireland. These figures were alarming. As a matter of fact, they denoted the prosperity of Irish agriculturists as well as advantage to England. They were high figures that he gave, but they were of benefit to the whole of Ireland. The hon. Member has made his proposal, but does anybody who professes to speak on behalf of the people of Ireland suggest that these exports of food are not entirely advantageous to the sister country? The hon. Member has emphasised these figures because there is a scarcity of potatoes in Ireland, and he wishes that all the Irish food in Ireland shall be kept for home consumption. The truth of the matter is that in regard to the general commodities to which he has referred there is abundance in Ireland, and in the ordinary course of business it is in the interests of Ireland, as well as England, that there should be a free market. In regard to the scarcity of potatoes, from the time that scarcity began to be apparent Government has been forced vigorously to control their export. The hon. Member speaks of the export of potatoes as though anybody who likes can send them out of the country. Nothing of the kind has happened. There has been rigorous control. It has been resented and protested against by the potato-growers in Ulster. That control will continue to be imposed. As for cutting off Ireland from those markets and impoverishing the masses of the agricultural population of Ireland, I am not willing to entertain that idea either at the dictation of the hon. Member or of anybody else.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  RUSSIAN REFUGEES.
  RUSSIAN REFUGEES.
  PAPER-MAKING MATERIAL.
  PAPER-MAKING MATERIAL.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  COMMUNAL KITCHENS.
  COMMUNAL KITCHENS.
  IRISH PRODUCE (PRICES).
  IRISH PRODUCE (PRICES).
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  HOME-GROWN WHEAT.
  HOME-GROWN WHEAT.
  WAR CABINET POLICY.
  WAR CABINET POLICY.
  SOLDIERS ON FARMS.
  SOLDIERS ON FARMS.
  FISH.
  FISH.
  OATS.
  OATS.
  TEA EXPORT.
  TEA EXPORT.
  FARM PRODUCE (GUARANTEED PRICES).
  FARM PRODUCE (GUARANTEED PRICES).
  CROPS (DAMAGE BY BOOKS).
  CROPS (DAMAGE BY BOOKS).
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  DINGLE FISHING INDUSTRY.
  DINGLE FISHING INDUSTRY.
  SHIPPING LOSSES.
  SHIPPING LOSSES.
  ENEMY SUBMARINES (SPEED).
  ENEMY SUBMARINES (SPEED).
  ROYAL NAVY (ENGINEER-LIEUTENANTS).
  ROYAL NAVY (ENGINEER-LIEUTENANTS).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  SOLDIERS UNDBE AGE.
  SOLDIERS UNDBE AGE.
  ARMY OFFICERS (INFORMATION TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  ARMY OFFICERS (INFORMATION TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
AIR SERVICES.
  PILOTS.
  PILOTS.
  AEROPLANES (ORDERS).
  AEROPLANES (ORDERS).
  BUILDING POLICY.
  BUILDING POLICY.
  WELLINGTON BARRACKS.
  WELLINGTON BARRACKS.
  TROOPS AT SALONIKA (MOSQUITO NETTING).
  TROOPS AT SALONIKA (MOSQUITO NETTING).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ARMY SUPPLIES, IRELAND (SIR M. LEVY'S REPORT).
  ARMY SUPPLIES, IRELAND (SIR M. LEVY'S REPORT).
  SALE OF INTOXICANTS (PETITIONS FOR PROHIBITION).
  SALE OF INTOXICANTS (PETITIONS FOR PROHIBITION).
  DISABLED SERVICE MEN (MEASURES FOR RESTORATION).
  DISABLED SERVICE MEN (MEASURES FOR RESTORATION).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  PERSIA (SEISTAN FIELD FORCE).
  PERSIA (SEISTAN FIELD FORCE).
  POLITICAL PRISONERS.
  POLITICAL PRISONERS.
  BRITISH SUBJECTS OF GERMAN PARENTAGE (BIRMINGHAM).
  BRITISH SUBJECTS OF GERMAN PARENTAGE (BIRMINGHAM).
  UNNATURALISED GERMAN (WATLING STREET).
  UNNATURALISED GERMAN (WATLING STREET).
  PRISON STAFFS (WAR BONUS).
  PRISON STAFFS (WAR BONUS).
