Sitting of 21 March 1917

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

DEATH OF DUCHESS OF CONNAUGHT.
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Beck) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:
I return you My most sincere thanks for your loyal and dutiful Address expressing sympathy with Me in the bereavement which I have sustained by the death of My beloved Aunt, the Duchess of Connaught. The assurance of your affectionate and dutiful participation in all that concerns My feelings and interests is a source to Me of comfort in My great loss.
BRIGADIER-GENERAL LOWTHER reported Answer of the Duke of Connaught to the Message of Condolence on the occasion of the death of the Duchess of Connaught:
Clarence House,
St. James's, S.W.
I desire to express to the House of Commons my most heartfelt thanks for their vote of condolence on the death of my beloved wife. I deeply appreciate their thought of me at this sad moment.
ARTHUR.
21 st March, 1917.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Minute of the Board of Education, dated 21st March, 1917, modifying the Regulations for Public Elementary Schools, 1912, in England and Wales, as already modified by the Minutes dated 4th July, 1913, and 24th June, 1914, and 25th November, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MEDICAL COUNCIL.
Accounts presented of the General Medical Council and Branch Councils, and of the Dental Registration Fund, for 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
OUTPUT OF COAL IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 20th March; Sir Albert Stanley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 51.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911 (PART I.), ACCOUNT.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
Account showing the nature and amount of the Securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt at 31st December, 1916, as investments for moneys, forming part of the National Health Insurance Fund, paid over to them by the Insurance Commissioners for England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, under Section 54 (3) of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to be printed, [No. 52.]

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:—

1. "That, in the case of the Cork Improvement, Petition for the Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the Lancashire Power Construction Company [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

3. "That, in the case of the Port of London Authority (Various Powers) Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of 'the Essex County Council' against the Bill, the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

Resolutions agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    INDIA.

      IMPERIAL CONFERENCES.
      Sir. J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether His Majesty's Government contemplates any action which would result in representatives of the Dominions being given authority to decide questions relating exclusively to the peoples and the administration of India, or to exercise in this behalf any influence denied to representatives of India?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir; no such action is contemplated. No doubt my hon. Friend will know representatives of India are attending of the Imperial War Cabinet and of the Imperial War Conference.
      Sir J. D. REES: Has my right hon. Friend seen that there are certain misconceptions on this subject to which expression is given in the Indian Press?

      GOVERNMENT PRESS, ALLAHABAD.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India if he will state in what circumstances Mr. Lionel Curtis made use of the Government Press at Allahabad; and whether any official recognition has been or is accorded to writings by that gentleman printed by that official institution?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The document referred to was printed at the Government Press in accordance with the practice which permits the Press to undertake private work when it is not fully occupied with Government orders. In such cases a suitable charge is made for the work done. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

      IMPORT DUTIES ON COTTON.
      Sir HENRY MADENasked the Secretary of State for India whether any representation has been made to the Government of India by any chamber of commerce or any other public body in India in favour of the increase of Import Duties on cotton manufactures; and, if so, whether he will agree to their publication?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any such representations.
      Mr. BARTONasked the Secretary of State for India whether, pending the promised reconsideration at the end of the War, it may be taken that the Import and Excise Duties on Indian cotton goods will remain unaltered, and that 4 per cent. Will continue to be the difference between the two?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; that is our intention, and I do not think that anything will occur to make it impossible of fulfilment.

      OFFICERS' LEAVE.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether officers both of the British and Indian Armies serving under the Indian Government proceeding from India, Mesopotamia, or Aden on duty or leave, sick or otherwise, to England, or vice, versâ, are generally granted long-sea passages and hence have to proceed at their own expense across the Continent, while, on the other hand, officers serving under the War Office, proceeding from Salonika or Egypt to England, or vice versâ, on duty or leave, are given free passage across the Continent, thus causing differentiation of treatment and unnecessary expense to those serving under the Indian Government; and whether arrangements can be made to put both Services on the same footing?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under recent arrangements officers of the British or Indian Army proceeding from India, Mesopotamia or Aden on duty or on leave and granted free passage viâ the Mediterranean travel at the public expense through France on the same terms as officers from Salonika or Egypt.

      GOLD MINIG
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether gold mining has been or will be declared an essential industry?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not altogether clear as to the meaning of my hon. Friend's question, but no such declaration has been made or is at present contemplated.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is anything contemplated in India somewhat similar to the National Service movement in this country? It was so stated in some of the papers.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend does not know his own question. The question is whether gold mining has been or will be declared an essential industry?
      Sir J. D. REES: Yes, I know; but I will put it down again.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines to whom the conspicuous gallantry medal has been awarded since 4th August, 1914; whether the medal may be accompanied by the grant of an annuity not exceeding £20; the number of recipients of the medal during hostilities who have been awarded annuities and the rate of each; and the rating or rank of those to whom annuities have not been awarded and the reasons of the non-award?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): From 4th August, 1914, up to 16th December last, fifty-two conspicuous gallantry medals were awarded. An annuity not exceeding £20 may be granted at the discretion of the Admiralty to petty officers of the Royal Navy and sergeants of the Royal Marines, who, whether before or after attaining those ratings have been awarded the conspicuous gallantry medal. The number of such annuities granted during the present War is twenty-eight, namely, twenty-four of £10 and four of £20. Furthermore, a seaman or marine in possession of the medal without an annuity may be paid a gratuity of £20 on discharge, or promotion to a commission, or, should he die while serving, the gratuity is paid to his estate. All recipients of the conspicuous gallantry medal who did not receive an annuity are of the relative ratings of leading seaman, corporal, or below. The reason for the non-award in these cases is the restriction imposed by the Order in Council dealing with the medal, which debars ratings below those of petty officer Royal Navy or sergeant Royal Marines. Any man, however, who attains the specified rating become eligible for consideration for an annuity.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend take into account this Order in Council, which deprives the ordinary seaman and the leading seaman of the annuity which is given with the medal to the higher ranks?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Order in Council is a pretty old one, and I think it might be reviewed.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the scale of pensions and gratuities payable to petty officers and men of the Royal Navy, and non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Marines, who continue to serve in His Majesty's forces after having been wounded or disabled in His Majesty's service?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Pensions or gratuities for wounds, etc., are only granted to men on their discharge from the Service, in compensation for the loss of earning power caused by the service. So long as the men remain on full pay, with all the privileges attached thereto,. no question of awarding any compensation arises.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why officers who are wounded receive pensions before they are discharged and men do not?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That is not the question.
  Mr. HOGGE: Well, can you answer the question?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any steps have yet been taken to increase the separation allowance in the case of the parents of apprentices or students who would by this time have been earning larger wages and salaries and making substantial contributions to their parents' support?
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Bewdley Division), whether, in view of the fact that the new Royal Pension Warrant admits liability for prospective earnings in the case of apprentices who have been killed while serving in the Army, he will apply the same principle to separation allowances in cases where had the lads remained at home they would now have been receiving journeyman wages?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer these questions. I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer which was given on this subject on the 22nd February by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the-Ministry of Pensions.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Are any steps being taken in the matter?
  Mr. FORSTER: I think the Parliamentary Secretary said that steps had been taken.

  ROYAL NAVY (WRITERS).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of writer ranks and ratings promoted to commissioned officer (ward room) rank since the commencement of hostilities; the number of commissions as assistant-paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, respectively, given to civilians during the same period; the age and qualifications requisite for the promotion of a chief writer, Royal Navy, to warrant rank; and the age and qualifications requisite for a commission as assistant-paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, respectively?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No writer ranks or ratings have been promoted to commissioned rank since the commencement of hostilities, as commissioned rank has not been established for the branch. The answer to the second part of the question is 1,002 Royal Naval Reserve, and 100 Royal Naval Volunteer Reserves, excluding those serving in the Royal Naval Division. These figures include those who have been killed, died, or discharged since war broke out. Also a number of those given commissions were not taken direct from civil life, but were serving in the Forces in some capacity. The qualifications for the promotion of a chief writer to warrant rank are that the man must be not less than thirty-five years of age, and must have had five years' service as chief writer. The minimum age for promotion to assistant paymaster Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve is twenty-one. For entry as assistant paymaster Royal Naval Reserve three years' experience, in and a good knowledge of accounts is necessary. Candidates for entry as assistant paymaster Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve must be suitable for clerical duties, these officers not, as a rule, being required to perform accountant duties. I might add that for some time past candidates for commissions as assistant paymaster have only been accepted if rejected for military service, or placed in classes B 3 or C 3.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the fact that over 1,000 commissions have been given from the outside to this rank of the Navy, and that not a single commission has been given to one of these men since the War broke out?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We were glad to get the services of these gentlemen for the War period. If we had given acting commissioned rank for the time being to the writers most of them would have to revert to non-commissioned rank again after the War. That is not at all desirable.
  Mr. HOGGE: Why should these men not get the advantage of the warrant commissions?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend is referring to writers, and thinks they ought to get commission rank open to them. That has been presented to us many times, and the whole question of the writers must, as I have said, be reviewed at the close of hostilities.
  Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is it the custom in the Navy to reduce a man from a commissioned to a non-commissioned rank for no fault of his own?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, that is not the case. These are pressing needs. We met them by giving temporary commissions. If we had met them by giving commissions to the writers we should have been compelled, having regard to the establishment of the Navy hereafter, to put a man back again to non-commissioned rank, a very undesirable proceeding.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the present and future need for accountant officers, Royal Navy, a proportion of the requirements will be met by promotions from long-service writer ranks and ratings?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question on the 21st November last to the effect that the present practice of considering the promotion of writer ranks and ratings when the number of assistant clerks to be entered is decided would be continued.

  BOARD OF ADMIRALTY (SEA LORDS).
  Mr. C. HARMSWORTHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the

  1881
  Board of Admiralty now meets formally from time to time as a Board; and whether all the Sea Lords are regarded as entitled at meetings of the Board to tender their independent advice to him on matters relating to general naval policy?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Edward Carson): The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
  Mr. BILLING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to the statement made in this House yesterday, whether it is the custom to ask for the advice or whether it is supposed to be forthcoming without being asked?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.
  Mr. FABER: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Sea Lords when the Board meets are regarded not only as being entitled to tender their independent advice, but are asked by him to tender it?
  Sir E. CARSON: I always expect to get the fullest advice and assistance from all the Sea Lords.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, without detriment to the public service, whether the Sea Lords are entitled or are invited to tender advice on questions of specific naval operations?
  Sir E. CARSON: Certainly—they may be.
  Commander BELLAIRS: In order to clinch the matter, may I ask whether the Sea Lords, other than the First Sea Lord, have recovered that power of which they were deprived by the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1914–15?
  Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask why you ruled my Question out of order, seeing it is similar to the one put by the hon. Member for Clapham?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question was not the same. This question arises directly out of what has gone before. The question of the hon. Member is one which required notice, as it arose out of yesterday's proceedings.
  Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. I would like to say, Sir, that my question was identical with the question asked by the hon. Member.
  Mr. SPEAKER: When the hon. Gentleman sees his question on the Paper he will see that it is different.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    FERTILISERS FOR HOLLAND.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether they have lately released cargoes of fertilisers for Holland; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that our farmers are much in want of fertilisers and do not send their potato flour to Germany, as is the case with Holland, he could see his way to stopping the supply of fertilisers to Holland?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of BLOCKADE (Commander Leverton Harris): Instructions have been given to allow certain cargoes of fertilisers which are consigned to the Netherlands Government from abroad, to proceed to their destination conditional upon guarantees being given regarding their distribution. Holland has imported fertilisers in quantities far below the normal figures of pre-war years. Thus 157,000 tons were imported in 1916, as against an average of 1,301,000 tons a year in the three years 1911-13, or 556,000 tons a year after allowing for all exports to other countries.
    Mr. FABER: May I inquire whether the time has not arrived when we cannot afford to export fertilisers to Holland or anyone else?
    Commander HARRIS: The fertilisers referred to are fertilisers from abroad.
    Mr. FABER: They have been imported into this country on the hypothesis that we need them: is not that so?
    Commander HARRIS: They are fertilisers from neutral countries for Holland.
    Mr. WATT: Is it not the case that there is an exceptional shortness of fertilisers in this country at present?
    Commander HARRIS: Of course there is.
    Mr. WATT: Then why do you export them?

    DANISH EXPORTS.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Denmark has supplied this country with the

    1883
    quantities of goods stipulated under the agreement; and, if not, what steps does he propose to take to keep Denmark to her agreement in the future and recover the goods not supplied in the past?
    Commander HARRIS: There is no agreement such as the hon. Member assumes to regulate Danish imports into the United Kingdom.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Danish slaughter companies have been sending to Germany about 39 per cent, of the production instead of 14 per cent. As agreed upon; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Commander HARRIS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to his previous question.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the London Chamber of Commerce instructed its members not to send goods to neutrals without obtaining adequate guarantees that the goods were for home consumption only, and when, on a protest being made by the commercial community of Denmark, the Foreign Office instructed the London Chamber of Commerce that they must not interfere, why the Foreign Office interfered, in view of the fact that the Danes have not kept their agreement and have failed to supply us with the produce stipulated; can he say why the Foreign Office protects the Danes against our own people; and will he have this policy reversed at once?
    Commander HARRIS: I understand that the London Chamber of Commerce have advised their members who may be exporting goods to Denmark that, in order to comply with the Customs (War Powers) Act, 1915, Section 1, they should obtain personal guarantees from their Danish consignees, in addition to those given to His Majesty's Government by the Danish Chamber of Manufacturers' and Merchants' Guild. The Foreign Office have not, as suggested by the hon. Member, "instructed the London Chamber of Commerce that they must not interfere," but have simply asked to see the circular in which the above recommendation was made, and the Chamber's reasons for issuing it.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there
    1884
    are now a number of cargo steamers loaded up with feeding stuffs for Denmark in British ports; and, if so, will they be allowed to go to Denmark to supply food for animals destined for German consumption when our farmers are so badly off for feeding stuffs for our own animals?
    Commander HARRIS: Yes, Sir. The grant of clearance to these vessels is being made dependent on the supply to this country of satisfactory quantities of Danish agricultural produce. I would add that the cargoes of these vessels have not been loaded in the United Kingdom, but have come from overseas.
    Major HUNT: Seeing that Denmark has failed to forward the supplies she promised, why does the Foreign Office continue to allow these goods to go into Denmark?
    Commander. HARRIS: No, Sir; Denmark has not failed to do what she promised.
    Mr. PETO: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his answer to Question 25 with that he has just given to No. 20, namely, that there is no arrangement whatever in regard to the export of Danish produce to this country?
    Commander HARRIS: There is no arrangement with regard to the export here of Danish produce.
    Mr. PETO: Does the Foreign Office hope to make one?
    Colonel YATE: Is it not the fact that the exports of linseed cake to Denmark is the cause of the enormous rise in the price of these articles in this country?
    Commander HARRIS: No, Sir; the feeding stuffs referred to are not from this country to Denmark, but from foreign countries
    Colonel YATE: Could you not, when they come here, keep them here for the benefit of our own country?

    POTATO FLOUR.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Dutch official statistical bureau in January last issued a statement showing that licences had been granted during the space of thirty-three days for the export of 3,274,000 kilos of potato flour to Germany and only of 40,000 kilos of potato flour to this country, he can

    1885
    say why the Foreign Office allow Holland to supply so much to Germany whilst sending so little to this country?
    Commander HARRIS: The export in question was of potato flour made of the Dutch potato crop of 1915. It had not been imported into Holland, and being Dutch home produce did not in any way come under the control of His Majesty's Government.

    PIG-FEEDING.
    Colonel HOPEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is any system in the Navy to ensure that no food refuse or swill is thrown overboard from ships in harbour and that where possible it is brought into port from ships at sea and sold for pig-feeding; and whether, in view of the difficulty the large pig-feeding industry in the vicinity of Edinburgh finds in feeding its stock under present conditions, he can arrange that facilities should be given for pig-feeders to purchase all the refuse which can by care be saved from the Fleet in the Forth?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The disposal of food refuse for feeding pigs has been in operation at certain naval establishments for some time, and the question of extending the system generally to the Fleet and naval bases, wherever practicable, has recently been under the consideration of the Admiralty. The detailed orders which are about to be issued on the subject will provide facilities for the sale locally of the refuse.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether in some agricultural districts ploughmen are still being taken for military service; and whether, if in such districts the supply of ploughmen is regarded as being more than equal to local needs, the military authorities will take immediate steps to release them for work in other districts where they are urgently required?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There are undoubted excesses in certain parts of the country from which agricultural labourers recruited badly in the voluntary days and in which they have been over-protected by tribunals. As demands for ploughmen come in from the war agricultural committees and also on the initiative of local military authorities ploughmen serving as soldiers are sent to meet acute needs.

    HOME-GROWN SUPPLIES.
    Mr. PETOasked whether the Report of the Agricultural Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee can be laid upon the Table?
    Mr. RUNCIMANasked the Prime Minister whether he will give instructions for the already completed Part I. of the Report of the Agricultural Committee, presided over by Lord Selborne and appointed in August, 1916, to consider and report upon the methods of effecting an increase in the homegrown food supplies, having regard to the need for such an increase in the interest of national security, to be circulated to the Members of the House of Commons before the Government introduce any Bill or Resolutions to carry their agricultural proposals into effect?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The Report will be circulated before the introduction of the Bill which is necessary to carry into effect the agricultural proposals announced by the Prime Minister.

    CORN PURCHASES (ROUMANIA).
    Mr. GINNELLasked what amount of British and Irish public money was paid last year for corn in Roumania; whether any corn was obtained for it; what is the prospect of recovering the money for which no value has been received; and where an audited account of the transaction can be seen?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the hon. Member on the 21st February last.
    Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to answer the last clause of this question, as to where an audited account of the transaction can be seen.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The transaction, as the House will understand, ought not to be made public.

    MATERIALS USED IN BREWING.
    Mr. JAMES MASONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give figures showing the ultimate feeding value of the materials used in brewing if consumed as beer and, its by-products being converted by feeding cows, milk, if consumed directly by human beings, and if converted into meat by feeding to cattle, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): A reply to this question is contained in a paragraph, which is too long to read in answer to a Parliamentary question, on page 33 of the Report drawn up by a Committee of the Royal Society, and published this year as Command Paper 8421, a copy of which I am sending the hon. Member.
    Mr. J. MASON: Would my hon. Friend consider the desirability of restricting the feeding of barley to animals with a view to increasing the proportion used in the making of bread?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The matter has already engaged the attention of the President of the Board.

    FISH (PRE-PAYMENT OK RAILWAY RATES).
    Mr. EUGENE WASONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received petitions from the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce, the Aberdeen Fish Trade Association, and the Alloa fishermen, pointing out the injurious effects that the prepayment of the railway carriage on fish would have on the fishing industry throughout the country; whether a largely attended deputation of representatives of the fishing industry attended last Wednesday, the 14th, a meeting of the Railway Executive Committee; whether he has received any reply from that body as to the course of action they intend to pursue: and what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. TICKLERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the railway companies have given notice to the public that on and after 2nd April next all fish consigned by passenger trains must be carriage-paid in advance; that this regulation will be a hardship to the consignors, many of whom, owing to the high price of fish, have their capital fully employed; and will he recommend to the Railway Executive Committee that the present conditions be allowed to stand?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): I have received several representations of an important character with regard to the effect on the fishing industry of the proposed prepayment of passenger train traffic, but I am not at the moment in a position to say more than that I am in communication with the
    1888
    Railway Executive Committee as to the possibility of making some concession in this matter.
    Mr. E. WASON: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement at an early date, because the Order comes into force on the 2nd April? Will he be able to make it next week?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware of the urgency, and will facilitate the matter as far as practicable.
    Sir J. AINSWORTH: Would it not be easier to arrange that the consignee should be liable if the consignor is not able to prepay owing to weather and other reasons at the moment of dispatch?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I will take note of that suggestion.

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS.

    GIBRALTAR.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the minimum wage in the Gibraltar Dockyard is 13s. 6d. a week, plus 15 per cent, temporary increase for the duration of the War, making 15s. 6d. per week; that the same class of work in the Royal Dockyards in this country is paid at the rate of 25s. per week, plus war bonus 7s., or 32s. per week; seeing that the cost of living at Gibraltar is equally as expensive as here, can he see his way to equalise the payments as to the minimum rates paid to dockyard labourers at Gibraltar and in the home yards; and will he say when the artisans and labourers employed in His Majesty's Dockyard. Gibraltar, may expect a reply to the petition sent in in 1914?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The existing minimum wage for adult male labour is, at Gibraltar, 13s. 6d. a week, plus a war bonus of 15 per cent; and at the home dockyards, 24s. a week, plus a war bonus of 7s. I cannot agree that the cost of living for local entrants at Gibraltar is as high as for workmen of similar grades in this country. As regards the last part of the question, the petition referred to was fully considered, and it was decided that the requirements of the case would more suitably be met by the award of a war bonus than by the grant of permanent increases in the present rates of pay.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Why was not that answer given to the men at Gibraltar instead of being given to the House of Commons two years later?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I imagined it was known; at any rate, the bonus has been given.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men have not been informed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The best reply to that is that they have received the bonus of 15 per cent.
    Sir C KINLOCH-COOKE: After two years?

  SUBMARINE SERVICE.
  Mr. BILLINGasked if it is the custom to give any additional pay to officers in the submarine service; if so, when does this pay commence; when does it terminate; and for what reason is it given?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Officers in the Submarine Service receive additional pay as follows:—
  Above the rank of sublietenant ………… 6s. a day.
  Of or below that rank … …… 4s. a day.
  The allowance begins on joining for duty and terminates on the cessation of duty, being continued throughout periods of leave. It is also continued during sickness, subject to the following rules:—
  If the sickness is due to
  the Submarine Service for … 91 days.
  Otherwise ………… for 30 days.
  The allowance is given as compensation for risk and hardship.
  Officers in submarines also receive the ordinary Service allowances—e.g., Command money and charge pay for engines.
  Mr. BILLING: Is it customary to give this pay which, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, is risk pay to these officers who are in the Admiralty, and have not been outside the Admiralty since the beginning of the War?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend suggests that the additional pay is being given in cases where officers and men in point of fact are not on submarine duty. I will look into that.
  Mr. BILLING: If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied will he take action in the matter?

  KENTISH COAST RAID.
  Mr. PRINGLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement regarding the recent raids by German destroyers upon the Kentish coast?
  Sir E. CARSON: I have nothing to add to the statement already published.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not the statement already published included the torpedoing of a hospital ship in the Channel?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of a question as to the raid on the Kentish coast.

  ARABIA.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make a statement on the political affairs of the Hedjaz and other parts of Arabia, and the operations of the Turks in the vicinity of Aden?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): Early in November last the Grand Sherif Hussain assumed the title and office of King at the request of the Ulema and Notables of Mecca, approved by the unanimous vote of the people, and has been recognised as King of Hedjaz by the Allied Governments. His Highness has established his authority, and has entered into close relations with the important Chieftain Ibn Saud of Nejd and with the Shaykh of Koweit, who have warmly approved the step he has taken. Another important Chief, Idrisi of Asir, has also risen against the Turks. The only remaining pro-Turkish Chiefs of any consequence are the Imam of Yemen, who is isolated, and Ibn Rashid, the head of the Shammar, whose influence is decidedly on the wane. With regard to the second part of the question, I would point out to my hon. Friend that as the Turkish force near Aden is isolated from Turkish headquarters, and the Turkish military authorities have consequently no means of ascertaining its dispositions or condition, except through our Press, I would prefer not to give any reply, except to say that we regard the position as satisfactory.

  REVOLUTION IN RUSSIA.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will have present to his mind the advantages in recognising as promptly as possible the Government now acting in Russia; and whether, in view of the propagandist effect, he will send a Proclamation of approval and congratulation to the Russian Duma?
  Mr. BALFOUR: A statement on both these points will be made in the immediate future.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask if full encouragement will be given to that magnificent Republican spirit now sweeping through Russia?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must keep that for a speech.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, during his recent visit to Russia, Lord Milner attempted to interfere, directly or in directly, in the internal politics of Russia; and, if he did, what was the nature of that interference?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that many Russian Jews now in this country, being delighted at the recent revolution in Russia and the promise of the revolutionary Government to give absolute freedom and equality to all races and religions in the Russian Empire., are now preparing to return to Russia; whether in approved cases he will encourage such return; and whether he will in the meantime withdraw or suspend his decision forcibly to deport Jews to Russia?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have no information as to the first part of the question; the meaning of the second part is not clear; and as to the third, my right hon. Friend has made no such decision as is suggested.
  Mr. KING: Would the hon. Member be glad to receive information on the first part of the question if I submit it to him?
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Will the Government communicate with the new
  1892
  Russian Government as to their policy to see whether it is identical with the policy of the old Government?
  Mr. BRACE: I am sorry I could not hear a word the hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. HARVEY: Will the Government communicate with the new Russian Government as to their policy to see whether it is identical with the policy of the old Government?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly put the question down in the ordinary way?
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any assurance of the safety of the ex-Emperor, whose conduct has given a bloodless character to the Russian revolution?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as our information goes we have no reason to believe that there is any ground for fear as to the safety of the ex-Czar or of the members of his family.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: Is there any ground at all for suggesting that any voluntary conduct on the part of the ex-Emperor was the cause of the bloodless character of the Russian revolution?

  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposals have been put forward through the good offices of neutral Powers for arranging with the enemy reciprocally for the internment in a neutral country or countries of all prisoners of war who were captured in the years 1914 and 1915; and, if not, whether he is prepared to put forward the proposal?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): A proposal to intern in a neutral country as many as can be provided for of the officers and men who have been longest in captivity is now before the War Cabinet. In this connection I would refer my hon. Friend to a statement made in another place by my Noble Friend Lord Newton yesterday.
  Mr. PETO: Will my hon. Friend do his utmost to see that these negotiations, if they are initiated, arrive at a satisfactory

  1893
  conclusion, and save those men from a further term of imprisonment under present conditions?
  Mr. HOPE: I am afraid the matter is removed into a sphere too exalted for me to enter.

  FIJI.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the House the substance, or place in the Library the text, of the Indian Immigration Ordinance in force in Fiji subjecting men to forced labour and women to forced prostitution, thus rendering marriage laws and civilisation impossible among them; and under what law, in these circumstances, each woman is subjected to from three to five men according to the proportion of the sexes in the community?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Long): There is of course no such law in Fiji as is indicated in the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this has appeared in several newspapers?

  GERMAN EAST AFRICA (SLAVES).
  General IVOR PHILIPPSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any of the slaves in that portion of German East Africa now occupied by British troops were owned by the German Government and by German officials or settlers; if so, in whose possession such slaves now are; and what steps are being taken for their care and protection?
  Mr. LONG: I have no information on the subject, but I will cause inquiry to be made.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    ENLISTMENT OF UNFIT.
    Sir WALTER ESSEXasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the in quest held at New Hospital, Stafford, on the body of Private George Arthur Will-day, who died at Brocton Camp; whether he is aware that the Royal Army Medical Corps surgeon declared the man had mitral disease of the heart and enlarged
    1894
    liver and ought to have been rejected, or at best classed in C3; whether he has noted the coroner's reprobation of the doctor who carelessly passed this man into the Army; and what action does he propose to take upon the case?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I have called for a Report, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

    TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS (FURLOUGH).
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the privilege of one month's furlough to time-expired soldiers is still in existence if they elect to continue to serve for the duration of the War; and if a man who, having completed thirteen years in the Army, elects to continue to serve either for the duration of the War or to complete twenty-one years' service will be on the footing of a conscript although he has never left the Army at all?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; the privilege is still in existence, provided that the exigencies of the service permit, and that accommodation in leave boats or transports is available in the case of men overseas. If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of the case which he has in mind in the last part of the question, I will let him know how the matter stands.
    Mr. BILLING: Would the hon. Gentleman state if it is customary to give equality in each case, and not give leave once, twice, or three times to one man, when other men have had no leave at all?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: We cannot give leave two or three times to the same man because he is time-expired.

    CERTIFICATES OF EXEMPTION (MEN UNDER 31).
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a circular has been issued directing the military authorities to bring under the review of the tribunals all exempted men under the age of thirty-one, including those engaged in agriculture?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Instructions have been issued under the directions of the War Cabinet that all certificates of exemption granted to men under thirty-one years of age are to be reviewed with certain exceptions. Men engaged in agriculture are among the exceptions.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Are the recruiting authorities paying any attention to it? Are they not reviewing the cases of men in agriculture under the age of thirty-one?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: All that I know is that we have issued these instructions. If my right hon. Friend will give me some cases where they have not paid any attention to the instructions, I will look into them.
    Mr. LOUGH: When the exemptions have been for a short time, such as two months, is it not possible for the War Office to arrange that such cases shall not be reviewed until the time has expired?

    MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION (NOTICES).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the military authorities maintain that a notice has been sent before 1st September, 1916, to a man who has already been rejected for military service within the meaning of Section 3 (2) of the Military Service Act (Session 2), although the man never received such notice in consequence of its being sent either to an address which he never occupied or to an address which he had left, he having properly registered his change of address; and whether any such cases have been tested in the Law Courts, and with what result?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In all cases which have been referred to the War Office in which the notice has been misdirected or sent to an address at which the man never resided, instructions have been issued that the man is not liable for service. In cases in which the man has changed his address and the military authorities have not been notified of the change of address and the notice has been sent to the man's last registered place of abode of which the recruiting officer had notice, it is considered that the military authorities have complied with the terms of Section 3 (2) of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Secsion 2). A case in which the point is raised is being taken to the High Court.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Am I to understand from that, that if a man has changed his address, and has properly notified the military authorities, and they have sent a summons to the wrong address, and the summons has not been received, then the man is exempted?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think the hon. Member can understand that.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Then what does the answer mean? That is the question I have put on the Paper.

    OFFICERS DISMISSED (LIABILITY FOR SERVICE).
    Mr. BILLINGasked whether an-officer who is dismissed the Service for giving information which, though in the interests of the country, is not in the interests of his superior officers is, if he be of military age, immediately afterwards conscripted as a private soldier?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Any officer of military age, provided he is ordinarily resident in Great Britain, and has been dismissed the Service on grounds other than that of ill-health, is liable to be called up for service under the Military-Service Acts, 1916.

    HOME SERVICE (LABOUR BATTALIONS).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that men who are classified in category C1 for Home service are being drafted into labour battalions for service abroad; whether this procedure is in accordance with Army Council instructions; and, if not, whether he will take steps to secure-the observance of the said instructions?
    Mr. SNOWDENasked by what authority men who are in C category are being sent abroad attached to labour battalions, seeing that these men have been passed for Home service only?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The authority is-that of the Army Council. I would remind my hon. Friends that these classifications are not statutory, but are a convenient method of expressing certain general standards of medical fitness.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will my hon. Friend say whether these Army Council instructions-are available to Members of this House, or whether there are any in existence dealing with matters of this kind of which we do not know?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of this particular Army Council instruction, No. 204.
    Mr. HOGGE: What I asked was whether there are others in existence which are not published?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, though not referring to this. But every Army Council instruction is not of public utility.
    Mr. HOGGE: No, but it affects the public.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Are these men medically re-examined?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand they are medically re-examined. Whether they are re-classified I do not know; but I may tell my hon. Friend that we are reviewing all the classifications.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Regulations governing the work and pay of conscientious objectors at Princetown; will he give the rate of pay and allowances, and say how many days per week these men are required to work and how many hours a day; and whether they are free to roam without supervision after their work is finished until 9.30 p.m.?
    Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The rate of pay of all conscientious objectors employed under the Committee on the Employment of Conscientious Objectors is 8d. a day, from which a deduction, up to a maximum of 6d. a day, is made in cases where a separation allowance is being paid to the man's dependants. No allowances are paid to the men, except that a ration allowance of 1s. 7d. a day is paid to any man who is absent, with the Committee's approval, for a complete day from his quarters. The men at Princetown are required to work ten hours per day for five days in the week, and six and a half hours on Saturdays. The men are not prisoners and are at liberty between the hour of ceasing work and 9.30 p.m., when they have to be in their quarters.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the conscientious objectors now boarded at Princetown are still in receipt of rations on the following scale: Bread, 1½ lbs. per day or. 10½ lbs. per week, meat ¾lb. per day or 5½lbs. per week, potatoes ¼lb. per day or 1¾lbs. per week, ¼lb. per day or 1¾lbs. per week, margarine 2 ozs. per day or 14 ozs. per week, together with two pints of tea per day; and, if so, seeing that these rations exceed the allowances under the Food Controller's scale for persons in ordinary civil life, will he consider the advisability of placing these men on a less generous diet?
    Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The hon. Member has been misinformed as to the dietary, which has been framed so as to comply with the Food Controller's scale. The amount allowed of the articles which he mentions is as follows: Bread 9 ozs. a day, meat 6 ozs. a day, potatoes 8 ozs. a week, jam 2 ozs. a day, margarine ¾ ozs. a day, tea one pint a day.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that the rations stated in my question were posted at Princetown before the conscientious objectors arrived?
    Mr. BRACE: I have given my hon. Friend the facts as they are now.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Member answer my question?
    Mr. BRACE: If the hon. Member will put down a question I shall be glad to answer it.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I have put it down.

    RESERVE OF TEACHERS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, although education authorities are in want of teachers, there are qualified teachers in the Army of C3 qualification who are waiting to be used as substitutes without any immediate prospect of being so used; and whether, in the circum stances mentioned, he will arrange for qualified teachers to be put on Reserve and sent back to their work?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Steps have already been taken to order the transfer to the Reserve of teachers in medical categories below B I who are serving in this country, and who before enlistment were employed as teachers under local education authorities.

    CASE UNDER INVESTIGATION.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will have further inquiry made into the case of Gordon Barnes, Tallentire, Cockermouth, who, while suffering from an injured foot and unable to wear a boot, was taken by the military authorities and placed in the hospital at Carlisle; and if he can secure this man's release, at least temporarily, so that he can supervise the work on his farm which, though unfit for military service, he is able to do?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have already been in communication with my hon. Friend about this case. In accordance with his wish, I am having further inquiries made. When I receive a reply I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

    LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the military representative on the Bridlington (Yorkshire) military service tribunal is a Councillor Harker, whose wife is a member of the tribunal; and, seeing that it is the common practice of the military representative to threaten the tribunal before a decision is given that, unless the decision is in accord with his demand, he will take the case to the Appeal Tribunal, and in view of the resentment of many members of the tribunal with the conduct of the military representative, will he take steps to have some other person appointed in his place?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No complaints have been received about the way that Mr. Harker performs his duties, which are voluntary, and it is not proposed to take any action in regard to him.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the hon. Gentleman think it a desirable thing that a military representative on a tribunal should, before the tribunal decides a case, say that he will appeal unless he gets his own way?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must have further particulars about that allegation. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's statement.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: It is a fact.
    Mr. GODFREY COLLINSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what instructions have been given to the military representatives on the military service tribunals to carry out the undertaking given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Cabinet regard the production of food as even more important than the sending of additional men into the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Instructions have been given to the recruiting officers in England and Wales that in withdrawing men from agriculture for service in the Army the necessity for maintaining food production must not be lost sight of, and that for this purpose opportunity should be given to the local agricultural representatives to confer with recruiting officers as to the availability for service of
    1900
    individual men. Similar instructions have been issued in Scotland through the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Scottish Command.

    IRISH SOLDIERS (TRANSFERS TO IRISH UNITS).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why Private T. Casey, of the Seaforth Highlanders and formerly in an Irish regiment, has been refused a transfer to an Irish unit; and whether he will inquire into the case and arrange the transfer?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Casey was serving in the A.S.C., and was transferred to a Scottish regiment. On his applying for transfer to an Irish regiment inquiries were instituted, and it was discovered that Casey was fifty years of age and therefore too old for the Infantry. Instructions have been given for his retransfer to the Army Service Corps, in which he enlisted voluntarily.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that cases are constantly arising of disobedience to the instructions of the War Office by refusal to Irish recruits of the right to go into Irish regiments? May I add that a couple of days ago I heard of an Irishman who wanted to be put into an Irish regiment being compelled to go into a Scottish regiment and wear kilts for the first time?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend and his colleagues know that in each case brought to the notice of the War Office where that has been clone it has been rectified.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: May I hope, if I bring this case before my hon. Friend, that it will be rectified?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I can assure my hon. Friend that it will be investigated.

  SOLDIERS' EMBARKATION LEAVE.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the customary 48 hours' leave granted to all men who are warned for foreign service, especially Egypt and Mesopotamia, still obtains; and, if this custom has been stopped, can he give any reason for the same?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir. The customary leave still obtains for men warned for service overseas, subject to the exigencies of the Service. No exception is made in the case of those proceeding to Egypt and Mesopotamia.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Have not specific instances been given where men have been refused leave?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly; it all depends upon the exigencies of the Service. The general rule is that every soldier who is warned for a draft gets his draft leave, but very often instructions come at the very last moment, and there is no time.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that men have joined up on the 6th March and have been sent abroad on the 13th March without any leave whatever?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no knowledge on the point.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
  Major HILLSasked the Prime Minister whether he will give the House an opportunity of further discussing the Irish question; and whether such opportunity will be at an early date, and at any rate before the Easter adjournment?
  Colonel M'CALMONT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the vast majority of loyal men in Ireland of all parties are now serving His Majesty outside this country, and their views are just as much concerned in any negotiations on the subject of Ireland as anybody else, and will he consider the advisability of calling upon all Irishmen, first of all, to get on with the War and then consider this question after wards?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The subject can be raised upon the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

  LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF THE TREASURY.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the list of the Government published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 5th March two hon. Members are described as Lords Commissioners of the Treasury and three
  1902
  hon. Members as Junior Lords of the Treasury; what is the distinction between these offices; and which of these hon. Members receive a salary and which are unpaid?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The five hon. Members are Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and should all have been so described. I am arranging for the necessary correction to be made in the bound volumes of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The hon. Members for Sheffield, Linlithgow, and Halifax are paid, and the hon. Members for Bewdley and East Carmarthen are unpaid.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman also put down his own designation as a member of the War Cabinet?
  Mr. HOGGE: He does not want that to-be known.

  SIR STANLEY MAUDE'S PROCLAMATION.
  The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. DEVLIN:
  52. To ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Proclamation of Sir Stanley Maude to the people of Baghdad vilayet, stating that the people of Baghdad are not to understand that it is the wish of the British Government to impose upon them alien institutions; that it is the hope of the British Government that the aspirations of the philosophers and writers shall be realised, and that the people of Baghdad shall flourish, enjoying their wealth and substance under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws and their racial ideals; that it is the desire of the British people and the nations in alliance with them that the Arab race may rise once more to greatness and renown amongst the peoples of the earth, and that it shall bind itself together in unity and concord, and stating that there can be neither peace or prosperity where there is enmity and misgovernment; and whether the Government are prepared to do immediately for Ireland what Sir Stanley Maude has been authorised to proclaim they are resolved to do for the people of Baghdad and the whole Arab race.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Before I put this question, may I call attention to the fact that

  1903
  this Proclamation which I have quoted in my question has been considerably subedited at the Table, and that sonic of the most beautiful and striking passages have been deleted. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you can see your way to allow me to ask a question as I handed it in, and read the Proclamation to the House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is for that very purpose that I edited it myself. I am afraid it contained a great deal of Oriental and flowery language not suitable to our Western climate.
  Mr. DEVLIN: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that the passages that have been struck out have not been the beautiful Oriental ideas, but the modern political sagacity with which we want this House to be guided in relation to Ireland?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I endeavoured to keep all the best points.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will you make this concession as a compromise? Would you allow me to read one short passage at the end of the Proclamation which I think it is very important should be pressed upon the Government in view of the fact that they are at the present time considering the settlement of the Irish question. The passage is this:
  "O! people of Baghdad, remember that for Twenty-six generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have ever endeavoured to set one Arab against another in order that they may profit by their dissension"
  I would like to add that passage to those passages in the question, and perhaps the Leader of the House, with his usual promptitude and quickness will be able to answer the question as a whole.
  Mr. PETO: May I ask whether there is any analogy whatever between—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not take things too seriously.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The last paragraph which the hon. Member has read makes no change in the answer which I am going to give and which I regret to say contains no beautiful passages either Oriental or otherwise. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the last part I can add nothing to the statement made by the Prime Minister on the subject.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the historic character of this document, he will issue it as a White Paper to the Members of the House of Commons?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no objection to that course except the cost, and I will consider it.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a Proclamation made under circumstances of so historic a character, in view of the great triumph of the Allied cause, should not be issued to hon. Members on a mere question of cost, especially in view of the number of useless officials now being employed by the Cabinet?
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Stanley Maude is an Irishman and was probably thinking of the Irish situation?
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Was this Proclamation not written by an hon. Member of this House and telegraphed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am well aware that Sir Stanley Maude is an Irishman, but I hope he was thinking of something else when he was leading his troops into Bagdad. The Proclamation was not the work of any single individual, but was passed by the Government.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is it not possible that he was thinking of the cause of universal liberty for all nations?

  CULLODEN CONSOLIDATED COMPANY (SHARES).
  Sir J. JARDINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon what grounds the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury refuse to grant the Stock Exchange permission to deal in the Culloden Consolidated Company's shares, which are now and have been dealt in by outside concerns; and whether he is aware that the Culloden Consolidated Company is merely an amalgamation of two other companies arranged without any fresh subscription in cash?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Treasury declined to approve the issue in question, and in these circumstances the shares cannot, under Rule 4 (3) of the Temporary Regulations for the reopening of the

  1905
  Stock Exchange, be dealt with on the Exchange. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

  INCOME TAX AND EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there are any companies or firms whose principal place of business, as defined for Income Tax purposes as being situated in this country, whose profits are derived from manufacture in India which have been subjected since the outbreak of war to assessments in respect of Income Tax and Excess Profits Duty under the Finance Acts, 1915 and 1916; if so, what is the amount of Excess Profits Duty assessed on such companies; whether any companies so assessed have adopted measures during the past twelve months such as the transfer of the registered office to India, the effect of which is to no longer render their profits liable to the Excess Profits Duty or Income Tax; and whether the Government is aware that there are a number of manufacturing concerns, the principal part of whose capital is owned by persons resident in this country but whose business is carried on in India, who have made profits by the War Office contracts for the manufacture of sandbags and other munitions but who are exempt from Excess Profits Duty?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I could not undertake in the present pressure of public business to ascertain the amount of Excess Profits Duty so assessed. I understand that in a few instances the control and management of such companies have been transferred abroad, but this course of action does not result in any greater immunity from British taxation in respect of the profits arising from the businesses than is the case with other foreign or Dominion companies partly owned by persons resident in this country.

  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (DUBLIN).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the discontent among the employés in the salvage department (Army Ordnance De-
  1906
  partment) in Dublin caused by the conditions of employment in that Department; if he is aware that girls, aged from sixteen to nineteen years are being employed at 5s. per week to do men's work, and that women with wages from 10s. to 16s. per week are being asked to do work that is being paid for at the rate of 6s. per day in England; and if he will have inquiries made and the cause for complaint removed?
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that women are being employed in the salvage department of the Army Ordnance Department, Dublin, on work usually done by men and are being paid only from 10s. to 14s. per week; that girls of sixteen and seventeen years of age are being taken on at 5s. per week; and that, at the same time that women were being introduced, three men were given a week's notice and only at the last moment transferred to Island Bridge; and whether he will see that the women are paid the proper rates of wages and that no men are discharged to find places for women?
  Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries are being made, and the result will be communicated in due course.
  Mr. BYRNE: Could the hon. Gentleman give some guarantee that the parties who make these complaints will not be dismissed as the result of doing so, as has been done at Dublin Is it not very unfair that parties should be dismissed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been informed that inquiries are being made.