  SIR R. A. JONES.
  SIR R. A. JONES.
  STRAWBERRY GROWING (TRANSIT FACILITIES).
  STRAWBERRY GROWING (TRANSIT FACILITIES).
  SULPHATE OF AMMONIA (EXPORTS).
  SULPHATE OF AMMONIA (EXPORTS).
  COAL MINES (HOURS OF WORK).
  COAL MINES (HOURS OF WORK).
  STANDARD SHIPS (SEAMEN'S QUARTERS).
  STANDARD SHIPS (SEAMEN'S QUARTERS).
  BREWING MATERIALS (TRANSPORT).
  BREWING MATERIALS (TRANSPORT).
  GENERAL POST OFFICE, DUBLIN (PENSIONERS).
  GENERAL POST OFFICE, DUBLIN (PENSIONERS).
  NATIONAL SERVICE (NEUTRAL AND ALLIED SUBJECTS).
  NATIONAL SERVICE (NEUTRAL AND ALLIED SUBJECTS).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (EXCHANGE).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (EXCHANGE).
  Evicted Tenant (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenant (Ireland).
WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  TRANSFERRED CIVIL SERVANTS (SALARIES).
  TRANSFERRED CIVIL SERVANTS (SALARIES).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  SUGAR
  SUGAR
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  ST. PATRICK'S DAY (IRELAND).
  ST. PATRICK'S DAY (IRELAND).
  TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (PRECEDENCE).
  TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (PRECEDENCE).
  COURTS-MARTIAL.
  COURTS-MARTIAL.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  HUNT SERVANTS.
  HUNT SERVANTS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  ARMY OFFICERS (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE).
  ARMY OFFICERS (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE).
MUNITIONS.
  WORKERS DEBADGED.
  WORKERS DEBADGED.
  SERVICE INVENTORS.
  SERVICE INVENTORS.
  BEER OUTPUT (RESTRICTION).
  BEER OUTPUT (RESTRICTION).
  IRISH TRADE.
  IRISH TRADE.
RESTRICTED IMPORTS.
  TOBACCO.
  TOBACCO.
  APPLICATION OF PROCLAMATION.
  APPLICATION OF PROCLAMATION.
  LABOUR-SAVING MACHINES.
  LABOUR-SAVING MACHINES.
  SHIPPING (ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES).
  SHIPPING (ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Lime (Athenry).
  Lime (Athenry).
WAR.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
    FROZEN MEAT.
    FROZEN MEAT.
    IRISH BACON.
    IRISH BACON.
    CROPS PROTECTION (SPORTING CARTRIDGES).
    CROPS PROTECTION (SPORTING CARTRIDGES).
    PRODUCTION SCHEME (IRELAND).
    PRODUCTION SCHEME (IRELAND).
    LAND CULTIVATION (IRELAND).
    LAND CULTIVATION (IRELAND).
  DEPORTATION FROM IRELAND (Mr. J. J. O'KELLY).
  DEPORTATION FROM IRELAND (Mr. J. J. O'KELLY).
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND.
  BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, IRELAND (EMPLOYES' WAGES).
  BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, IRELAND (EMPLOYES' WAGES).
  ANTI-AIRCRAFT CORPS (CONTRACT).
  ANTI-AIRCRAFT CORPS (CONTRACT).
  ROYAL NAVAL AIR SERVICE.
  ROYAL NAVAL AIR SERVICE.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    Y.M.C.A. WORKERS.
    Y.M.C.A. WORKERS.
    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  GOODS TRANSIT (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  GOODS TRANSIT (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  RENT INCREASES (GLASGOW).
  RENT INCREASES (GLASGOW).
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND UNPAID APPOINTMENTS.
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND UNPAID APPOINTMENTS.
  NATIONAL SERVICE (ADMIRALTY EMPLOYES).
  NATIONAL SERVICE (ADMIRALTY EMPLOYES).
  Listowel Magistrates.
  Listowel Magistrates.
  Poverty (Dublin).
  Poverty (Dublin).
  Prison Officers (Ireland).
  Prison Officers (Ireland).
  National Insurance (Irish Teachers).
  National Insurance (Irish Teachers).
  Education (England and Wales).
  Education (England and Wales).
  District Railway.
  District Railway.