  DEPORTATIONS FROM IRELAND.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether ten Irishmen deported last month from Ireland to Oxford without charge or trial were on Monday removed by armed military escort from Oxford to Fairford, in Gloucestershire; whether they were manacled for the purpose of removal; who is responsible for the order of removal; what is the motive alleged to justify the removal; under what section of the Defence of the Realm Regulations these men were removed by armed force; whether it is intended to move in a similar manner the other eighteen men who were deported without trial; and, if so, will he have the order immediately cancelled?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: These men were accompanied by police officers in plain clothes, and not by a military escort. They were not manacled. They were removed by the order of the local competent military authority under War Office instructions, as it was considered undesirable to leave them in the city of Oxford. The fifth part of the question does not arise. There is no intention at present of removing the other eighteen men, and the last part of the question does not therefore arise.
  Mr. BYRNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men went to considerable expense in getting a house at Oxford, where they found difficulty in getting any assistance from people, and that just as they had the house completed they were removed, and will he say why that should be allowed?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot add anything to the answer that I have given.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say what crime these men had been guilty of. why they were deported to Oxford, and why now they have been removed from Oxford to another place?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. W. ROCH: Have any of these men been tried at all?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  IRISH INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION (RECEIVING DEPOT).
  Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether every important public body in Dublin city has passed resolutions asking that the examining and receiving depot be at once established; and, seeing that it has been recommended by contractors, manufacturers, and the civil and military authorities, whether he can explain the cause of delay?
  Mr. FORSTER: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for North Galway on the 14th instant, we are in communication with the Chief Secretary as to the extent to which we can co-operate in stimulating Irish industries and production, and the question of the receiving depot is included.
  Mr. FIELD: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he expects to be able to give some kind of definite reply? This question has been on the Paper for the last two or three years.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think that the discussion of this particular subject has extended over more like twenty years, but I hope to be in a position to give a definite reply before very long.
  Mr. FIELD: Has not the hon. Gentleman himself had the question before him for two or three years? I want to-know what action he is going to take?

  SUPPLY OF HAY (STOWEY, SOMERSET).
  Sir JOHN BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the incoming tenant on a farm at Stowey, in Somerset, has been able to obtain hay for his stock, or if the farm will be derelict at Ladyday?
  Sir R. WINFREY: The Board's information shows that there should be about eleven tons of hay available for the incoming tenant at Ladyday. They are having some further inquiry made in the matter

  GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS.
  Mr. LEWIS HASLAMasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the desirability of setting up within the precincts of the House a room where Members of Parliament may be able to refer readily to the publications of the Government indicated on the pink papers circulated among Members and where the more recent publications would be displayed; will he bear in mind that so doing might cause considerable economy, as Members would probably not be so liable to send for bulky and expensive publications, while on the other hand a place for ready reference to such publications would lead to a wider knowledge of their contents; and will he provide in such office the latest information as to the various Committees and Offices set up by the Government, their personnel, functions, and addresses?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): All publications which are laid on the Table of the House

  1909
  are to be found in the Library, and I do not think that it would be desirable to set apart a special room for their display. The latter part of the question does not come within the province of my Department.

  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (BOARD OF TRADE RETURNS).
  Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will explain why the usual monthly Returns issued from his Department dealing with imports and exports were withdrawn from sale after certain newspapers had been supplied with advance copies, while other trade journals were refused the same by purchase?
  Mr. ROBERTS: No advance copies of the Monthly Trade Accounts were supplied to newspapers, but the issue was put on sale in the ordinary way on Thursday last. After this had been done it was found necessary to withdraw them for correction, and revised copies have now been issued.

  RESTRICTED IMPORTS.

    PAPER.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of their educational value, he will grant a general licence to booksellers to print and distribute catalogues?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I regret that I cannot see my way to exempt booksellers' catalogues from the general restriction.
    Mr. HOGGE: Would not my hon. Friend consider the question of making an exception in the case of the catalogues of second-hand booksellers and those who collect old books, seeing that they cannot sell them in any other way?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot promise to make any discrimination.
    Sir F. LOWE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this restriction is inflicting very great hardship on booksellers, who entirely depend upon the distribution of catalogues for the carrying on of their trade?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It is perfectly obvious that these restrictions involve hardship on all.
    Sir F. LOWE: Yes; but it does not necessarily mean that they must be ruined.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the shortage of paper, his attention has been called to a circular being issued broadcast inviting subscriptions for a new monthly paper, published on 7th March, called the "Tariff Reformer"; whether there is any prohibition against the issue of new papers either monthly or other wise; and whether, in view of reserving present stocks and existing supplies of paper for established newspapers and journals, he will consider whether a licence should be issued by his Department before any new newspaper is allowed to be published?
    Mr. ROBERTS: As I have already stated, the Government deprecate the starting of new newspapers at the present time. The hon. Member is no doubt aware of the existence of the new Issues Committee, which deals with applications for permission to issue capital for this purpose among others. I will consult the Paper Commission as to the desirability of any further measure.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Have not the Government started newspapers of their own in she various Departments?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have not.

    REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a list can be published of the commodities from which the prohibition to import has been released?
    Mr. ROBERTS: A revised list of interpretations and decisions under the Prohibition of Import Proclamations is now in course of preparation, and it will contain a list of the commodities for which general licences are in force.
    Mr. LAMBERT: When will it be published?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am unable to say, but I will make inquiries.

    CANADIAN CANNED SALMON.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the prohibition of the import of salmon canned in British Columbia

    1911
    inflicts hardship upon a district which, by its recruiting figures, has proved itself one of the most patriotic provinces in the Dominion of Canada, and also in view of the fact that British Columbia salmon is faced with a high duty against its import into the United States of America, he can see his way to remove the prohibition against importing such salmon into this country in whole or in part?
    Mr. ROBERTS: This matter is at present under consideration, and it is hoped that it will be possible to arrive at some arrangement under which any prejudice to the industry will be reduced to a minimum consistent with attaining the object of the Proclamation.

  LONDON EMERY WORKS COMPANY (LIMITED).
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the London Emery Works Company, Limited; whether this concern has been advertised by the Public Trustee for sale; if applications for particulars are being refused to prospective purchasers; whether the firm is still continuing in business; if it is owned by Vereignite Schmirgel and Maschinen Fab. G.M.B.H., Hainbolz, bei Hanover; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The London Emery Works Company, Limited, is owned by the German Company referred to in the question, and has been advertised for sale by the Public Trustee, who informs me that the preparation of the conditions of sale was delayed by difficulties with regard to the title to the land, but that the particulars and conditions of sale will shortly be ready for issue to prospective purchasers.

  MUNITIONS.

    STEEL SUPPLY.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he can arrange that Messrs. Hild will receive sufficient material to enable them to carry on their business?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Major Sir Worthington Evans): I regret that
    1912
    the present position of the supply of steel does not admit of its issue being authorised for work of the character carried on by this firm.

    AEROPLANE PARTS (MACHINERY).
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Minister of Munitions whether it is the custom of the Minister of Munitions to refuse to grant permits for the purchase of necessary machinery for the manufacture of aeroplane parts; whether new machinery capable of this accurate work is standing idle in the warehouses on this account; whether the Ministry have prepared a list of second-hand machines throughout the country, many of which are incapable of producing accurate work; and whether manufacturers are pressed to purchase these second-hand machines by the Ministry; if so, for what reason?
    Sir W. EVANS: In order to avoid waste of labour and material in the manufacture of machinery beyond what is absolutely essential for the production of war material, a special section of the Ministry is charged with the duty of scrutinising all demands for new machinery, and of sanctioning or refusing the supply of such machinery in accordance with the circumstances of each case. While this scrutiny is being made, it is possible that suitable new machinery may remain unoccupied, but my right hon. Friend will be pleased to investigate any special case of undue delay the hon. Member cares to bring to his notice. For the reasons stated, the Ministry endeavours to arrange for the utilisation of existing second-hand machinery where it is available and technically suitable.

    GRETNA FACTORY (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of Munitions by what authority Messrs. S. Pearson and Son, Limited, issued a notice to their workmen at the Gretna factory, dated 20th February, 1917, requiring youths aged 17½ to attend before the board for medical examination for the Army?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): An arrangement exists at the Gretna factory for the convenience both of those employed at the factory and of medical boards attending there, whereby youths of the age referred to present themselves before the board. The necessity of frequent attendance on the part of medical boards, whose time is already

    1913
    fully occupied, is thus obviated, and some youths are saved from being needlessly called up for military service when they attain military age.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: What reason can there be for demanding that boys who are not going to be liable for military service for seven months should be compelled to undergo medical examination? What legal right is there for imposing it upon them?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I think it is the right of obvious common sense.

    CARRIAGE INSPECTION EXAMINERS (WOOLWICH).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Minister of Munitions whether the examiners in the carriage inspection department, Royal Arsenal, Woolwhich, are not being employed full time; can he state the reason for this; and whether the examiners will be allowed to transfer to some other department where their services can be more fully utilised?
    Sir W. EVANS: At the present time all examiners in the carriage inspection department are working full normal hours. Owing to a temporary decrease in the amount of work, Sunday work has been discontinued, and, to a certain extent, overtime. This staff is specially skilled in carriage inspection, and, in view of anticipated increase in the work, it is not desirable that it should be dispersed.

    Hallsands, South Devon (Damage by High Sea).
    Mr. CAREWasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any relief has yet been granted to the inhabitants of Hallsands, South Devon, whose houses were wrecked by the action of the sea owing to the removal of the beach for Government purposes?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I can only refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division on the 7th instant in which I stated that an ex gratia payment of £3,250 in all was made to the inhabitants of Hallsands by the Government and others in 1904 and was accepted in full settlement of all claims past, present and prospective, and that the Board of Trade were not prepared to accept any responsibility in respect of the unfortunate effects of the recent storms upon the village.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to ask the House to sit on Friday, and, if so, what business will then be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir; we do intend to ask the House to sit on Friday, when it is hoped that Mr. Speaker will be moved out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: When will the Consolidated Fund Bill be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: To-morrow.
  Mr. DILLON: I desire to ask the Leader of the House two questions—first, what business he proposes to take to-night, and how late he desires to ask the House to sit; secondly, what is to be the business to-morrow, and is it proposed to put as the first Order to-morrow the Russian Resolution?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir; the proposal is to put the Russian Resolution down as first Order to-morrow. I hope that whatever discussion is thought necessary, it will not be of a nature which would take away from the value of the Resolution, the object of which is to give encouragement to the Provisional Government in Russia.
  As to to-night, the first two Orders must be obtained to-night, so that we may introduce the Consolidated Fund Bill. It is not expected that we shall have a late Sitting, and I hope we shall not.
  Mr. DILLON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any other business to-night?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We want to have the first four Orders.
  Sir NORVAL HELME: Will the War Pensions Bill be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, I hope so.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Is it proposed to take Order No. 6 [Coal Mines Regulation (Amendment) Bill]?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is there any precedent for moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates on a Friday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware whether there is any precedent, but I do not think that it is an inconvenient course.
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: How many precedents has the right hon. Gentleman created?
  Mr. BILLING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to give the House an opportunity of debating the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference with regard to franchise reform?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope to arrange for it at an early date. I am waiting until I see the form of the Resolution on the Paper.
  Mr. BILLING: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any step to facilitate the formation of a new register, as the present one is now three or four years old?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That does not arise.
  Mr. WARDLE: Will that Resolution be taken before Easter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope so.
  Mr. HOGGE: As to the Sitting on Friday and the moving of Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates, shall we rise at 5 o'clock?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir.
  Ordered, "That the proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this day under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Law]

SUPPLY.— [8TH MARCH.]
Order read for Consideration of Second and Third Resolutions:

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1917–18.
2. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 5,000,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."
3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home

1947
and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."
Second Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. TENNANT: I wish to make an appeal to my hon. Friend, but I do not desire an answer to-night, because I know he cannot reply without consultation with his Department. I understand there is a process going on in the Army at present of taking skilled mechanics from the Army Service Corps and utilising them in the trenches as Infantry. I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether he will engage to place before those responsible a statement to the effect of the wastefulness of such a proceeding. These men are generally the more skilled and experienced motor drivers who have been engaged in the last ten years at least in driving motor cars. They are not equal to the fatigues of marching. They have never been accustomed to walk. They are of mature age—between thirty-six and forty—and they have had a long experience and training as skilled mechanics. I think the War Office must realise that in the fullness of time they will require a larger amount of that kind of skill than they will be able to lay their hands upon. I cannot imagine a more wasteful method of utilising manpower than by taking away these skilled men, who are not very young, and utilising them in this way. They will not last very long. You will only be filling your hospitals with men quite unequal to the strain of serving as Infantry soldiers, and moreover the time cannot be very far distant when that kind of material will be most valuable to the Army. Furthermore, we ought to look to the period when the War will be over when we shall require instructors in mechanical knowledge and science of various kinds, and if we put these men to this purpose the chances are that you will run very short of that kind of skill, which will be of the greatest value to you for instructional purposes. In view of these facts I would plead with my hon. Friend to lay before the two Departments concerned—the Quartermaster-General's Department and the Adjutant-General's Department—my statement, I hope backed by his views, and I would ask whether it would not be possible if they cannot stop altogether from denuding the ranks of the Army Service Corps of these
1948
men, to fix an age limit beyond which they will not take these skilled mechanics. I suggest thirty-five, or even an earlier age if you could, though I know the Army has to get men for the Infantry, after which you will not take any more of these highly skilled men. I make this suggestion entirely in the interests of the Army and the Army Service Corps.
Mr. BOOTH: Is it not a fact that these Army Service Corps men are paid much higher than men in the Infantry—6s. a day as compared with 1s.? At the time of voluntary recruiting, when the impression got abroad that compulsory service would follow, Members of Parliament had numerous communications from different parts of the country requesting them to use their influence to get men into the Army Service Corps. There is a certain feeling on the part of the Infantry now that a number of men who have no more right to be in the Army Service Corps than they have are employed there at a higher rate and are not running any risk. I do not plead for either side, but when I heard a portion of the case stated from the Front Opposition Bench I thought I would like to make it a little more comprehensive. Further, is my hon. Friend quite sure that there are not too many men in some departments of the Army Service Corps? I cannot say there are, but Infantry men and Infantry officers have great suspicions that there are. I do not say a huge army, or anything of that kind, but a considerable number of men who might just as well be serving in the Regular Army. I do not like to use the phrase "Combing out," which is hackneyed and does not meet this case, but when I hear a plea made for men to remain in the Army Service Corps it should not be accepted by the House. With regard to skilled mechanics, if there are men of that class in any numbers I should think some of them are wanted in munition works. I do not think they should be kept in the Army Service Corps because they are too good for Infantry. I cannot understand anyone being too good for Infantry if he he is of military age. I do not appreciate the argument that because they are mechanics they cannot go into the ranks of the Infantry, and if there is a surplus we know well that these skilled mechanics are required in some of the munition works. I know of one works where the military authorities have scheduled a certain number of men to leave, and they

1949
picked out the skilled men—semi-foremen—who are teaching and encouraging the others. When you have dilution of labour and the introduction of women, it is vital that your principal men, who are looked up to in the shop and are of commanding influence because of their skill, should remain there. If there is a surplus they should not be kept in the Army Service Corps merely because they are there. If they are not wanted in the Infantry, can my hon. Friend see his way to send some of them to engineering works?
4.0 P.M.
Mr. HOGGE: I should like to ask my hon. Friend what action the War Office is going to take in view of the declaration of the Leader of this House in regard to the value of men for industry as compared with the Army? Less than a couple of hours ago I had a conversation with a man who is providing the Army with boots. His factory is producing some 4,000 pairs of boots per week for the Army. He has been asked by the War Office to double that production for the rest of this year, and at the same time the War Office is taking away the bulk of the skilled men from the factory for the Army. It is obvious that the two things cannot be done. We all know the difficulty. My hon. Friend knows the difficulty. Perhaps he may be in a position this afternoon to acquaint the House with any decision that the War Office has come to with regard to the proportionate use of these men. Obviously it is an extremely important thing, both for our success in the War and the maintenance of our industrial fabric at home, and I should be glad if he can reassure the House on that point. A second point on which I should like a little information is the position of men in Class W Reserve. Class W Reserve is well known to my hon. Friend and he knows that in that class there are being put large numbers of men who, while they are in that Reserve, have no pay, their wives and dependants have no allowance, and the men themselves if disabled have no right to apply for a pension. The only privilege which exists for them consists, I think, of treatment in a military hospital should they be ill. A paper has been issued from the War Office by which it is provided that through the Statutory Committee a payment of 14s. a week can be made to men in Class W Reserve if they are unable to obtain civilian employment,
1950
and are in needy circumstances. It also leaves with the Statutory Committee the power, if they find these men so physically unfit as, in their opinion, not to be satisfactorily retained in Class W Reserve, to report to the medical officer at the War Office, so that on inspection he may give them their final discharge. I should like to ask why the War Office imposes this duty upon the Statutory Committees? There always seems to be a delegation of power to bodies over which the War Office has no control. The War Office does not control the Statutory Committee at all. A man who is in Class W Reserve should, if he is unfit to be discharged at once either to B or B T Reserve, should be restored to civilian employment; and it does seem to me an extraordinary position that that man should not be enabled to get out of the Army by a simple application to the medical boards, which deal with that and other matters.
I think the facts are notorious in regard to Class W Reserve. There are men in Scotland, for instance, in the mining portions of Scotland, who have been retained in Class W Reserve with the idea that they can go back to their work. The experience of these men has been that they have found they are unable to work, and they are in the position that though they are unable to work they are still in the Army, and cannot get their discharge from the Army, and, therefore, cannot apply to the Minister of Pensions for a pension if they are disabled. I should like to know whether the hon. Member can report to the House any progress that has been made in going through Class W Reserve and restoring as far as possible to civilian employments men who, at the present moment, are kept in that Reserve. A remark was made by my hon. Friend, in reply to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), who put a question which concerns a great many of us in regard to the classification of men into categories. The Under-Secretary of State for War said that he could assure the hon. Member for Blackburn that the War Office were reclassifying all those men.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I said that we were proposing.
Mr. HOGGE: I take it, then, that the War Office are proposing to re-classify all these men. That is a very simple

1951
observation, but it may have very far-reaching results. It may mean, for example, that the War Office have at length made up their minds that a large number of men in these various categories are no use to them as fighting units, and they consider, in view of what was said by the Leader of the House, that the time has arrived when less energy should be devoted to putting men into categories with the idea that they may be transferred finally into the Army than to maintaining those men in the industrial walks of life. If, therefore, my hon. Friend can give the House any idea of what the War Office has in their mind in regard to re-classification, I am certain we should all be obliged. My hon. Friend knows that the classification is almost as shifting as the sands. A man who may be retained and classified as in C 2 or C 3 may find himself in a very few weeks, or months, lifted into the category of A1 and put into the ranks of some fighting unit. My hon. Friend shakes his head at that, but I think we could all give him examples. If he had been present the other day in the House he would have heard examples. I do not intend to repeat the illustrations, but I may state briefly that I gave to another Minister a case in which inside of four months a man went from C2 into a regiment which my hon. Friend knows perfectly well, the Seaforth Highlanders, as an Al man. That may be due to a mistake by the medical board, or it may be due to other circumstances, but at any rate sufficiently unsatisfactory results have occurred from this quick gradation of men from one category to another as to warrant my hon. Friend in making some sort of reassuring statement in regard to the re-classification which the War Office propose. My fourth point deals with the condition of the camps in various parts of the country. It is essential, I think everybody will agree, that once the men are taken they should be housed, clothed, and fed under the very best possible conditions. I do not know whether it is fair to allege anything against any particular camp, and I do not want to put it on any higher ground than this, that in correspondence one has had with friends in the Army and with others, there are serious complaints with regard to the condition of several of our camps. I can give my hon. Friend the name of the camp that I have particularly
1952
in my mind, and I dare say other hon. Members are in the same position. The complaint really deals with the insufficiency of clothing at night, and the way in which food is cooked, not that men cannot get enough food, but that they do not get it served to them in an appetising enough way, and complaints of that kind. I know that at the beginning of the War it was impossible to deal with matters of that kind.
Mr. SPEAKER: This Vote does not deal with camps; it is devoted to men only.
Mr. HOGGE: In referring to the camps, my object was to ensure the protection of these men. If, however, you say that that does not come under this Vote, I will content myself with the three points I have already raised, first, with regard to the C W Reserve, second, with regard to reclassification, and third, with regard to the removal of men from the Army into industry, or vice versa.
Major EDWARD WOOD: There is one point I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. Member, and I trust it may receive his sympathetic consideration. At the present moment pressure is being placed upon officers commanding units in France to submit the names and to urge non-commissioned officers and men to allow their names to be put forward for commissions. I know of several cases where, if these men take commissions, they lose their right to their long service medal or the corresponding medal in the Regular Army. I have seen the responsible officials who deal with this matter at the War Office, and I understand they are severely tied down by Regulations which are of old standing. I think there is considerable support in official circles for the view that, inasmuch as these Regulations were made for peace conditions, they are not wholly applicable to a state of affairs when pressure to take commissions is coming from the top, and when, therefore, those at the top would be unwilling to do anything to operate or militate against the thing being successful. I should be very glad if the hon. Member could see his way to give some reconsideration to this matter, and could decide that in cases where, for instance, a man may be two or three months short of earning his long service medal, he shall not be debarred, from it by accepting a commission, which he does for the greater good and for the general efficiency of the Service.
Mr. LOUGH: I would like to ask my hon. Friend a question in regard to the withdrawal of exemptions which has been announced. These withdrawals are causing a great deal of inconvenience in business circles, especially in the City. A case I have in mind is that of a business where there were thirty-three men of military age, and an examination was made into the position of the business, and thirty men were taken and only three left. Great difficulties have been experienced in carrying on the business by women and substitutes of various kinds. What is taking place now is that the decision of the tribunal which left those three men is constantly being reopened. I would like to ask as a general question, what is the use of a tribunal dealing with a case and deciding to give exemption for short periods of two or three months if the War Office constantly comes in and orders all exemptions up to a certain age to be withdrawn, without regard to the decision that has been arrived at by those who have carefully heard the circumstances of the ease a fortnight or three weeks before. Under what law can the military authorities issue a general ukase that all exemptions up to a certain age are withdrawn without regard to the decisions in those cases which have just been made by the tribunals—decisions which will expire, perhaps, in a month or two? Cannot the War Office respect the decision of the tribunals, especially seeing that those decisions will soon give an opportunity for review? In the particular case I have in mind the exemption expires on the 12th April. It was granted in January for two months. Only three men were left, or one-tenth of the total number employed, and even those exemptions have been withdrawn, without regard to the decision of the tribunal. That does not seem to me to be legal. It looks as if the War Office were overriding the decisions of these properly constituted authorities and putting businesses into a state of uncertainty, which is hopeless to the proper conduct of any commercial or industrial undertaking. Under what law is this done?
Mr. PRINGLE: The Miliary Service Act.
Mr. LOUGH: Perhaps the hon. Member will be putting a question and expecting a sympathetic reply, instead of someone on this side giving a foolish answer. I
1954
am surprised at my hon. Friend. On the general question I would ask, what is the good of our setting up tribunals for the purpose of granting exemptions if they are all swept away day by day by the military authorities? Where the exemptions expire in a short time, why should not the War Office allow this short period to expire, and show some respect for the decisions of the tribunal, instead of reopening them constantly every few weeks, and putting businesses to a very great deal of trouble and annoyance at a most difficult time?
Mr. SNOWDEN: May I say, arising out of observations which have been made just now as to the legal authority under which the War Office act, that, from the experience which I have had—and I have had a great many cases of illegality on the part of the War Office—I have come to the conclusion that the War Office is a law unto itself, and that it has the greatest contempt both for Acts of Parliament and for Regulations. There were two or three matters referred to at Question Time this afternoon about which I would like to say a word or two. One was the question of soldiers' leave. I am sure that a great many Members of this House sometimes get a very large number of names of soldiers, many of whom have been on service for a very long time, and have not been granted any leave. It is not a very uncommon thing to get a letter from a soldier who has been on active service for eighteen months or two years, and during that time has never had an opportunity of seeing his family. I recognise, as I am sure every Member recognises, that this is a very difficult matter for the War Office to deal with. I recognise that it would be impossible for them to interfere in individual cases; but the point I want to put to my hon. Friend is that I think there might be some better regulation governing soldiers' leave. I understand that at the present time it depends entirely on the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief. But he does not appear to be acting on any rule or system. One frequently gets cases of this nature, that particular soldiers have got no leave at all, while others who have been serving for much shorter periods have been so fortunate as to get leave. Would it be possible to put the soldiers on a sort of list and give them leave as far as possible according to rotation upon that

1955
list? It is not for a novice like myself to make suggestions, but I would point out the existence of this very real grievance, and would urge the War Office to do everything possible to effect an improvement.
The question raised this afternoon dealt not with the leave of soldiers on active service, but with the leave of men at home, and my hon. Friend referred to the War Office Regulations, which he said were as far as possible carried out. Last week I had a case of a considerable number of men from my own Constituency who had just been ordered to France and had not been granted any leave, and my hon. Friend said that it had been found impossible to grant it. That is very regrettable. I think that it shows bad management on the part of someone. I cannot imagine any emergency that could have arisen that ought to have prevented this leave being given. My hon. Friend will realise that this a discrimination which is likely to arouse a sense of injustice. If some men are going to be given leave and it is going to be denied to others, the men to whom leave has been denied will not leave these shores in a very good frame of mind. In the interests of the good spirit of the Army I think it important that cases such as I have just quoted should be as rare as possible. I hope that the matter will be investigated.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the case of men of delicate physical condition who ought not to be in the Army and who were in Class C2 or C3. They are now being re-examined in a very perfunctory manner. We get the most serious complaints about the character of the medical examination. I have put before my hon. Friend, within the last week or two, some complaints from his own constituency on behalf of Constituents of mine who are resident in his constituency, attached to the Cameron Highlanders. These were C 3 men who had been ordered for substitution drill. They were taken away from this Lancashire regiment and attached to the Cameron Highlanders. They have been re-classified, some of them being put in a very high classification. In every case they tell me that the medical examination was of the most casual and perfunctory character, that they were never examined at all, but that the doctor simply looked at them and said, "We pass you for A1, or B1, or
1956
whatever it is," invariably a very much higher category. In view of the undisputed fact that there are, shall I say—I do not wish to exaggerate—hundreds of thousands of men in the Army who might be called physically unfit, who are certainly unfit for any active work and who would be played out if required to undergo any severe exercise, is it in the interest of the Army and of the nation that these men should be kept in the Army? A great many though quite unfit for Army work are quite fit to do useful work of a civil character.
We had an Army Order or something of the sort a week or two ago to the effect that C 3 men are now going to be put into the Army Reserve and used for National Service. I have seen a great many of these men, who one only needs to look at to see that they are totally unfit. For instance, there is one who is almost blind and has never done any training for the Army, and can be no good in the Army and will simply be an expense to the nation. The doctor says that his eyesight is quite incurable. He is C 3. I made an application to my hon. Friend for this man to be sent back to civil work. He is a skilled warp twister, and that is a fine employment in which there is good demand for labour at the present time. Yet his discharge is refused. I know that he is totally unfit for the Army, and I know that according to the dictates of common sense he should have been discharged from the Army long ago, and put to some work of national importance, where he would be rendering service to the country at a time like this when it is so necessary. It seems to me that this classification is going to result in the creation, or shall I say the addition to the already enormous number of men who have broken up in the Army. If you are going to take a man who really is only fit for C 3 and going to put him into B or A he is not going to stand the physical strain, and, to use the words of military representatives at the tribunals, that man will crack up, he will be in a hospital most of the time, he will be an expense to the country, and eventually he will have to be discharged; whereas if he were in the Army Reserve, while still in Class 3, and then put to some civil work of national importance, he might continue to be an asset to the country. I hope that the points I have put to the hon. Gentlemen will receive careful consideration.
Mr. ARTHUR RICHARDSON: I desire to place before my hon. Friend some cases of what I consider very great hardship. The observations which I am going to make are in no sense a criticism of the administration of the hon. Member, as in cases on which I have approached him I have always received the most sympathetic treatment, and wherever he could rectify them they were rectified. But I have had this week cases exactly of the nature of those to which the hon. Member for Blackburn has referred. One is a case in which a woman writes that her son has been in France fighting for the last eighteen months and he has never had any leave. I hope that it will be possible to secure that this man shall have some leave. In another case, which is similar to that brought forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn, a young man was taken before an Army doctor and examined in a very cursory fashion, and passed into the Army, although at the very time he was under his own doctor and was being treated for tuberculosis. I have sent this case on to the War Office, and I hope that my hon. Friend will make very strict inquiries into it.
I desire now to bring before the House what I think is one of the greatest injustices arising out of the discrimination which is made between officers in the Territorial Army and officers in the Regular Army. I wish to refer to a case of a man who was a member of a Volunteer Force for thirty-eight years. He went out to France two years ago as a major, and for the last thirteen months, before being invalided home, was commanding officer of his regiment. He came home sick. After being home some months the doctors declared him off the sick list. He applied to the War Office for another job. The War Office could not find him a job, because he was a member of the Territorial Force in which he served thirty-eight years, and not one of the Regular Army. He is out of a job. His business was closed down, his partner went out at the same time as he did. His partner had his right arm blown off, and because this man is a member of the Territorial Force, and not in the Regular Army, he has to stand by without a job, he has no business, and he is without any money, whereas had he been a member of the Regular Army no matter how long he was standing by without a job he would have received half-pay. It is to this
1958
particular case I desire to call the attention of the War Office. It is a very hard, a very unjust case, and I think the country would not desire that a man who had served thirty-eight years in the Territorial Force, who had fought two years in the trenches, being commanding officer for thirteen months, and who came home injured, and when he was better, was willing to go out again, should not have his case dealt with in a better way, and I trust that it will be carefully considered by the War Office.
Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD: I desire to express my sympathy with what has been said by various Members in regard to officers and men at the front getting leave. While, however, I feel sympathy with the desire of men who have been out there for some time to obtain leave, I would at the same time like to bring before hon Gentlemen the difficulties which commanding officers experience in granting leave—difficulties with which I am familiar from personal experience. I received my baptism of fire with the Gordon Highlanders just after the Battle of Loos. That battalion had gone further than any battalion in the Army, but, not being supported, was compelled to retire. It went out as one of the battalions of the first Kitchener, or New Army Division, namely, the 9th, and some of the men had never had leave up to and after the Battle of Loos. As it happened, the Gordon Highlanders lost over 700 men, and 300 only were left to carry on the very onerous duties of the battalion in the most difficult trench line in the history of the Western front, namely, the Ypres salient. It was with the greatest regret that the commanding officer had to refuse leave to officers and men who went out with this division in November, 1914, and who had been through the famous Battle of Neuve Chapelle and Loos, and other battles. Anybody who knows the history of the New Army knows that the 9th and 15th Highland Divisions were in the hardest part of the trenches. When officers or men desired to have leave, the commanding officer was compelled to say "No" to their applications, because, to hold the line in safety every single man, non-commissioned officer, or officer was needed. It is the case frequently at the front, and more especially was it the case in days gone by, that it is inevitable that as a battalion grows old it becomes wasted

1959
away; and, therefore, it is not fair to criticise harshly—I do not say that hon. Members did so, for they dealt with the matter in the most friendly manner—this inability of the men to get leave, for, after all, the security of the trenches and the duty of the units overrides any personal desire on the part of the applicants for leave, or personal wish on the part of the commanding officer to grant it. So much for that.
I must say I myself was astonished to find something in the nature of a protest from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Tennant), who at one time was Under-Secretary for War. He protested against the combing out of the Army Service Corps in the interests of the Infant. It is an extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman, who for so long held the same position in the War Office, and who was for so long a member of the Army Council at a period when it did not meet so frequently as has been the case since—for reasons into which I will not now enter—should make any protest against combing out of the Army Service Corps, who notoriously, in the early days of the War, was filled up with men who can now, at any rate, better serve their country in the Infantry than they possibly can in the Army Service Corps or any other non-combatant corps or semi-combatant corps. I do not say a word against the men or officers of the Army Service Corps. They answered the call for volunteers, and when they have done everything possible it is no greater hardship to take the Army Service Corps man or officer and put him into the Infantry battalion than it is to drag from their homes thousands of men, whose businesses may be ruined, under the Military Conscription Act and put them into any battalion to which they may be allocated. For myself, I think the War Office is only showing wisdom and judgment in its action towards all the British Army when it combs out from the Army Service Corps men who are generally willing to go—indeed, always willing to go—and puts them into the front line to do their duty as Infantrymen.
There is one other matter to which I wash to refer, and that is the vexed question of decorations. I myself do not express any decisive opinion upon it; I have
1960
never heard anybody from the Field-Marshal downward who could; but I must say I should like to bring the attention of the hon. Gentleman who so courteously represents the War Office just now to the fact that this is a question which looms largely, and in many cases is a real grievance, among officers and men at the front. I am not particularly interested in those at home. I think a line should be drawn as wide as the Channel between the men and officers who serve abroad and the men and. officers who serve in this country during the War. In the Army abroad, no matter how bitter the fight may be, no matter how monotonous the routine of the trenches or elsewhere may be, three things are always in the minds of the officers and men—pay, promotion, and reward. It is inevitable that it should be so, and that these discussions should go on in regard to these three points, even in the lull of severe contests. I wish to impress upon the hon. Gentlemen who represent the War Office, and who we know are sympathetic in respect of this legitimate grievance of all ranks and arms of the Service, that they should do their best to come to some decision that will meet—and here I speak especially for the Infantry—with the approval of that sorely-tried arm of the Service, that bears the brunt of every contest, and which from the beginning of this War has suffered as no other arm of the Service ever has, or ever can suffer, unless it be the Cavalry, which in proportion, of course, suffered just as bitterly in the early days of the War, and which may again, in subsequent operations, have to undergo sufferings. It is the Infantry who have been bearing the great brunt of the casualties in this gigantic struggle, and I appeal to the hon. Gentlemen representing the War Office to do their best to put heart into hundreds of thousands, even millions, of men and officers, who deserve the best that we can do for them, to meet their legitimate, commendable, and honourable ambitions in regard to the question of decorations.
General IVOR PHILIPPS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken said that the officers and men of the Army constantly discuss pay, promotion, and reward, but I should also associate with the three points the question of leave. It is really very important that this subject of leave should be sympathetically considered by the War Office. I might say, on behalf of the Department, that everything possible is done

1961
to give leave to those at the front in proportion to the time that the men have been out there. Some Members may desire to know how leave is granted. The Divisional General is called upon to state how many men in his Division have been out for six months, twelve months, or whatever the period may be in the different battalions. The numbers are sent up to headquarters, and, according to the number in each Division, a proportion of the men are given leave to be sent home, but the total number depends entirely on the number of boats and the number of trains available to bring the men home. The great consideration is how many men can be allowed leave, having due regard to the military circumstances. These are the different elements in the case which the Commander-in-Chief has to consider, the trains, the boats, and the number of men in proportion to the periods they have been out there. The leave has to be distributed fairly and equally among the different Divisions of the Army, and the different battalions of the Divisions, so that each man gets a turn according to the time he has been out there. It is very heartbreaking how few do get leave when they have been out a long time, but I can assure the House there is no question about which the authorities in France are more concerned than that of getting the men allowed leave, and it is always given, if possible, to the man who has been out there longest.
On the subject of pay, I think the House should know that the soldiers do talk about it, and the country will have to face the question. The subject of pay is talked about every day by the soldiers. Remember that in France the British soldiers have to serve alongside Colonial soldiers who are getting 5s. and 6s. a day. The Division with which I was connected in France was posted near a Colonial Division just behind the line in France. Those Colonial men had 5s. and 6s. a day, and they drank coffee and beer and went out to buy butter, cheese, and eggs for themselves in the town just close behind the line. What chance had my men with their 1s. a day against those who had 5s. and 6s. a day? They had no chance in a public-house to get attended to, nor could they purchase provisions like those with the 6s. a day compared with their 1s. a day. Indeed, there was an absolute dearth of the ordinary requirements of the British soldier,
1962
because of the increased prices he had to pay. I will give one instance, which I think the Under-Secretary of State will appreciate as a very great hardship. It occurred in a Division which was holding a part of a line, and there was a Colonial tunnelling company working in that part of the line. A Divisional Order was received to send 100 men from a British Division to assist the Colonial company. The members of that Colonial company were men to whom money was practically no object; they could spend their 6s. a day. The men who were told off to join the Colonial company asked, if they were to be attached to the Colonial company and to do the work which the Colonial company wore doing, whether they would get Colonial pay. The answer was "No; you will get English pay." That seems to me to be adding still further to the disabilities under which a British soldier suffers when serving with highly-paid soldiers. I do n6t at the present moment say that the pay of the soldiers should be increased at once, but I do say that, whatever it costs, however many hundreds or thousands of millions, the money will have to be paid sooner or later. I believe myself it would be a great misfortune to pay it to our men now, but it will have to be paid sooner or later. When these men come home you will have to give them the pay to which they are entitled. Just think of the money you pay for munitions. Does anybody hesitate to pay a munition worker an extra 5s. or 10s. a day?
Mr. SPEAKER: Discussion on the pay of the Army cannot be raised on this Vote.
General PHILIPPS: I am sorry. I will not pursue the matter now, but I will take another opportunity of raising the question, which is important. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Tennant), the late Under-Secretary for War, made rather a startling remark the other day when he answered my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. He said he was not quite happy in his mind as to the administration of justice in the Army. That was a very remarkable sentence coming from a right hon. Gentleman who had held the position of Under-Secretary for some years. The only case he gave was an old one about an officer of a Highland Regiment, but I do not know the case to which he referred. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are many cases every day where

1963
there is considerable doubt about justice in the Army. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire suggested that his doubts were about the justice of courts-martial. I do not believe there is any question in the Army about the justice of courts-martial. I have never heard any question in all my long service about the justice of courts-martial. There are many sources of appeal and revision in the case of courts-martial, and I for one have never heard amongst officers or men any question of any want of justice as regards courts-martial. But there are other questions in military discipline which do not come before courts-martial where officers and men feel that their rights have not been properly respected. In the old days this did not matter so much when you had a small Army, but now the Army is the people.
It is most essential to my mind that there should be some kind of Court of Appeal, something on the lines of the Committee which my hon. Friend has set up to go into this difficulty about junior officers and their rank. You get similar cases to those for which who recently set up a special Committee by Act of Parliament to go into two particular cases. There are questions every day which do not receive the proper attention which I think they ought to receive. A commanding officer will send forward a case to the brigadier, wishing for some fresh decision, or to have a case reopened, and it will be sent back with the remark that it is useless to send this on. If it is sent to the Divisional General the same thing occurs. I think there ought to be some Court of Appeal to which any case can be referred if an officer or man considers he is suffering injustice. I believe it would relieve my hon. Friend of a great deal of work if he could set up such a Court. Its application might be limited, but it would be very useful, and of very great benefit, and I can assure him that there is great feeling in the Army about this question. I do not mean to say that it is injustice of officers over men. I am sure that is not the case. I have pointed out where commanding officers sent on cases and they are told it is useless to forward them. That does not mean to say that those who do not send them on do not recommend them for further consideration, but they think there is
1964
evidently no good in sending them on. That is the kind of case where I think there ought to be some Court of Appeal.
I wish to bring to the notice of my hon. Friend also the question of our prisoners. I know that the prisoners question is not under his control, but the soldier of to-day may be a prisoner of to-morrow, and in. that way I may be in order in referring to the matter. The Central Prisoners of War Committee has been formed entirely at the request of the War Office, and all control has been put in their hands. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central Division (Mr. Hope) told us yesterday, in reply to a question by the hon. Member-for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), that the-Central Committee were prepared to have a Committee appointed to go into the organisation of that Committee, which, from my own personal knowledge, is in a state of the most hopeless confusion. They started work in November, and they have now had five months to pull themselves together. I have seen within the last few days post cards from our men in Germany who were given an assurance by the Committee that they would receive their bread regularly from 1st December, when the Central Committee started work, stating on those post cards, written up to 10th February, that none had been received. The parcels have been reaching well—I want to give full credit to the Central Committee for chat—but the parcels of food are not sufficient to keep these men alive, and therefore it is essential that the bread should go as well. I believe there is a great deal of confusion in this matter. I do not ask my hon. Friend to answer, as I am very intimate with the whole case; but I would ask him to help and support the hon. Member for Sheffield in giving the Committee which he promised, a small Committee from this House appointed in the most friendly way, since our one idea is to get the Committee into proper working order, because our men are suffering frightfully during the time of getting it into order. I do think that that will meet the case, and the sooner that Committee is appointed the better, because it is essential, if those men are to be kept in decent health, that the bread should be sent properly and in a regular manner. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do what he can to get that Committee appointed—however small it is I shall be very grateful—and I am sure the very large number of people all over the country who have devoted them-

1965
selves entirely to the care of prisoners for the last two years and more, will be thankful if such a Committee is appointed.
Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to make a few observations as to the instructions which are given to military representatives at the local tribunals. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) questioned the legality of the action of the representatives in reopening those cases. I think there can be no doubt that their action is perfectly legal. What we are entitled to know is the general instructions which the War Office issue to those representatives to guide them in reopening exemptions already granted. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to make a statement on that point. There is a further question as to the instructions given to those representatives in regard to the making of appeals. Is it left to the unfettered discretion of the military representative at a tribunal to decide, without any guidance or any control, in what cases he intends to appeal against the decision of the tribunal? I have many examples brought before me by the chairmen of tribunals in which they complain in the bitterest terms of the arbitrary and capricious actions of the military representative. I have been told if a tribunal decides in a certain case to grant exemptions contrary to the wishes of the military representative, that the result will inevitably be that throughout the whole of the sitting there will be an appeal against every case in which the tribunal gives a decision contrary to the wishes of the military representative. I think it is right we should know whether those representatives act simply on their own unfettered discretion without any instructions from the War Office. If their discretion is not unfettered, I think that my hon. Friend should inform the House of what the instructions actually are. It would be better on both of these points that we should have more than a statement from him in this House and that Members should actually be put in possession of the circulars containing those instructions, because it is only by full publication of the instructions upon which these gentlemen act that we can see if the administration of the Act is being carried on in accordance with the Statute.
5.0 P.M.
There is the further point, also of great interest and of even greater importance, and that is as to the instructions which are given to these gentlemen in regard to
1966
special industries or what may be called essential industries. We heard a great deal recently, owing to the serious conditions arising in the country as regards food, as to exemptions in agriculture and as to the greater necessity of men in these days being engaged in agriculture than being put into the Army, but agriculture is not the only essential trade. We have been told of the need of ships as even more pressing than the need for the production of food next harvest. Consequently it is obvious that the instructions given to the military representatives should be clear and definite, that no man should be drawn from shipbuilding. A case was brought to my notice only two days ago in which a local tribunal in Scotland withdrew the exemption given to a skilled mechanic working in a shipbuilding yard. I was informed by my correspondent that there was no use taking an appeal, because the chairman of the Appeal Tribunal never exercised judicial discretion, but simply believed that his sole function was to send men to the Army; and, therefore, my correspondent regarded it as waste of time to appeal. The real remedy was to make an appeal to the War Office to have this case reveiwed by the Army Council, as I think they have power to do. Obviously, it is the maddest thing that can possibly be done this time of day to take a skilled mechanic from a shipbuilding yard. That has been actually done at the instance of the military representative before the tribunal. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give the House the assurance that the clearest instructions have been given that in no such case was a man to be withdrawn from his present occupation to go into the Army. There is the other subject of medical examination which has been referred to. I understand that at Question Time my hon. Friend stated that the War Office proposed to make a new classification. I am not quite clear whether that will improve matters. It is not a question of classification, but a question of examination. No matter how you classify, as long as you examine on present principles I do not think we can have a satisfactory position either from the point of view of the individual or of the Army. I do not wish to quote any large number of cases; certainly the House has had a surfeit of those cases. The hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) brought the greatest indictment that has been brought against the administration of any Department of the Army, and an indictment which received—

1967
I say this without any disrespect to my hon. Friend—the most perfunctory replies from him. I desire to give one case to my hon. Friend. It is a case in which I have a certificate from one of the most distinguished surgeons in the city of Glasgow, who is a lieutenant-colonel in the R.A.M.C., and who has reported that he has twice operated on the young man in question, once for appendicitis and the other time for gastric ulceration. He says that if the man is sent on foreign service, and has to partake of the ordinary diet, he will be unfit for service. The man is now on Home service, and he is living under reasonable conditions. He is doing useful work. He does not complain, because he is anxious to continue to serve his country. But when one has a certificate from a distinguished surgeon to the effect that foreign service, and diet on such service, will ruin the health of a man, obviously the decisions which is sending that man on foreign service ought not to be upheld.
But this is not merely a matter of remedy in individual cases. These are far too numerous. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have had instances of this kind brought to their attention, and it is obvious, from the very number of cases, that they are due to the system of examining recruits and to the system of re-examination. I do not know what power my hon. Friend has in the matter, but I think he will only be doing his duty if he represents to the military authorities that there is a strong feeling in this House, and an equally strong feeling in the country, that great injustice is being done by a system of medical examination through which individual hardships are being inflicted, and many men are having their heaths ruined without the prospect of any compensation—substantial compensation being granted by the Pension Authorities—and at the same time the resources of the man-power of the country are being wasted in the most reckless and ruinous manner. It is for this reason we desire a change, a revision of the system, and not a revision of classification. We want the issue of fresh instructions in regard to examinations, so that only fit men are passed for general service, and other men are only passed for work which they are able to perform.
Major NEWMAN: The hon. and gallant Member for Southampton (General
1968
Philipps) told the House how leave was granted to the various units in France and the description he gave was very interesting. He told us it depended on the number of places available in the train and on the steamship accommodation how much leave could be granted, and that the leave was divided among the various divisions and units at the front. He thereby explained something which will give a certain amount of satisfaction to the men serving at the front. These soldiers think that when they have been actually in the trenches and in the fighting line they should have a bigger share of leave given them than is granted to units behind the trenches and at the base which are not actually in the firing line. I have had a great many letters and numerous conversations with men who say that an equal proportion of leave is given to battalions outside the firing line with that which is given to those which have just left the trenches. The hon. and gallant Gentleman for Sunderland (Sir Hamar Greenwood) told us of the case of the Highlanders who did not get leave because they were unwilling to come away from the trenches. But that is an exceptional case, and I repeat that the feeling is now that battalions and units just returned from the trenches ought to have a bigger share of leave assigned to them than is given to units at the base which are not doing any fighting at all. In fact, the authorities at the base, at headquarters in France, ought to keep a certain amount of leave up their sleeves to be given to battalions and units which have done the hard fighting, and if that policy were adopted it would certainly remove a great grievance.
I want to refer again to a subject which I raised on the Committee stage of this Vote—the question of the summary dismissal of temporary officers. We had a long Debate on the Vote, on the position in Mesopotamia, and it was only at a late hour that I had an opportunity of raising the point, and I was unable to get more than a short but courteous answer from the Under-Secretary for War to my complaint. I am sure he himself feels he cannot allow this matter to remain where he left it on that occasion. I am speaking of the way in which temporary officers are peremptorily dismissed on the ipse dixit of the brigadier without any appeal to a higher authority. Although their cases are eventually gone into by three members of the Army Council, they have

1969
no opportunity of making themselves heard once the brigadier has disposed of the matter. The Under-Secretary for War told me:
"I would like to assure the hon. Member that a temporary officer in the New Army has every single right that is enjoyed by an officer of the Regular Army, and he cannot be dismissed in the summary way suggested by the hon. and gallant Member. I can assure him that before an officer is dismissed a report has to come from the colonel to the brigadier, then from the brigadier to the divisional officer, and so on to the Commander-in-Chief in France. If he appeals—I speak with knowledge of this particular case—it comes before the Army Council. No officer can be turned out of the British Army in the summary way suggested. He can only be dismissed or asked to resign when his case has been considered and decided against him by the members of the Army Council"
That sounds all right. But it is obvious that although the case goes from one officer to a superior officer, and then up to the Commander-in-Chief, and finally to the Army Council, the officer incriminated has no chance of making his case heard by any of the superior authorities after the hearing by the brigadier. If the brigadier makes his recommendation to the higher authority, to the officer commanding the division, and so on, up to the War Office itself, and if the additional original recommendation is not sent to the higher authorities as well, injustice is apt to be done to the officer himself. In this particular case what happened was this: The officer in question was sent for by his brigadier, who explained to him he was going to recommend that he should be sent back from the front, and that he should be given an instructorship at home. The officer, perhaps rather foolishly, did not put up a very strong defence, as he possibly might have done, but he rather let the matter slide, thinking that, although he was going to be moved from the front, which was bad enough, he was not going to be dismissed the Service, and he would have an opportunity of doing useful work at home, and might perchance get back to the front again. But, unfortunately, the recommendation of the brigadier was not sent to the higher authorities. All that was known by them was that in the brigadier's opinion the officer was not fit for the command of troops at the front. They knew nothing about the recommendation that he should be given an instructor-ship at the base or in England, and consequently that recommendation was totally ignored. If the officer had known that that would be the case he would probably have made a much more vigorous fight in his own defence than he actually did. I
1970
explained that case to the hon. Gentleman, and I said at the time I had many other cases which I could give him.
I should like to mention one now to the House. It is another very typical case, and in some ways rather more interesting, because it deals not with one of the officers who joined the Army at the outbreak of the War as privates and rose to be temporary officers who had never had a commission before; but the case I want to put before the House is that of an officer who, as a matter of fact, was, when the War broke out, forty-six years old. He had already served in the Ashanti Campaign in 1896 and in the South African War, and he retired in 1902 with the rank of captain. Having got his certificate at Hythe, he was a thoroughly efficient officer. When the War broke out, like a great many others, he rejoined as a "dug-out," and he was appointed second in command of a battalion of the West Kent Regiment some few months after the War broke out. I had better read to the House his own words describing what occurred:
"One day whilst in the orderly room I mentioned that I urgently wanted to go up to London but was overdrawn at Messrs. Cox and Co.'s. The adjutant offered to lend me £5, which I accepted, and which I repaid a little over a month afterward. In some way unknown the colonel heard of this and reported me to the brigadier, who, after censuring me, told me he would recommend my losing the second in command, but that I should remain as second major of the battalion. A week later I received a copy of a confidential letter sent by my brigadier to the War Office recommending that unless a position in a garrison or labour battalion could be found for me I should be asked to relinquish my commission on the ground of inefficiency. On the 2nd July I appeared in the "Gazette" as having done so. I asked for a court of inquiry, but was refused. I also sent a petition to the Secretary for War which met the same fate. So on the 16th September, 1916, I enlisted in the Queen's Regiment, and, in November last, was sent as a sergeant to the 2nd Battalion of that regiment in France and recommended in the firing line on the 17th January for a temporary commission and sent home."
That man certainly made good. Whether his sentence was just or unjust, he made good later on. He goes on to say:
"I am now ordered, although fully qualified (having passed as a company commander), to attend an O.T.C. at. Oxford on the 9th instant, which seems not only waste of time, but also waste of Government money."
I wrote to him—he is the son of a late major-general of the British Army—and asked him definitely was he given a chance of appeal, and he answered thus:
"In my petition to the Military Secretary I asked that I might be granted either a court-martial or a court of inquiry, but was refused. I was not requested by the War Office or any other military authority to send in any defence."
I put this to the Under-Secretary and to the War Office, that you cannot as a matter of fact, if a man is a sergeant,

1971
degrade that man to the rank of corporal or private without a court-martial, and surely what is right for a non-commissioned officer ought to be right for a commissioned officer. I listened the other day, on the same Vote in Committee, to the case of Sergeant Perrett, which was brought up by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto). Sergeant Perrett, under adverse circumstances, when in charge of his detachment at Gibraltar, got drunk, was court-martialled, and condemned to be reduced to the rank of private. That is a severe punishment, I admit, but at any rate this non-commissioned officer had his court-martial and was able to put up the best defence he could; but here we have commissioned officers, guilty of far less grave offences than that of being drunk when in command of a detachment of troops on active service, who are given very little chance of appeal beyond the original interview with their brigadier, and who then, after a short while, find themselves gazetted out of the Army, and to a certain extent, of course, disgraced for the whole of their lives.
I have had another case given to me of an officer in Egypt who was reported on adversely by his captain. The captain was aged twenty-two and was younger than himself, yet that officer was sent home without appeal to England and deprived of his commission. I do say that sort of thing ought not to be. Either the officer should have a full right of court-martial or court of inquiry at the front there and then, or if that is not possible there should be some court of appeal in this country. I know that in many cases it would not be possible for a court of inquiry at the front. For instance, with our Army on the Somme advancing every day, a divisional officer or a brigadier or a colonel might not have the time to convene a court, but if it cannot be done there, let the officer be sent home and let there be some court of appeal, either permanent or summoned for the occasion, at home, to which his case could be brought and where all the essential evidence could be produced. Unless you do that you are bound to get something in the nature of the secret dossiers, which we heard so much about in the time of the Dreyfus case, sent up to the War Office, where we have the Army Council as a sort of Star Chamber, giving
1972
their decisions without giving the luckless accused person any right of making his case known at all.
I asked the Under-Secretary, on the occasion of being in Committee, to look into the case of the quartermasters in the Army, and I asked why it was that a quartermaster was not able to get beyond the ordinary rank of captain, that he could never command his battalion, could not aspire to staff rank, and could not even be second-in-command of his battalion. In the old Regular Army I could understand it, because there the quarter-master was a man who nearly always had risen from the ranks, and therefore, if he got to be honorary captain, he had done pretty well for himself; but now that men are rising from the ranks every day in their hundreds, I think this idea should no longer prevail. As a matter of fact, a great many quartermasters would make splendid seconds-in-command, because, before being quartermasters in the New Army they were probably sergeant-majors in the old Army, and they thoroughly know the ins and outs of military life. I therefore suggest that because a man is a quartermaster there is no reason why he should so remain for evermore, and I would ask the Under-Secretary to give me some remarks on that point when he replies.
Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I am quite sure the last speaker will not think me discourteous if I do not follow him on the points which he has raised, although I know how important they are; but I rise for the purpose of calling very briefly the attention of the Under-Secretary of State and of the House to two or three practical points which arise in the conduct of tribunals. In the first place, I congratulate the War Office on having correlated its desires with those of other Government Departments to a much greater extent than was the case some months ago. At last we know, when we are dealing with agricultural cases, that the War Office and the Board of Agriculture are apparently in agreement, and I hope the War Office will not be weary of well doing in that direction. I agree with a previous speaker, that it is very desirable that the War Office should know thoroughly its own mind, and make that known to its representatives, as to what other occupations are considered absolutely essential, so that the tribunals when they are dealing with these matters may know

1973
that the representative of the War Office is speaking after consultation and with knowledge of the views of other Government Departments. There has been a great advance, but I think there is room for still more. I hope the War Office will consider very carefully that they may lose time and men rather than gain them if they instruct their representatives to appeal from local to Appeal Tribunals when the exemption period given by the local tribunal is only a very short one. There were cases of some hundreds of men the other day in the Midlands who were only given three weeks or a month. Orders came to appeal, and those men were actually kept out of the Army a fortnight longer than they need have been because of the delay thus involved. That may occur occasionally by oversight, I quite understand; but it is a matter which requires some instructions from the War Office to their local representatives.
The third point I want to mention is this: It is a very great help to Appeal Tribunals when not only the War Office representative for the Appeal Tribunal is present, but when the military representatives from the local tribunals in that area are also present. It is very important that the Appeal Tribunals should know, not only what a local tribunal has done, but what was the case presented to it by the military representative, and wherever these gentlemen can be persuaded to attend the Appeal Tribunals in support of the cases put before the local tribunals, it would be of great assistance to just and proper conclusions being come to by the Appeal Tribunals. It would also have a good effect upon local opinion, because when a local tribunal may perhaps have refused exemptions because of their local knowledge and when the persons have afterwards been given exemptions by the Appeal Tribunals, acting merely on the evidence placed before them, it leads of course to considerable friction, and the more closely these two tribunals can be linked up by the presence in the higher one of the military representative, who himself knew what took place in the first instance, the fairer it would be to all concerned.
My last point is that I hope the War Office are watching very carefully the proceedings of the Director of National Service in regard to the question of substitution. The other day at the Appeal Tribunal of which I am a member we had case after case of men who, on the face of it, might well be ordered to go into the
1974
Army, but in whose cases substitutes were obviously desirable. The Regulation which I understand is in existence now, by which persons between the ages of eighteen and sixty-one cannot be freshly engaged by employers in certain specified trades, is very embarrassing to a tribunal when they are trying to decide who ought to go into the Army and when a person ought to go into the Army, and while I am aware that this is a Regulation for which the War Office is not responsible, but the Director of National Service, I would point out that it is in the interests of the Army and should be one of the cares of the War Office to see that no other Government Department embarrasses the free choice of substitutes in cases where a qualified tribunal holds that the applicant ought to go into the Army and that a condition of his going there should be that a proper substitute is found. In the case of tradesmen, a man who is managing or controlling or perhaps owning a business himself, it is only fair that there should be a free choice of a substitute, at any rate, to the approval of the tribunal. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to take a note of that matter, and to see that the influence of the War Office is exercised in the direction of giving the tribunals a free hand in this matter and not having their power to make substitution a condition fettered by the Regulation of any Government Department whatever.
Mr. KING: The Under-Secretary knows the subject that I am going to bring to his attention. I refer to the position of the 30th Middlesex Regiment. This regiment was enlisted by Lord Kitchener many months ago and is composed practically entirely of men who were alien enemies, but have become naturalised or sons of alien enemy parentage or other men of German nationality and association whom, though loyal to our cause, it was undesirable to place among British soldiers. When this body was formed a separate: battalion they had the verbal assurance of Lord Kitchener that they should be kept for work at home, for labour work preferably, but that in no case should they be sent out of this country. This battalion consists very largely of men who think in German more than in English, and I am told that their conversation is largely carried on in German. They all have German names, they sing together German songs, and though I believe they are loyal

1975
subjects of the King and of our cause, undoubtedly they have strong German associations. A few weeks ago they were asked to volunteer to go to France. The fact that they were asked to volunteer was, I think, an insult in view of the promise. It was a breach of the pledge, in spirit, to ask them to volunteer. Naturally, very few volunteered. They were then told that they had to go, and, in fact, a double company of 500 men of this battalion has been sent abroad.
They went abroad under protest. I am informed that one of the non-commissioned officers who protested to the officer in command was deprived of his stripes for expressing, which I think he did quite respectfully, the protest of the men against this action. They were told that they would be sent to Rouen, and that they were to be set on labour work exclusively. When they arrived in France they were formed into a labour battalion, and were immediately supplied with helmets. They have been sent, I understand, to within a very short distance of the firing line. This, I consider, is a double breach of the pledge, and very cruel and undesirable. Undoubtedly, according to German law, many of these men are still German subjects, and if they were taken prisoners, as they might well be, there would be very little prospect for them of anything else but being shot after a court-martial. This fact is well known, and has been expounded in the Press, and a great deal of sympathy is being expressed for these men in quarters which are of an ultra-patriotic character. Moreover, there is a feeling of some annoyance and even of apprehension, and this may be gathered from the fact that, I understand, the chairman of the Liverpool tribunal has written a letter of protest to the War Office in connection with this matter. When, some months ago, this battalion was serving at Home, they were stationed at Folkestone. The local feeling grew that it was undesirable for a battalion of alien enemy association to be so near to the front as Folkestone. In response to a local protest, these men were withdrawn from Folkestone, and sent inland.
I myself consider, in view of these facts, that quite an unnecessary breach of an honourable undertaking, quite reasonably given and accepted in the best spirit by the men concerned, that they should not be sent abroad, has occurred. I have asked
1976
two questions on the subject, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has also questioned the Front Bench. We have practically received no answer at all except that inquiries are being made. In matters of this sort it is not a matter for spending time in inquiring backwards and forwards, and taking up a week or two. It is a matter in which action ought to be taken at once. To judge of the merits of the case it should be remembered that the feeling to which I have alluded is shared, not only by men of my particular political character and by men like the hon. Member for Blackburn, whose advanced tendencies are well known, but that ultra-patriotic members have also taken part in this inquiry. In view of this question coming up I have received quite a number of letters, some anonymous—perhaps, naturally so—others, I think, from the men in France. I have also received several letters from parents. One lady, evidently in a very good position, has written to me. She is an English woman, the wife of a German, therefore an English lady who has become by her marriage a German citizen. She has a son born in England, and she is, therefore, the mother of an English subject serving in the British Army. She writes that she
"had an interview with the Director-General of Recruiting at the end of last year. She received the verbal assurance that her son, and those men similarly placed with him, should not be sent out to the front."
I hope a more satisfactory explanation than has yet been given will be given by the Under-Secretary. If these men cannot be brought back from France, which is, perhaps, a good deal to ask, I trust they may withdrawn, as far as possible, from the firing line. May I also press for an assurance that no more of this battalion, or any other men of any other company or battalion similarly situated, or similarly enlisted, shall be sent abroad, but shall be kept at home for Home defence?
Mr. MACPHERSON: Perhaps the House will allow me to reply at once to the various points which have been raised in the course of the Debate. I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset for his courtesy in giving me notice that he was going to raise this particular point. The point he raised is one which has been put to me on more than one occasion by the hon. Member himself and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). I under-

1977
stand that the charge of my hon. Friend against the War Office is that it has again broken a very distinct pledge.
Mr. KING: A verbal pledge.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I am coming to that point. My hon. Friend admits that it was not a written pledge. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] My hon. Friend says that a verbal pledge was given by the late Lord Kitchener.
Mr. KING: And repeated more recently by the Director-General of Recruiting.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I have made inquiries into this particular point. I find that this battalion was formed on 10th June of last year. Lord Kitchener had then been dead for some days.
Mr. SNOWDEN: That does not invalidate a pledge.
Mr. MACPHERSON: The battalion was formed on 10th June. Lord Kitchener was, unfortunately, drowned several days before.
Mr. KING: Will the hon. Gentleman really assert that Lord Kitchener did not authorise and did not know of the impending enlistment and formation of this battalion?
Mr. MACPHERSON: I am told, on the very best authority, that Lord Kitchener never gave any such pledge before his death. My hon. Friend says that these men volunteered for service. What are the facts? These men did not volunteer for service. They were conscripts in the ordinary sense of the term. In regard to sending these men abroad, my hon. Friend admits that they are not being sent into the fighting line. That is so. I can here and now give a pledge on that point, and I trust that my hon. Friend will believe that I shall, so far as possible, see that it is kept. These young fellows undoubtedly will not be sent into the firing line: I feel it would not be fair in view of the particular circumstances which surrounded the formation of that battalion. But to say that they are not to be used as labour battalions abroad is, I think, asking too much. These men are able-bodied men. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that they are quite competent as units for labour battalions, and for many of the customary duties devolving upon such battalions. To ask the War Office to keep these men from doing good, honest, strenuous work behind the lines,
1978
as I have already said, would be asking far too much of the War Office, and I cannot promise that. It is true, I believe, that two companies of the battalion have gone abroad. Others may go. I cannot give the guarantee which my hon. Friend asks, but I will engage to see to it that they will not be used for purposes other than that for which the two companies have already been used—that is to say labour work behind the lines.
Mr. KING: Will the hon. Gentleman, give an assurance that they will not be served out with steel helmets, which means that they will be kept at the front?
Mr. MACPHERSON: Many men even though they are outside the range of the guns are far from not being anxious to have steel helmets, and I should not preclude them if they desire to have helmets. In regard to the rest of the Debate there were two points made. First of all there was the question of leave, and, secondly, the question of a fresh classification. I think I am right in saying that these were the only two points which were raised in the main debate.
Mr. PRINGLE: And the instructions to the military representatives.
Mr. MACPHERSON: That is a very small point, but I am coming to it. I have been fortunate in the course of the Debate to have had the assistance of: three hon. and gallant Friends who have been at the front, and who know the difficulties which commanding officers, and particularly the Commander-in-Chief, have in regard to this question of leave; I need not tell the House that the commanding officers at the front, and particularly the Commander-in-Chief himself, have always shown that they are most anxious that the men, particularly those who have been in the fighting line, should get as much leave as possible. I know that at the present moment my Noble Friend the Secretary of State is in negotiation once again with the Commander-in-Chief to see whether it will be at all possible to facilitate the leave for troops who have been for some time at the front. There is one point, however, which has been constantly overlooked. There are so many things which must be taken into consideration. There is the particular question of transport. There is the question of getting the men not only to the base in France, but getting them across the Channel. I do not think I am giving

1979
away any information to the enemy when I say that I know that from day to day men have been kept at the base in France without having the opportunity to cross to this country.
I will, however, promise this: that I will repeat so far as I can the expressions of anxiety which have been given utterance to by my hon. Friends here to the Secretary of State, and I am perfectly certain that whatever can be done will be done to give these men, and particularly those who have been at the front for some time, as much leave as can be given consistent with military exigencies. In regard to subsidiary points, I do not blame my hon. Friend for coming back again to the question of draft leave. I made a statement in the House of the policy of the War Office at the beginning of the War. That is to give leave to any individual soldier, or to any draft soldier, who is going in the near future to any of the theatres of war. That has been the policy, and is the policy, but occasions do unfortunately arise in which the War Office gets a request for a certain type of men or a certain type of battalion to be sent at once to a particular theatre of war. It happens that a transport is available within twenty-four or forty-eight hours. If that battalion does not take the opportunity of going by that transport so as to be placed in its proper position at the theatre of war, it delays its embarkation for probably a fortnight. I can, however, again give my hon. Friends a promise that the present policy will be continued as far as it is possible, and so far as allowable by military exigencies, and in future I trust that each individual soldier will get his draft leave before he is sent abroad.
Now the second important point was the point as to new classification. It is true that some of my hon. Friends, like my two hon. Friends who have spoken, attach a very great deal of importance to the classification in which a recruit is placed, and I have no doubt there is a good deal in their contention that that classification may be at times haphazard. As I have pointed out, we have asked our medical examiners in a very short time to examine no fewer than 1,500,000 men. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) said my reply to the Debate, in which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) and the hon.
1980
and learned Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) took part, was rather general. Any reply of that sort to a speech which produces specific instances of which I have no knowledge cannot be otherwise than a generalised statement of the policy, and that generalised statement of the policy I have attempted to give with fairness, I trust. I pointed out then that the accuracy of the examinations of the Royal Army Medical Corps and the various medical corps was an astonishing fact. I said in the course of supplementary replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn this afternoon, that it is the intention of the War Office—whether it will be carried into effect or no—to alter the classification. At present we have Class A, Class B, and Class C, and the various sub-classes in each of those categories. I understand that the proposal is now in favour at the War Office to alter the categories to two distinct ones—Class A and Class B. Class A will very likely be the class fit for general service, and Class B those riot fit for general service. At the present time, I confess we have sent men of C 1 and C 2, who are supposed to be men to be utilised for labour at home, to France, but I must say this on my own behalf, and on behalf of the War Office, that I understand that in each individual case a medical re-examination has taken place, and I understand that the medical authorities gave it as their opinion that the climatic conditions are in no way better or in no way worse here than in Northern France. I do not understand that, so far, any man in class C 1 or class C 2 has been sent to any theatre of war except Northern France. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has heard of any case, but my information is that the only theatre of war to which we have sent men of those categories is Northern France.
Let me take the House back to the very beginning of this Debate. My right hon. Friend and late colleague the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Tennant) strongly impressed upon me the desirability of seeing to it that no skilled mechanics from the Army Service Corps should be used in the firing line or front line trenches. To any appeal which is made to me by my right hon. Friend I am always perfectly ready to listen. I know from past experience of his work at the War Office how much he has the interests of the Army and of the country at heart. I shall certainly place his representation before the proper

1981
quarter, but I am afraid I must point out to him—I am sorry he is not in his place—that the War Office has a tremendous difficulty in regard to this. It of course sees that after the War it will be foolish not to have skilled men, but at the same time its first and primary duty is to see that the country is well represented and well defended in the front line trenches. Strong representations have been made to us having the effect of withdrawing from the Army Service Corps many thousands of men and placing them in the Infantry. Representations have been made to us that we should use those men who are physically fit in the Army Service Corps for the more strenuous life of the trenches, and I do not think we can neglect that policy. I think it is our duty to get these able men out of those non-combatant services and put them into the front line trenches or the firing line, and we are enabled now by the use of women, and by the use of men who are over military age, and who are comparatively weak in strength, to release many, many thousands of these men for the purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract took the view which I have just taken—the view which, I understand, is largely taken in the country and especially among military officers, that we should continue that policy and withdraw those men from the Army Service Corps so far as we can. He drew attention to the fact that it was a cruelty that men of the Infantry should be made to serve at a very low rate of pay while the men of the Army Service Corps were receiving sometimes 5s. and 6s. a day. He did not quite state the facts. Since the passing of the Military Service Acts, and even before then, there were many instances where Army Service Corps men only got the same pay as Infantry men, but at one time we were driven to advertise for skilled mechanics, and for certain purposes men who enlisted during that period received 5s. or 6s. a day. But to assert it as a general principle that all those men are receiving that large amount of pay is not in accordance with the fact.
Mr. PRINGLE: Have they been getting it since the Military Service Acts?
Mr. MACPHERSON: No; and I pointed that out to my hon. Friend at the time. The next point is that which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), who hoped that the War Office would remember the
1982
pledge, as he called it, though I do not remember it as a pledge, that other industries would be considered before the Army.
Mr. HOGGE: I did not say that. I was referring to what the Leader of the House said with regard to instructions which had been given by the War Cabinet to the War Office.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I was present when my right hon. Friend made that speech, and my recollection is that what he did say was that the Cabinet regarded food production as being in many ways more important than providing men for the Army.
Major GODFREY COLLINS: I will give the exact words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
"This has been made quite clear both to the War Office and to the Board of Agriculture, that in this particular case the Cabinet regard the production of food as even more important than the sending of additional men into the Army."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 16th March, 1917, col. 1463.]
Mr. MACPHERSON: That is practically what I said. There is no question about the other industries. My right hon. Friend was dealing in the main—in fact, wholly—with the industry of agriculture. I am only referring to what my right hon. Friend said, and I am sure the House will allow me to correct what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh said.
Mr. HOGGE: I do not mind being pinned down to that.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I can assure my hon. Friend that what my right hon. Friend did say is what the War Cabinet thinks at the present moment. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh asked me whether that is what the War Office is doing. We are not only not taking men whom the tribunals released, but we have been sending back regularly skilled men, and helping agriculture so far as we possibly can. Not only have we done that, but we are now asking, as I pointed out in an answer to-day, our military representatives to co-operate with the agricultural committees in the various districts.
Major COLLINS: Will my hon. Friend permit me to interrupt him with regard to the point he has just made in connection with the instructions which have been sent out by the War Office? May I ask him whether those instructions go far enough to carry out the promise given to this

1983
House that the production of food was more important than sending additional men into the Army? Are those instructions strong enough to get the military representatives all over the country to carry out the policy agreed to by the Cabinet?
Mr. MACPHERSON: I think they are, and I believe in nearly every case the military representatives are loyally carrying out the instructions. I have come across a great many men interested, not only in the Army, but in agriculture, and they tell me that the military representatives are obeying those instructions now in every way possible. I would like my hon. Friend who has taken an interest in this subject to give me any specific instance of a case where any instruction of ours has hampered that policy of the Cabinet. He knows very well we are not now calling up B1 or C1 men from agriculture at the present moment. The next point he raised was in connection with Class W Reserve. I do not know whether I have made the confession before in the House, but my Noble Friend has made the confession in another place that there was a good deal of difference as to what were the functions of Class W and those of Class P. Class P is quite different from Class W, but unfortunately for the men of Class W and Class P they were mixed up. I am happy to say, however, that now we are doing everything possible to differentiate between those two classes. Class P are men practically disabled and who are entitled to get some means of subsistence from the State. Class W, on the other hand, are men who might not have been physically unfit, and might not have been physically disabled, but who were sent back from the Reserve into civil employment, the War Office having a sort of lien on their service—that is to say, that if their civil employment at any time came to an end, or the country at any time was in great need of men, those men could be called up. In a great many cases there was a considerable amount of hardship, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that we propose to give all men transferred to Class W Reserve at least a week's pay and separation allowance. That will give them some time to get civil employment. The Ministry of Pensions, as I think my hon. Friend stated, will deal with any primâ facie case of hardship by a grant not exceeding 14s. a week until the
1984
question is settled; and we are also instructing all men of Class W Reserve to send particulars of their cases to the nearest hospital, I believe, so that we can differentiate and give assistance if needed.
Mr. HOGGE: I think what my hon. Friend is doing is all to the good, but I want to know whether any progress had been made in the direction of getting Class W men out of Class P.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope we are making progress, although I cannot say at present, because I did not inquire. With regard to what has been said about the condition of camps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker pointed out that it was not quite in order, but perhaps I may say that if my hon. Friend has any particular case of the bad condition of any camp in the country, I shall be very happy to have inquiries made. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Wood) has already placed before me certain considerations, and I know the ease to which he has referred. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, I may say that it is quite within our power to review any exemptions under the Military Service Act. I do not think there are many more points which I can deal with at the present, time, except the point raised by the hon. Member for Enfield (Major Newman), who again raised the question of the administration of justice in the Army. Fortunately for me a very distinguished general who is an hon. Member of this House got up to speak a few moments before my hon. and gallant Friend, and I hope what he said satisfied the hon. and gallant Member when he stated that he was pleased with the administration of justice in the Army, and that nothing could be fairer than a trial by a court martial.
Major NEWMAN: Precisely so, but you: cannot get trials by courts-martial.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I went thoroughly into this case, and I may say that we do not propose to call up this officer, as we are perfectly entitled to do under the Military Service Act. We are proposing, and I hope we shall be successful in our attempt, to get him some suitable work in a labour battalion, or somewhere else where his services would be useful. I have also been asked whether we could not use quartermasters as second in command of battalions. May I point out that the

1985
quartermaster is really a non-combatant who looks after the economy of the battalion, and very often afterwards he becomes an honorary lieutenant or a captain; but he never gets beyond that rank. That is not the fault of the War Office, but the fault of the quartermaster himself, because very often he is better off as quartermaster than he would be as the second in command. It should be borne in mind that after being quartermaster for a great many years his hand has lost its cunning for second in command, because he has been devoting himself mainly to questions of economy, and not to questions of militarism or warlike operations. Unless my hon. and gallant Friend can produce specific cases where quartermasters make a strong and definite appeal for the position of second in command, I am afraid I cannot pledge myself to continue my investigations further. With regard to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middleton (Sir Ryland Adkins), I think I am right in saying that the questions he raised rather referred to the work of the Director-General of National Service.
Sir R. ADKINS: There is the point about substitution, and perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to say that the War Office will make representations on the subject.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I will see that the hon. and learned Member's representations are placed before the proper authority. I do not think there is any other point which I have missed, and I hope the Committee will now come to a decision.
Mr. R. McNEILL: I am very sorry that I have not had an opportunity of saying something before my hon. Friend replied.
Mr. MACPHERSON: There is another Vote.
Mr. McNEILL: My hon. Friend knows the subject to which I desire to draw attention, and if there is another Vote I will not pursue it now. I would like, however, to ask whether the subject of the two inquiries which have been held by the War Office will be in order on any other Vote than this Vote. I admit that it would be inconvenient for me to refer to this subject now, as there is no representative of the War Office present who is in a position to reply.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I should think that subject could be raised on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. R. McNEILL: Then I will give notice to raise the question on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I am much obliged to the hon. Member.
Resolution agreed to.
Third Resolution (Pay, etc., of the Army) agreed to.
Ordered, That the Resolution which upon the 27th day of February last was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, be now read:—
"That 400,000 Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."
Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Macpherson, Sir Edward Carson, Dr. Macnamara, and Mr. Forster, do prepare and bring it in.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL
"to provide, during Twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed [Bill 19.]

WAYS AND MEANS [16TH MARCH].
Resolutions reported,

(1)"That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1917, the sum of £60,423,575 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

(2)"That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, the sum of £38,025,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

Resolutions agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Baldwin.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL,
"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen and one thousand nine hundred and eighteen," presented accordingly; read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

WAR PENSIONS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): I desire to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is a small measure, but a very necessary one, to enable the Pensions Ministry and the local committees properly to carry out their work. I should like to say in moving it that it deals almost entirely with local committees, and we attach the very greatest importance to these local war pensions committees. They are doing very excellent work now, and they will have really more important work to do when the new Warrant comes into force. They will have to deal with the whole question of alternative pensions, ascertaining what a man's pre-war earnings were, and they will have to deal with the whole question of the administration of gratuities over £25, and the very important matter of administering special allowances given to men undergoing treatment and training, and all these things will be managed by the local committees. Therefore it is most important to see that they are adequately equipped to carry out their work. They are doing good work now, and we must recognise that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Statutory Committee for having set them up and got them into working order in such a very short space of time.
It is a curious thing that when these local pensions committees were set up no provision was made originally for their administrative expenses. The reason of that was that these committees took over work that had been done by various voluntary associations, and I may say in passing very well done, such as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Association, and others, and it was thought that they would administer chiefly voluntary funds, and therefore their administrative ex-
1988
penses would be paid for out of voluntary contributions. But a change came over public opinion, and it was recognised that the work of looking after these disabled men and their widows and dependants was a matter of national importance, and therefore it is necessary now to make some kind of provision out of public funds for their administrative expenses, which include the necessary travelling and out of pocket expenses of the members of these committees. That, I think, is most important. Parliament has enacted that there should be a certain proportion of labour representatives on these committees, and we hope they will be able to attend, and they are attending as best they can do now, but it is not only labour representatives, but to others as well to whom these expenses are really a serious consideration. It is most important therefore that we should make provisions for their travelling expenses and for their loss of time. Therefore, we include these necessary out of pocket expenses of members of local pensions committees and sub-committees. The question is how these administrative expenses should be paid? I have said that in the original Act no provision was made. It was thought that the money would come out of voluntary funds. In the second Act that was passed, the War Pensions (Expenses) Act, 1916, provision was made that local authorities might contribute towards the expenses, but it was purely optional. Some local authorities have done it, but a great many have not done it. Now we are up against the fact that some definite provision must be made. We have adopted this plan: We say that half should fall on the local authorities and that the other half should fall on the Treasury. That is a plan which was suggested originally at a conference between the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Association of County Councils and there agreed upon. I am quite ready to admit that it was not agreed upon by the boroughs. The boroughs did not give their assent to that proposition.
Mr. WATSON: Nor did Scotland.
Mr. HAZLETON: Nor did Ireland.
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I quite agree. I do not think that Scotland or Ireland agreed. At the same time the English county councils did agree to it, and we think that the proposal is a fair one. I know it is argued, it being the duty of the State to look after the disabled men, that the whole of the expenses ought to

1989
fall upon the State. There is a good deal to be said for that, but if we allow the whole of this cost to fall upon the State and we allow local administration—it is absolutely necessary because we must decentralise this work of looking after the disabled men; we cannot do it all from an office in London—it is necessary in the interests of economy that there should be some local check upon expenditure. We think that there would be great extravagance if all the money were found by the Imperial Exchequer and no burden at all was placed upon the local ratepayers. We have for that reason adopted the half and half plan. Already under the optional powers given in the Act of 1916 a good many local authorities have made contributions. In England no less than fifty-five local authorities have made contributions, and in Scotland eight local authorities have made contributions. I am sorry to say that up to date no Irish authorities have done so, but we hope that they will. I hold very strongly, and in the various deputations which we have had from borough associations, and so on, it has been generally recognised, though they may disagree with the half and half plan, that they feel some local contribution is necessary, and the real question at issue is not so much the principle of a joint contribution as the proportions which the central Government and the local authorities ought to contribute.
The proposal of the first Clause is simply that an estimate should be made, in the first instance by the local pensions committee. It will then be submitted to the county council or the borough council, whichever it may be, and by them it will be submitted to the Local Government Board. Half of the estimated expenditure, if expended, will be paid by the Treasury, and half will fall upon the local rates. I should like to say in this connection that we are prepared to put down one or two Amendments to make this plan clearer. It rather looks, as the Bill stands, as if all the excess over the estimate—that is to say, if more is spent than the estimate—will fall upon the local authorities. We do not mean that. We mean simply that half should be paid in each case, and we propose so to alter the wording of that particular part of the Clause as to make it clear in every case that half of the excess will be paid by the Treasury, just as half of the original estimate is paid by the Treasury. It may be
1990
necessary for a supplementary estimate to be submitted by the local pensions committee and the local authority. If so, that will be done, and the contribution from the Treasury will be half just as in the case of the original estimate.
Mr. HOGGE: Whether you accept the excess figure or not? Who is to determine whether the excess is right or not?
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The supplementary estimate will be submitted to the county council or to the borough council, and it will then be submitted by them to the Local Government Board. Once it has been agreed to by the Local Government Board, the matter will be settled. There is a second Amendment which we propose to put down. It will be noticed that we propose, where there are what are called district committees, that the cost of the administration of the district as to one-half should fall, not upon the county rate, but upon the district for which the committee is set up. There are two distinct ways in which these local committees are carried out. A county council may either set up a local committee for the county with sub-committees, which are a mere delegation of the county council and do not correspond with any particular district, or they may set up what are called district committees.
Sir RYLAND ADKINS: District committees can only be set up if and when there has been one local committee for the county already set up.
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Certainly. When there has been one local committee for the county set up, they can either divide the county into districts or sub-committees. If they divide it into sub-committees, the sub-committees being a mere delegation of the county council, the expenses will be borne on the county rate. If they take the form of district committees—it has not been very largely done, I think only in eleven cases—then we propose that the expenses of the district committees should fall on the district instead of on the county. It has been pointed out to us that is rather unfair, because, except in cases where district committees are formed in respect of places of less than 20,000 population, there is no representation of the district on the district committee. As a matter of fact, generally there is not. These district committees are formed at the will of the

1991
county council, and they are really responsible to the county council. Thirdly, the administration of collecting this money from all these different districts would be very difficult, because the district committees do not always follow the boundaries of ordinary boroughs or urban districts. I find that excluding Norfolk we should have to collect from 148 different authorities in respect of sixty-seven district committees. I would point out, from the administrative point of view, that that would be very inconvenient, and we therefore propose by an Amendment to treat the district committee as a sub-committee and to place the cost of the district committee on the county rate, just the same as the cost of a sub-committee.
We propose to make one other Amendment in Clause 1. I stated just now that a certain number of local authorities have already voluntarily made contributions towards the local expenses, fifty-five altogether in England and eight in Scotland. In some cases they have paid more than half of the expenditure up to date. We propose in those cases to make the Treasury Grant retrospective, so that any excess over one-half will be repaid. Clause 2 of the Bill is a very small matter. It simply provides that the expenses of subcommittees of the Statutory Committee may be paid for out of funds belonging to the Statutory Committee, just the same as the expenses of the Statutory Committee are already paid. It appears to have been an omission from the original Bill that they did not take sub-committees of the Statutory Committee into account, and we propose to remedy that omission by Clause 2. Clause 3 deals with a rather contentious point. The House may remember that, according to the terms of the original Act every county and every county borough, and every borough over 50,000 inhabitants was entitled to have its own local committee. There immediately arose a good deal of discussion, and there was considerable demand on the part of many smaller boroughs and urban districts to have their own separate local committees. That sort of question frequently arises. I remember that the Education Bill of 1896 was largely wrecked on that very point as to what authorities were to have local educational power. The same thing has arisen here. The original Act said that the Statutory Committee might
1992
give these smaller places local committees where they found special circumstances. As a matter of fact, 160 of these smaller boroughs and urban districts have applied, and in fifty-eight cases they have been granted local committees, but in other cases the Statutory Committee has not been able to discover special circumstances. We propose that the Minister of Pensions in his discretion may grant separate local committees to any of these places with a population of between 20,000 and 50,000, subject to the approval of the county council.
Sir. R. ADKINS: Subject to consultation.
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: My hon. and learned Friend is right, subject to consultation with the county council. I withdraw the word "approval." The Minister of Pensions has full power, but at the same time we think that he ought to ask their advice, because the counties have started their pension schemes, and they have included the smaller towns in their areas. Those smaller towns are the actual meeting places of the county. They are places where there are various institutions, it may be hospitals or it may be the facilities for training, which are very necessary, and we do not think that we ought to upset the existing county scheme without in the first instance consulting the county council. I know this has been a matter of some contention, and if we were starting de novo it might not be necessary to consult the county councils; but as we are interfering, so to speak, with existing schemes, it is only right that the county councils should be consulted before weaker what has been already done. We; propose, therefore, in the case of towns of between 20,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, who have not already got their own committees because the Statutory Committee have not found special circumstances, that the Minister of Pensions may give them separate local committees with certain limited powers. We propose to exclude from the powers granted to these new local committees the power of dealing with the after-Care of the soldier, for a very good reason. This is a matter in regard to which you must operate over a large area. You cannot expect in all these towns to have the facilities for properly training the disabled soldier, which we regard as the most important work which the Ministry of Pensions has to do. In fact, we regard the county in many cases as too small an area, and, as the House

1993
knows, we are endeavouring to group counties. It would be going back if we gave full power in regard to the aftercare of soldiers to these smaller committees, and for that reason we leave out altogether the question of after-care.
There is only one other Clause to which I need refer. It is a Clause which has caused a certain amount of misunderstanding. Clause 4 deals with the voluntary funds which have been collected from a generous public for various purposes connected with war pensions and for assisting disabled men. We propose that in cases where the trustees of the fund apply, and where the Minister of Pensions is satisfied that the great bulk of the contributors agree, those funds may be diverted from the particular objects for which they were subscribed to some other object dealing with the assistance of soldiers or sailors. We propose that for this reason: At the beginning of the War the State was not thoroughly alive to its obligations as regards disabled men, and a great deal was done by voluntary effort which we now recognise must be done out of public funds. Large subscriptions were collected in various places—I have a list of them here, but I will not trouble to read them—which, in many cases, are not really capable of being used for the actual purposes for which they were collected. As the State now does what those funds were intended to do, we simply take the power to divert them to other purposes akin to those for which they were collected, in order that they may become available for the many purposes which are necessary.
Mr. HOGGE: Who will control them?
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Oh, the trustees.
Mr. WATSON: Does that mean that the Minister of Pensions will only move on the application of the trustees or the managing body? The Clause is not quite clear on the point.
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I quite agree; I do not think the Clause is well drafted. We are quite prepared either to put down or to accept Amendments—we have said so privately already—which will make it perfectly clear, first of all, that the Ministry cannot move until the trustees have applied.
Mr. WATSON: The provisions of the Clause appear to be inverted.
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We have an Amendment ready to invert the
1994
two sentences in the Clause in order to make it clear that the Ministry cannot move until, in the first instance, the trustees have applied, and, secondly, after he has consulted the subscribers. I can assure the House that there is no arrière pensée about this. We have been accused of doing all sorts of things and of casting longing, envious eyes upon funds to which we have no right. I have here an extract from a newspaper, the "Broad Arrow," containing that very point. It says:
"A contributor to one of I the various voluntary funds raised to help the dependants of men who have fallen ill the War is particularly exercised over Clause 4.…The contributor is filled with gloomy forebodings as to the object of this Clause, and scents in it an attempt instigated by the Statutory Committee to get hold of the voluntary funds, upon which he fears they look with covetous eyes. Not improbably he is quite correct,"
Let me assure the House there is no such evil intention as that. We only wish to divert these funds where the contributors themselves and the trustees think that ought to be done, in order to make them more readily available for the help of the poor disabled soldiers. I think these are the only points I need mention in moving the Second Reading of the Bill.
Sir N. HELME: I am sure that the House will recognise the willingness of the Government to accept its expressed opinion in dealing with this important question of pensions for those who suffer in the War, and it is with satisfaction that we welcome the Bill now before the House, which makes further provision for developing the organisation and for the support of the beneficent work that is being done by the various committees who have already undertaken it. In regard to the appointment of the committees, which is the chief point upon which I wish to speak, I recognise that the Government, in Clause 3, have gone a long way to meet the expressed wishes of the smaller boroughs and urban district councils. The Metropolitan boroughs have expressed the desire that they should have the powers of local committees conferred upon them. I recognise that in that matter London is a distinct area. The work that has already been begun by county councils could not be transferred immediately, but I hope it may be possible in Committee, by striking out the words which limit the operation of this Bill to places within between 20,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, to make arrangements by which the work may be transferred presently to the official representatives of

1995
the ratepayers within the Metropolitan boroughs. In the meantime the work has been begun and, of course, it cannot be upset in a summary fashion. With regard to administration under the responsible authorities of the boroughs and urban districts, it is recognised that in making this pension scheme a success accurate and local knowledge is necessary. Hence we welcome the proposal made in Clause 2 that if the Minister so determines a local committee shall be established and have full powers given to it, with the exception of the point mentioned by the Under-Secretary, in which we cordially agree, namely, that such powers in regard to after-care and training are altogether unsuitable for small districts. In that particular we have no criticism whatever to offer, but rather commendation of the scheme. Clause 3 says:
"If the Minister of Pensions so determine, after consultation with the council."
Of course we recognise that the Minister in the exercise of his responsible duty must take into account the county councils, but this Clause uses the word "may" instead of "shall." We can well trust the Department to take due care that the widest and best arrangements are made to deal with every locality by taking into account all the circumstances. Why a Minister of the Crown should be put tinder a statutory obligation which falls to him without the insertion of such words, I cannot understand. The urban district councils, the non-county boroughs and the municipal authorities generally feel that they had had a long experience in dealing with matters of local government, and that in the circumstances it is quite unnecessary to insert these words. Therefore I have been requested to put down an Amendment in Committee to omit the words
"after consultation with the county council,"
because the Minister has that power without its being put into an Act of Parliament. We suggest that the words introduce a precedent and raise a question of obligation which need not be dealt with at all. With regard to expenses, this Bill proposes to repeal the provisions of the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc (Expenses) Act, 1916, and of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916. If it is insisted that estimates are to be submitted, a large amount of unneces-
1996
sary money will have to be expended. It would be very much better if, instead of estimates having to be submitted, the Government were to arrange to deal with the actual expenditure. We welcome the suggestions that have been made by the Under-Secretary in this matter. It has been suggested that perhaps another plan might be adopted, and I submit this to the consideration of the Department namely, whether a scale might not be adopted in the nature of a per capita Grant. I have no wish whatever to criticise the Bill. We recognise the generous spirit in which it has been conceived. A point has been raised with regard to working the Bill in the counties, namely, that the areas should be made coterminous in the case of smaller authorities. That is a detail which may be considered. I support with great satisfaction the introduction of this Bill, and I hope that in Committee the Minister will be able to consider these questions sympathetically. We have no wish whatever to challenge the action of the county councils in the matter, and it ought to be possible for a perfectly satisfactory arrangement to be arrived at.
Mr. WATSON: I wish to protest very strongly against the principle embodied in Clause 1 of this Bill. I do so mainly on behalf of the Association of County Councils in Scotland, who have asked me to ventilate their views, and also on behalf of other bodies. It has been recognised from the beginning of the War, if not before, that the obligation of doing everything for our soldiers lies upon the nation as a whole and not upon any local authority's area. The first Clause of the Bill seems to me in a somewhat vicious manner to interfere with that principle. The only defence or justification that has been suggested for putting half the burden of these administrative expenses on the local rates is that it would check extravagant expenditure. It seems to me that that will in no way be achieved by putting half the expenses on the local rates, because the bodies who are incurring this expenditure are the local statutory committees, over whom the county council have no financial control whatsoever. They have no means of checking the expenditure which the local statutory committees incur. I know that I may be told that under the Naval and Military Pensions Act, under which these committees are set up, the county councils were the parties who nominated or formed the com-

1997
mittees, and it was, of course, within their power, if they so chose, to appoint representatives of outside bodies and labour, but they could appoint a majority on the local statutory committee from the members of their own county council. As a matter of fact, that is not what has happened in many counties in Scotland at any rate, and I doubt whether it has in England. If it does happen, if a majority of the members of the local statutory committees are members of the county council, it does not follow that the county council as a whole have control through that means of the expenditure of the Statutory Committee. It depends entirely upon what particular members of the county council happen to be appointed to the Statutory Committee. They were already appointed before this measure was proposed, and I do not know how far they were necessarily appointed because of their strong views of economical distribution and otherwise. I should have thought that in considering the number of members of a county council who were qualified that did not take the chief place, but rather whether they were persons who would be sympathetic to the soldiers and their dependants. This principle suggested in the Bill will act most unfairly. Let me give an illustration from Scotland. The county of Inverness-shire, for instance, has sent certainly a great number of soldiers to the Army. It has very few munition works or other works of that kind, which means that not many of the male population are kept behind. Proportionately the number of soldiers drawn from Inverness-shire, for instance, will be larger than in many other counties. Also the distances which are required for covering the work of the local statutory pensions committee in Inverness-shire will involve greater expense in that county than in more compact counties, and the result will be if you compare it with such a county as Lanarkshire, where proportionately, although a large number have gone to the Army, there being many-public works and munition works and shipbuilding, and so on, not so many soldiers have gone, and therefore the actual expenditure is proportionately less, less, you will be throwing on Inverness-shire what is really an unfair burden and one which conflicts with the principle that this is properly a charge against the nation, because it is the nation that the soldiers are fighting for and not for any particular area or district.
1998
Apart from that, I welcome this suggested Amendment about the estimate. I think that must have been a slip in drafting the Bill, because it is not right, if you are going to make this charge, that the county council, which has no control, any more than the Treasury, should have to pay more than the estimate if the estimate is going to be the limit. Therefore, it seems to me that the only ground which has been suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is one which will not stand examination, and that, therefore, the House should stand on what is obviously the right principle, that the nation should pay for everything connected with the Army and the raising of the soldiers and the looking after them, whatever district they may happen to come from. It means that the district which has done better than other districts in sending soldiers to the Army is going to pay more heavily than a district which has done less. That is inconsistent with every principle one has heard enunciated in the House since the beginning of the War. I welcome very heartily the explanation about Clause 4. It certainly will remove a great deal of misunderstanding, which I have come across myself, in connection with this Clause, and as I understand it now it really means that if the trustees or managers of a fund which has been subscribed for a specific purpose find that they cannot usefully spend a portion or the whole of the fund on this specified purpose, they may then by means of this Clause approach the Minister of Pensions and through him extend the purpose to other useful works, so that the money shall not be wasted. I gather that is the sole purpose, the initiation of such a rule being entirely with those who control the fund for the time being. I am glad to see it is not suggested that consultation with the subscribers will be practicable in every sense, because I know from past experience, and from cases in the Courts in Scotland, that it is almost impossible to consult the wishes of many of the subscribers who have so generously given to these funds.
Sir R. ADKINS: I wish to make some comments on this Bill, both from the point of view of a member of the Statutory Committee and also as representing English County Councils. I welcome the Bill, and I hope, with a few Amendments, it will pass into law promptly. So far as regards the Statutory Committee it gives

1999
to the Pensions Minister power to modify certain conclusions they have come to with regard to smaller boroughs in respect of many but not all the duties which local Committees can discharge, I am sure there is no member of the Statutory Committee who grudges in the least degree the giving of this power to the Pensions Minister. The Statutory Committee has not had power in the previous Acts of Parliament to set up district local committees without the whole of the power the local committees have possessed. The Pensions Minister will have that power, and speaking, I believe, for my colleagues on the Statutory Committee, we welcome this Bill, and will do our best to carry it out when it becomes law. It is quite inaccurate to imagine for a moment that the Statutory Committee has in any way whatever hindered its production or is in the least degree antagonistic to it. On the contrary we cordially accept it and will do our best to make it work well. The hon. Member (Mr. Watson) took the well-known point as to the question of any local fund being raised from the rates in this respect. I have sat in this House for eleven years and have made a great many speeches on behalf of local authorities and I have never yet spoken in favour of any fresh burden being put on local authorities in respect of any national purpose, but I am supporting this Bill for these reasons. If you do not have any grant from the rates whatever, it seems to me that the important provision that local committees shall carry out the Act will be left on a very unsafe foundation. When the whole of the administrative expenses are found by the Treasury there is always a danger of the work being discharged by officials responsible to the Treasury or to a central Government Department. I am confident that the success of pension administration in this country depends very largely on its being carried out locally by well-known local persons possessing the confidence of the locality, with the personal knowledge which is not open to any official however well-intentioned or however well-equipped for the work. We have to face the alternative that if we are to get this administration day by day and week by week in the hands of local people we must be prepared to consider whether there should not be some local charge or else we may be face to face with what I think is the greater danger of the whole thing being worked by officials from headquarters.
2000
It is not quite correct to say that this proposal of half and half was the suggestion of the County Councils Association in the sense that it was that which they desired. The English County Councils Association was placed in the position which I have just described. They also knew that it was the notion of the Statutory Committee at the beginning that local expenses should be borne entirely by the locality, but looking at it in all its aspects I think at any rate a number of members of the English County Councils Association thought that in order to settle the matter this principle of half and half might be acceded to, although it is not a principle which any of us would lay down as carrying out our convinced views of the proper balance of expenditure as between rates and taxes. In this exceptional case and for the reason I have given a number of us thought this was a fair working principle. Now after months of experience of the discussion of this matter—almost interminable discussion—between local authorities and the Statutory Committee and the Local Government Board and the Treasury I am more and more convinced that it is only on this principle of half and half that we can get this great measure into working order and keep it in working order. The hon. Member (Mr. Watson) was not quite accurate in saying that county councils and borough councils will have no control over the expenditure, because from the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir A. Griffith-Bos-cawen), although the wording of the Bill does not show it, it is perfectly clear what must be the final form of this Bill, that an estimate shall be prepared by the local committee and submitted to the county council, and in so far as the county council approves it, sent to the Local Government Board for final sanction. That will give the county council and the borough council the right and duty of approving the estimate—both the original estimate and any supplementary estimate—that the needs of carrying out this work in the locality make necessary. That gives definite financial control, and if it did not I would join my hon. Friend on the other side in opposing this at every stage and line by line, because, of course, you cannot have local expenditure of rates on this or any other public matter without it being controlled by the body selected by the ratepayers to deal with the expenditure of the rates. I quite understand that that is the desire of the Government. Amendments have been

2001
drafted by county council authorities to that end and no doubt in one form or other they will be accepted.
Mr. WATSON: That is not what the Bill says?
Sir R. ADKINS: That is what I said.
Mr. WATSON: And I was not aware of the Amendments.
Sir R. ADKINS: It is not in the Bill, but it was in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Mr. HAZLETON: Can the hon. Gentleman give us, as a member of the Statutory Committee, any rough estimate regarding these expenses?
Sir R. ADKINS: No, I am afraid I cannot do that. I know one English county where the, estimate which has been sent in, which is not quite complete, is for £500, and where it is generally believed in the county that the full expenditure for the year will be £600, but that is a purely informal statement.
Mr. WATSON: I know one county, Midlothian, where it is between £600 and £700. That rather confirms the hon. Gentleman's figure.
7.0 P.M.
Sir R. ADKINS: Dealing with Clause 1 the hon. and gallant Gentleman said he had two or three Amendments to that, which he described. The only point on which I desire to comment is the question of who shall pay the expenses of district committees. In Committee some consideration may arise, because the facts are that in some parts of England, at any rate, the whole work has to be done by district committees, which in fact are committees of the local authorities. In more parts of England the work is done really by the local committee acting through sub-committees or through district committees. I merely made that remark now in order that I may not be taken as wholly accepting that at this stage, while I fully appreciate the weight of the argument which my hon. Friend used. The other two Amendments, of course, I cordially agree with. Then the object of the Bill, among other things—that must, I think, be carried out by a further Amendment—is that the administrative expenses of the local or district committees must also cover those of sub-committees, because if you have a county which works through sub-committees, it is the attendance on those sub-committees which is the real hard work, and which
2002
would be a great tax on persons without considerable financial resources. These sub-committees are doing in many counties what district committees are doing in others, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will see that the word "sub-committee" ought to be inserted there. Those expenses apply, I presume, to every member of such committee who choose to apply for them. We know that in these matters of local government in widely scattered districts there are not a few persons whose services are of great value who do not technically belong to any labour organisation and could not be called labour members, but whose resources are as slender as the resources of others. An argument was addressed to the House by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Sir N. Helme), who said that although he quite agreed that the county council should be consulted before my right hon. Friend modified pension administration in any county, he objected to that being put into the Bill. May I respectfully say that that is really unworthy of representatives of the local authorities. If the thing ought to be done, why not say so in the Bill? I do not ask, and no representative of the county council would ask, that the, county council should have a veto on this provision; but they have carried out their scheme in accordance with the directions of the Statutory Committee, and if those schemes are to be altered they ought to be heard on the subject and ought to have a statutory guarantee that they would be heard on the subject. I am not going to elaborate that now, but if an Amendment is raised in Committee I have no fear of what would be the result of an appeal to the courtesy and common sense of the House. The result would be to allow people whose duties are being altered to express their opinion on whether they should be altered and the extent to which they should be altered. I do not think that in practice this Clause will give rise to much, if any, friction in the country. So long as the important matters connected with disabled soldiers and sailors are left to areas sufficiently large, there should be comparatively little contention on this point.
I think it ought to be said in fairness to the Statutory Committee that where they have put upon them the duty of deciding in what local areas they should set up local committees, they have not had, and do not have, any powers to set up limited

2003
local committees, such as are possible under this Clause, but only local committees with full powers, including those concerning disabled officers and men. I am breaking no pledge, and giving away no secret, when I say that the Statutory Committee in carrying out this very invidious and thankless duty had to have permanently in their minds the question of disabled officers and men, because that is the most permanent duty which will attach to this work. Therefore, when they were making arrangements, not for a year or for the period of the War, but in perpetuity, that permanent and most difficult work had to be kept in front of their minds when they were making these Regulations. I believe the provisions of this Clause ease the situation in many ways, and I hope my hon. Friend who speaks for boroughs and urban districts will abandon any ungenerous attempt to get that phrase out. At any rate, whether they do or not, I have confidence in the Government and the House. I cordially support the Bill, and I hope it will become law as quickly as possible, because just as in other spheres we want to get on with the War, so we want to get on with pension administration and work out the benefits which this Bill and the new Warrant will undoubtedly effect.
Mr. SHEEHY: The sponsors for this measure seem to be very shy of giving us any information as to why this Bill is necessary. Why is it that the county council or the ratepayers are asked to discharge a duty which ought to be the duty of the State? A burden is to be imposed upon the rates of a county or borough for the purpose of duties which belong to the State in regard to looking after the wounded soldiers and sailors when this unfortunate War is over. We have no explanation why it is that the State is abrogating its duty. One of the hon. Members for Scotland has raised the same point, but no one seems inclined to give an explanation why the State is shirking its duty towards wounded soldiers and sailors. In the part of Ireland which I have the honour to represent we have no industries in which it would be possible to train a wounded soldier or sailor to enable him to live. What, then, have the county to do? The burden will be thrown upon the county, because the Government have the usual support and this Bill will pass. The county council
2004
will be called upon, either through a committee of the county council or a subcommittee, to carry out this scheme, and the expenses of that committee will be put upon the rates. But that committee can do nothing for wounded soldiers and sailors in the county. The county of Meath has sent in proportion to its area more soldiers to the front than any other county in Ireland, and evidently the wounded soldiers are to be thrown as a burden upon the rates. The county council cannot find them the means of earning a decent livelihood, and, as the county council cannot do it, these poor wretches, I suppose, will have to go to the workhouse. Is this fair? Is the State going to abandon these men in this way by passing on the duty which it owes to these soldiers and sailors who have entered the Service since the War commenced of maintaining them or giving them a special maintenance allowance? I cannot understand why it is that this burden should be put upon counties. I can very well realise that in counties in England, where there are so many factories and industries of various kinds, they can form committees to enable any of the wounded soldiers and sailors to acquire a trade that will enable them to live in comfort and independence, but where we have no such industries in which these men can be trained, I cannot conceive why this measure should be applied to our country. These men willingly volunteered; there is not one of them conscripted from Ireland, and yet, when this War is over, those who return wounded are to be abandoned to the rates or to the assistance of their neighbours, and the State is to consider itself perfectly free. I think that is most unjust to these men. There is no analogy between the conditions that obtain in England and those that obtain in Ireland in regard to this measure. I hope that before the Bill is read a second time that the responsible Ministers will explain why the State is to be immune, and a burden is to be taken from the State which honestly and squarely ought to be borne by the State.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I wish to associate myself with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Lancaster in the appeal he has made to the Pension Minister to exclude the words "after consultation with the county council" in the third Clause. It may appear a small matter, but there is a great deal of feeling about it in boroughs with populations of less than 50,000. The Pensions Minister,

2005
who was for a long time associated with the Statutory Committee, will know why. I remember well, in a Debate on 8th August, before he was Minister for Pensions, and when he was doing excellent service as a member of the Statutory Committee, I brought before the House a case in my own Constituency. I think the right hon. Gentleman will remember that case. Here you have a town with a population of something like 35,000, which has sent over 5,000 soldiers to the War before conscription came. It was a very good recruiting area, and sent a greater number of soldiers in proportion to population than any other town of similar size in the country. It has special industries of its own. It is a centre of the tinplate industry, and has a number of other industries as well. It can claim very special circumstances. The rest of the county is mainly agricultural. This is the only industrial part of the county, and yet, try as we would, we utterly failed to get the Statutory Committee to set up a local committee apart from the county council. We went before the Statutory Committee, but we failed. I remember the Pensions Minister saying on 8th August that out of 204 applications from smaller boroughs of between 20,000 and 50,000 population the Statutory Committee had granted the applications of fifty.
The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes): I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong in the figure 204. I said it was 158.
Mr. WILLIAMS: Taking the right hon. Gentleman's figures, only one-third of the applications were granted. Every borough in Lancashire with a population between 20,000 and 50,000 was granted a local committee without exception. I remember the Pensions Minister making a great point of the fact that, with the exception, I think, of Harrogate, every small borough in Yorkshire was granted a committee.
Mr. BARNES Mr. BARNES indicated dissent.
Mr. WILLIAMS: At any rate a great number. He said they were very generously treated. Here you have places like Scarborough, Folkestone, and similar places with special centres of their own. Unfortunately, the Statutory Committee have determined to be guided in this matter by the county councils. I do not think I am saying what is untrue, at any
2006
rate I believe that in every instance, unless the county council were willing, the Statutory Committee would not consent.
Sir R. ADKINS: The county council have nothing to say to it. They would express no opinion unless actually consulted by the Statutory Committee, and to say that in no case is this granted, unless the county council consents, is not correct.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not in a position to contradict my hon. and learned Friend. I had a private conversation with him, and I was certainly under the impression that if the county council objected to a local committee, the local committee was not agreed to. There may be one or two exceptions which just serve to prove the rule. At any rate, in the case of this town, which furnished a larger proportion of recruits than any other town in the United Kingdom, this was refused. The fact is that county councils are a little suspect, and it is perfectly obvious what will happen if you put in the words "after consultation with the county council." The county council, as all these bodies always do, will magnify their rights. My right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister when he comes to address himself to this matter will find the county council a thorn in the flesh. It would be much better for him to have a free hand. Let him consult anyone he wishes, but let him have discretion in his hands as to what body to consult. In a matter of this sort, where-local prejudices are involved, you cannot always trust the county council, and though he may not object to consult the county council, this should not be put into the Act, because the county council will badger my right hon. Friend and will point out that according to the Act he is to consult them, and they will ask, "What is the good of consulting us if you have made up your mind beforehand to reject our advice?"
Therefore all I plead for is that my right hon. Friend shall have a perfectly free hand in this matter. Do not let him hamper his own freedom of action by putting in unnecessary words. He can consult anybody without putting this into the Act. The very fact of selecting the county council as the body to be consulted seems to invest the county council with a great deal more of authority and decision than ought to be vested in them. I hope when we come to the Committee stage that my right hon. Friend will be

2007
willing to accept an Amendment on this point. We who represent these unfortunate small boroughs, who have been trampled underfoot by the county councils for so long, would press this view on my right hon. Friend. If my hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Adkins) had lived in my county he would have known that what I say is true. These boroughs pay a great deal of the rates of the county. The town to which I refer is the largest in the county. It is three times as large as any other town. It pays a great proportion of the rates, and yet we are not given the home rule which we desire. That is why I make this earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, so that when we reach the Committee stage he would be able to say that after full consultation and consideration he will accept this Amendment. With regard to the rest of the Bill I think that the House is in general agreement.
Mr. MORTON: I only desire to occupy the attention of the House for a few minutes. I have been asked to do so by the county which I have the honour to represent. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand that in criticising details we are not opposing the Bill, and that we are thankful to him for the good work which he has done in bringing it forward. We have always been in favour of local people working these local committees if you can possibly get them, but we do not want too much in the way of charity organisation societies. They have been somewhat active in the matter, but I do not quite understand their position. I believe that they consider poverty to be a crime and treat it accordingly. It will not do to treat our soldiers, after they come back, and those who are dependent upon them, in that spirit at all. The main point with regard to which I have been asked to make a suggestion is the payment of administrative expenses. My Constituents object to the county council being called upon for any share of the expenses. They think that it will in the main lead people perhaps to believe that they are being dealt with under a charity which is being collected along with the poor rate. It would be very unfortunate if any feeling gets abroad that anything is going to be done for them is a charity. Whatever they may be entitled to under this Bill when it becomes an Act belongs to them, and properly belongs to them, and they should be treated accordingly.
2008
As far as I understand the question, whether the counties should pay part of this sum or not is a matter more particularly for the Committee stage, and we shall of course then have a further opportunity of considering the matter, and making it as clear as we can to my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, with a view to getting him to allow us some alteration. I have been told that the English and the Welsh county councils are in favour of the Bill as it stands. That is not so in Scotland. Practically all the county councils, as far as I know, think that this should be a Treasury matter, a national matter, and dealt with accordingly. While I am thankful personally for what is to be done for returned soldier's, I do not think that we ought to treat them in any way that might induce anybody to have the idea that the pensions, or anything connected with them, were a matter of charity. Our soldiers and those dependent upon them, in my opinion, are entitled to our best consideration and our best regard, and I hope that they will be treated accordingly.
Mr. HUGH LAW: I hope that the Pensions Minister before we come to the Committee stage will reconsider the provisions as to the payment of administrative expenses in Clause 1. I recognise quite frankly what I think is the idea of the Pensions Minister, that where you have local administration—there is not much local control—it is not in itself unreasonable that you should ask a certain part of the expenses to be defrayed out of the rates. I quite admit, as a general principle, that it is not an unreasonable thing. I recognise further that the Bill as it stands does represent some concession to the views of local authorities, because, as I understand, so far there has been no provision for the administrative expenses of the local authorities and you are now proposing to pay them to the extent of one-half. To that extent we have, therefore, here a concession. But I want to ask the Pensions Minister whether, on the whole, he would not be well advised, in view of opinions expressed by various local bodies, especially I think in Scotland and Ireland, to go somewhat further? I put it to him for this reason: I personally am very anxious to see the local committees set up everywhere. Certain duties have been placed upon them by Acts which this House has already passed, and a great deal of difficulty and delay occur where local committees are not, in fact, set up,

2009
and a great deal of hardship is involved on poor and sometimes needy people who have a very real claim upon the State, but who in the existing state of things find it exceedingly difficult to get their claim admitted.
Why are county councils in some cases reluctant to set up local committees? I do not know how it is in this country, but I know that in Ireland, in many of the more remote counties, where railway communication is very bad—and practically the same thing applies probably to parts of the North and West of Scotland—the county councils already are very much overburdened with work, having regard to the extreme difficulty under which members labour in attending meetings; and, therefore, it is not unnatural that they should take the view, which many of them have taken up to the present, that this matter of supervision and inquiry into these cases is one which might well be left to the voluntary societies, such as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Societies, and so forth, which in the initial stage, at any rate, took charge of all matters of this kind. Parliament has, however, otherwise decided. Parliament has decided, and I think quite properly, to associate popular administrative societies with this work. But if you are going to ask a county council, which already is very much overburdened with work, to undertake duties of this kind, and if you are going to ask them, as I think you do, to undertake this work without giving them a very direct control—I do not see much control in this—then you certainly discourage them very severely if you insist on their paying half of the administrative expenses out of the rates. It is, therefore, as a sincere friend of the general policy of the Ministry of Pensions, as one who most earnestly desires that every impediment in the way of local co-operation in this matter should be removed, that I beg the Pensions Minister before he comes to the Committee stage to take the matter further into consideration and see whether, on the whole—it is very small in relation to the whole matter—after all it would not be a wise thing in the administration of pensions itself that you should go further and place the entire charge upon the Imperial Exchequer.
Mr. TYSON WILSON: As a member of the Labour party, I may say that Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill will be very much appreciated by the working men
2010
and working women who are members of these committees throughout the country. I notice that in Clause I the expenses are to be paid in respect of loss of remunerative time, but so far as the working men and working women with whom I am associated are concerned, I may state that they have no desire to be paid for work of this kind which they do outside their working hours, and they are quite prepared to give their services and what abilities they possess to deal with a very serious and important matter. They therefore welcome the Bill on that account. I may state, in passing, that so far as I am concerned this Bill will reduce my correspondence very considerably, because during the last six or eight months I have received a considerable number of letters from correspondents complaining that they have not been able to attend these committees on account of the expenses involved. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the expenses that he should consult his colleague the President of the Local Government Board, where there are complaints that committees are not constituted as they ought to be. I find that a great many working men and working women complain that they do not get their quota of representation on those committees. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do what he can in that direction to remove complaints of that character.
I am rather inclined to support what was said by the hon. Member for Lancashire with regard to the necessity of consulting the county councils. County councils have never, so far as I know, given that consideration to questions of this kind that they ought to have given. They seemed to place obstacles in the-way of the appointment of committees to do work which they thought they themselves ought to do. Unfortunately, in connection with county councils the work is very often done by the permanent officials, and I submit that, in the interests of good administration, the right hon. Gentleman should agree to accept the Amendment suggested to delete those words. In connection with Clause 4, the right hon. Gentleman will have to be very careful to make quite clear to the various associations what is intended with regard to the money which they have voluntarily raised. The Clause to me does not seem to make it clear. There

2011
are certain cases in which people interested at times get applications made for money to be transferred to loans. I know from my own knowledge certain associations which made weekly contributions which reached a large amount in bulk to the Prince of Wales' Fund, but they stopped those contributions because they were not satisfied with the way in which the fund was administered, and they took the contributions and them selves administered them. It must be made quite clear in the Bill, or by Regulation, or in some other way, that no attempt will be made to press them to transfer their money in the way suggested. I believe that the whole of the money required to pay the expenses of the committees ought to be paid by the Treasury. I do not think that the ratepayers ought to be called upon to contribute anything at all. The rate would fall unevenly upon the ratepayers in different parts of the country, and therefore I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should go to the Treasury with the object of getting, if not the whole of the money paid by the Treasury, at least a far larger part than is proposed to be contributed at present. This would not, I think. interfere in any way with the efficiency of the working of the committee, and I submit that, considering the immense amount of money that has been raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for various purposes, an additional amount in respect of expenses should be contributed by the Treasury, and that they should agree to it at once.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: In supporting the Bill, I should like to say a word with reference to the payment of expenses. I have some difficulty in doing so, because I am a member of the County Councils Association, but I know, as the Minister of Pensions said on the First Reading, that there seemed to be a sort of bargain with reference to the payment of half the expenses. I would point out to him, however, that the matter has entirely changed since the time when we were carrying on these negotiations. At that time the expenses were really to be provided by the county councils, who were to have the direction of the whole thing, and the question of expenses was considered very much in that light. But the whole matter is now taken very much out of the hands of the local committees and placed more and more in central administration. I
2012
would urge, therefore, that for such an entirely national purpose the Government should see their way to reconsider this matter. If we look at the last two occasions when matters came before us in reference to these payments, if we look at the health payment laid down in connection with the great movement in favour of health, and if we look at the last precedent, which was in connection with venereal disease, we find that the State willingly offered to bear three-quarters of the expenses, leaving one-quarter to be provided by the local authorities. If the Treasury cannot go so far as the whole, I would suggest that they should follow those two most recent precedents and at any rate give three-quarters of the expenses instead of half as provided in the Bill. It is a matter which affects large counties very seriously. The large cities and boroughs do not take any interest in this matter of expenses; it is a question which was being fought out last year, and it is a comparatively cheap thing to them to carry on this work, for each of these county councils has a large staff, large offices, and they work in a very central position with great economy and very little expense. But it is a very different matter when you look at a large county like that which I represent or for which I speak. If they can keep in touch with the central authority they can get on without much expense, but there are many local committeees who have to hire rooms, have to pay for the lighting, coal, and rent, so that the local expenses are very considerable in such a county as that to which I refer. There the expenses of administration are enormously larger than in a central place like the municipality of London or other big centres. It is the smaller organisations which have to bear the larger expenses.
I would urge the Government to consider this matter again, in order to see, if possible, how far they can in the Bill limit this question of what is called administration expenses. It seems to me that it covers a good deal which ought to be covered by the Government, who provide the whole of the money for certain portions of this organisation, and I should think that at the present moment the matter is left in a very uncertain position. My hon. Friend opposite, representing the County Councils Association, suggested that an estimate should be prepared, and that the larger county councils should have some power of dealing with the expenses of the

2013
committee which is going to come upon them through the rates. I do not wish to dwell upon that, however, but I should like to raise again the question as to consultation with the county councils. The House will remember that the matter is now entirely different in the Bill from what it was under the original Act. If the county councils objected in the first instance to any exceptions being made, it was because, if one exception was made, they would have had to divide the whole county into districts. There was no possibility of considering each case by itself, and in the county councils there were many objections to taking all the towns here and there, and leaving the district committees throughout each county alone. The whole policy of the old committees of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Society and Health Societies, was that they were founded in towns, which was a convenient way to get in touch with each district, the towns in each case forming a sort of centre of the system. If every one of these towns is now to be taken out, it leaves the administration of the county districts in a very much more difficult position. From my experience of my own county I do not think there is any desire at all to oppress the poorer boroughs. I do not think it is the county councils who badger them, but I think it is they who badger the county councils. It was simply because they would be obliged to go the whole hog if they did anything, that they were very careful to wait and see, in the first instance, how the administration went on, and how the work formed itself, in starting district committees throughout the counties. I do not object to Clause 3 now, but I earnestly ask the Government to adhere to their original position in reference to consultation with the county councils, now that they have had the work going for some time. Now that the local committees have got into touch with them and are getting to understand what is wanted, I think it would only be fair and just that you should have that consultation with the comity councils which is given under the Bill. Therefore, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not omit these words, which I think it is desirable should appear on the face of the Bill, and it would only be just to those organisations which are endeavouring to carry on this work. Therefore, I join with my hon. Friend in asking the Government to stick to the form of the Clause so far as that matter is concerned.
Mr. HOGGE: I do not want to say much on this Bill, except that probably the points which are raised could be better discussed and more fully discussed in Committee, for, after all, they are matters for arrangement. I am one of those who think that in the special circumstances the expenses should be borne by the State. We perhaps can make that right in Committee better than on the Second Reading, which none of us want to oppose. There are two points to which I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention. One is that in whatever administration may be arrived at, he will take care of the sparsely populated counties from which so many of our soldiers have been brought. In the central and northern portions of Scotland, as has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend, the people have great difficulty in getting access to the machinery which would give them their rights. I think my right hon. Friend has also got to remember, though one does not like to say it quite so bluntly, that so many of these people are poor and are ignorant and are not accustomed to the filling up of forms or asking for them, and just because of the sparsity of population combined with that ignorance a great many very fine people may be deprived of what they ought to be entitled to. I think, therefore, in whatever arrangements are made there ought to be great care taken in those sparsely populated districts, that those people can be put directly in touch with the means of obtaining their rights.
I notice that the right hon. Gentleman takes power under Clause 4 as to funds which have exhausted their powers and as to money which has been raised for purposes which no longer exist. I would almost encourage the right hon. Gentleman to take greater powers. As the House knows, there is a vast amount of money in the country raised for many purposes in connection with the War which will not be so necessary now in view of the scale of pensions that has been adopted by this House. What I feel is this, that we do not want to waste those large sums of money that have been accumulated and that my right hon. Friend might very well do this. He has now a certain authority as Minister with those bodies in the country. I am not sure that it would not be quite worth his while, and ultimately lead to the good of the soldier, if he would call a conference of those people who are interested in those

2015
voluntary funds and see whether there are not some large national schemes by which the soldier and sailor could be helped to which that money could be devoted. I think it would be an excellent corollary to the schemes which already obtain if the vast sums of money were not frittered away in small and local purposes, and that for Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England my right hon. Friend might, in collaboration with the people interested in those funds, devise schemes which would be an excellent complement to the already fine scale we have got. I do not know whether he or I would have the courage to put that in a Clause of the Bill, but on Second Reading one can make that kind of suggestion, which I hope he will accept in the spirit in which it is made; otherwise we can leave the details to consideration in Committee.
Mr. POLLOCK: On the question of Clause 3, in which there are the words providing that local committees shall be set up after consultation with the county council. I agree with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that that matter can be discussed much better in Committee. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to know that there is considerable opposition felt in the country to those words. I associate myself entirely with the hon. Member for the Lancaster Division of Lancashire (Sir N. Helme), and I shall certainly put down an Amendment in Committee to leave out those words, and if the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is brought to a Division I shall support him. This is a matter which affects a very large number of boroughs, and I think a very strong case can be made out for the elimination of those words. It would not be right at present to bring forward some of the cases and figures available, but I should not like the Second Reading to go by without giving notice that a very considerable body of opinion is very much against those words, and I for one shall certainly do all I can to support an Amendment to remove those words.
Mr. O'SHEE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to carefully reconsider the provision as to administration expenses in the light of this Debate, and to have the matter dealt with in a somewhat more effective way than it is left now by the Clause. I would suggest that a scale should be taken on a basis of population. In Clause 3 the basis of population is
2016
taken as to the setting up of local committees. There would also require to be some regard to the question of area and sparseness of population, but I think it ought to be quite possible to have a fixed scale. You might have a minimum of, say, £150, even in the smallest area, and between a population of 20,000 and 50,000 you might fix a certain sum, and that there should be reasons why the committee should be permitted to exceed that scale. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that in Committee there will be very considerable opposition to the Bill as it stands.
Mr. BARNES: The hon. Member for South Meath (Mr. Sheehy) asked why we proposed this Bill, and who had asked for it. It is to meet certain needs of the soldiers. It had been arranged some time ago for labour representation upon the local committees. We find, as a matter of fact, that we cannot get that labour representation upon the local committees, especially in the county areas, because men cannot afford to lose the time to attend meetings, specially when they are frequent. The second reason for the Bill is that we want more local committees—that is to say, with the limited powers as defined in the Bill. We are going to introduce our new Warrant in a week or two, and when it becomes operative it will greatly increase the work of local committees. Those local committees will have to assess a man's prewar earnings and, therefore, practically the amount of his alternative pension. Moreover they will have to do a great deal of work in connection with the granting of gratuities to certain men and the conversion of those into temporary allowances. All that means more work, and, therefore, we want more committees. Roughly speaking, those are the two main reasons why we want this Bill, and in introducing it we have taken the necessary powers to deal with other matters that are more or less pressing. One of those powers has relation to the gathering up of those moneys that have been voluntarily subscribed in certain areas and the need for which no longer exists so far as-the particular purposes for which they were subscribed are concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has just made a proposal. a rather extraordinary one coming from him, and that is that instead of the Minister being given power to do some-

2017
thing the initiative being taken by the people who are the custodians of the money, that the Minister should gather together all those people who had those moneys and suggest to them they should give them up. I can only say that so far as I am concerned I am going to do nothing of the kind. I am not looking for trouble, and if I were to attempt to do anything of the kind I should have plenty of it on my poor head. I am not going to do anything of the sort. There is another reason why I am not going to do it, and that is because I have got quite enough to do. I have conferences pretty well every day and sometimes two or three times a day, therefore to add the number of conferences is not at all what we are in a position to do even if it were the right thing that were proposed. We want a provision for the expenses of men attending committees and we want more committees.
8.0 P.M.
The objection, so far as I have been able 10 gather to-night, hinges upon the payment of the expenses, and as I have gathered, there is going to be considerable opposition to the local authorities being called upon to pay half of those expenses. I hope that that opposition will not materialise. I think it is a perfectly fair thing that we should ask local committees to pay part of this cost of administration, and for several reasons. One reason has already been given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that if you had no expenses drawn from the local rates there is no incentive to economy, and that therefore the Treasury would be called upon to do something which would be against the interests of the national Exchequer because the national Exchequer would be dealing out money to the local committees, which would not have any incentive to see to proper efficiency, and the probability is that they would dispense with a great deal of voluntary work and pay officials to do work which would not be therefore so well done. There would not be that human touch about it which we desire to have as a feature of all pensions administration. Therefore, for that reason we think that it is only fair that the localities should be called upon to pay some of the expenses. There is another reason. It has been suggested that the money is drawn from the areas, and that therefore, although it may be true, as has been said, that the national Exchequer is sending large sums of money into the districts, and therefore benefit-
2018
ing the districts, it has first of all got that money from the districts, money which has been unevenly drawn and which is unevenly sent back. That is perfectly true. I think this Bill puts into practice a good communistic principle as enunciated about seventy years ago by Louis Blanc, and the sense of which is that we should give to those who need and take away from those who have according to their ability to pay. This scheme of pensions and allowances puts that into operation. It is true that the districts each and every one of them subscribe to the general pool from which the money is taken, but the money is drawn according to the wealth or lack of wealth of the district. If the district is wealthy, it subscribes largely to the general pool of national taxation. If it is a poor district it subscribes less to the general pool of the national exchequer. But when the money goes back it goes back in the inverse ratio. Take, for instance, West Ham, so worthily represented by my hon. Friend (Mr. William Thorne). It is a poor district; it is full of poor property, of poor working men's houses, and, as has been pointed out, it is one of those industrial constituencies where you always find a larger proportion of men of military age than you find elsewhere. Therefore, probably that district has subscribed but little in the way of taxation to the general exchequer. Compare it with Hanover Square, which probably contains a large number of female domestic servants and elderly respectable gentlemen who have retired, and which therefore does not send so many people to the front. They are a class who will not need the attention of the local committee so much as will the residents drawn from West Ham and similar places. Therefore I say the money will go to them in inverse ratio. A lot of money will go back to West Ham, but little will go to Hanover Square, and, having regard to that, it seems to me ungracious that even the poorest community should not be called upon to pay one-half of the expenses of merely administering this vast flow of money which is going into every poor district throughout the length and breadth of this country, and blessing and fertilising hundreds of homes in every one of those districts.
Something has been said as to the amount. I have no estimate, but I have made inquiries in a number of cases. The other day the chairman of the Belfast

2019
Committee was over here to see me, and I asked him how much it cost there. He told me it was costing at the rate of £1,250 a year, and, speaking from memory, I think he said that that represented from one farthing to one halfpenny in the £ in the rates of Belfast. That is a very small amount. I made the same inquiry at Dublin and I found there the rate amounted to a little more, but then that is a poorer district than Belfast. I would appeal to hon. Members, having regard to the infinitesimal amount for administration expenses compared with the immense sum of money which will be flowing into the poorer districts from the national exchequer, and apart from the local incentive to economy, from that larger point of view I do urge hon. Members to support this small burden, having regard to the great benefits being poured out on the other side.
Mr. H. LAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain boroughs in Ireland a penny rate would not realise £50?
Mr. BARNES: I was in a district with a population of about 30,000, which has subscribed a million of money to the War Loan. The whole administration expenses in that town were at the rate mentioned, and it does not seem to me that it would be a very heavy burden for a town of 30,000 if it could carry on the work of the pension committee for £50 a year. It is probably an area in which the work could be done for very much less. I now come to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Houghton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) as to the complaint that local committees had not the agreed number of labour representatives on them. If it is the case that any district committee does not include one-fifth of its members as labour representatives, complaint ought to be made at once to the Statutory Committee or to the Pensions Minister, and it would at once be attended to. Next I come to the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Sir Norval Helme). He raised a very difficult and knotty point with regard to Metropolitan boroughs, which at present have no district committees. I would remind my hon. Friend that this is not a matter for me. Every county council throughout the country, under the Act of 1915, is entitled to have a county organisation—under Sub-section (4) of the second Clause of the Act of 1915
2020
or under Sub-section (7) of the same Clause. Sub-section (4) provides for a district committee and Sub-section (7) for a sub-committee, and the county council can adopt either.
The London County Council, in its wisdom, thought Sub-section (7) preferable, and therefore appointed sub-committees instead of district committees, and they were perfectly within their right in so doing. I sympathise with the desire of the Metropolitan boroughs that they should have a committee in each borough as part of the county organisation—a committee to which they should have a right of nomination, and, generally speaking, the majority of which would be at their disposal. But that is not a matter for me, and unless there is some alteration made in the law I cannot interfere. I would, however, express a hope that the London County Council and the Metropolitan boroughs may come to some understanding on the matter, and I should like to contribute to that if possible. At the same time it ought to be understood that neither I nor anybody in any way seised with a sense of responsibility can for any consideration about theoretical perfection interfere suddenly with what is going on now. But you have a scheme in London now. It may not be the best, but under it the work is being done. Hundreds and even thousands of disinterested ladies and gentlemen are giving their time voluntarily just now without pay or reward and are doing the work, and if the work is turned over from a voluntary body to the Metropolitan councils the result will be that the voluntary workers will retire from the field, there will be dislocation of the whole machinery, and the poor sailors and soldiers and their dependants will suffer. I am not going to be a party to any such abrupt termination of the existing arrangement, and therefore no change is made in this Bill. If any should be made subsequently it must be gradual, and it must be subject to a time limit within which the new bodies are going to take over the work, and they will have to serve a sort of apprenticeship for a time, and work in harmony with those who are now doing the work.
With regard to the vexed question of the retention or otherwise of the words "after consultation with the county council," I can quite appreciate the point advanced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lancaster. Although he does not desire to interfere with the discre-

2021
tion of the Minister as to consulting anybody he thinks fit, he does not want it to be put in an Act of Parliament that the Minister shall be compelled to consult the county council. Against that there is the argument that the county councils have now their scheme in actual operation, and, therefore, ought to be consulted. The county councils are going to be asked to assist in setting up these local committees in place of district committees. In many cases the district committees are in one area for administrative purposes, and sometimes they are in two or three, and are on the fringe of the county, and, therefore, if you are going to set up a new committee, you may take out of the county in that particular area a district committee which is on the fringe of it. You are going, in fact, to do something which will obviously upset the whole county organisation. It is unfair anybody should think of doing that without consulting the county council in the matter. I do not think I can hold out any hope that anything of the sort can be done. as suggested by the hon. Member's Amendment, although, of course, the proposal shall have careful consideration. I think this Bill is wanted badly. I know there are some districts throughout the country where the workmen representatives have had to leave the committee because they could not afford the time to attend the meetings. We want more committees because the work of the local committees is going to be greatly increased during the next few months. I trust, therefore, the House will give this
2022
Bill a Second Beading, and pass it through the Committee stage as quickly as possible.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]

WAR PENSIONS (CONTRIBUTIONS AND REPAYMENTS).
Considered in Committee.
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the repayment to local authorities, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of part of such expenses of local and district committees established under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, as, under any Act of the present Session, to make provision with respect to the administrative expenses of the Statutory Committee and of local and district committees as aforesaid, or any enactment repealed by that Act, may be or have been defrayed by local authorities.—[Mr. Barnes.]
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter after Eight o'clock.

WAR.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
  INCOME TAX (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  INCOME TAX (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  PIGS FROM IRELAND.
  PIGS FROM IRELAND.
  MEAT SPECULATION.
  MEAT SPECULATION.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  BACON.
  BACON.
  HOME-GROWN MEAT.
  HOME-GROWN MEAT.
  VOLUNTARY RATIONING.
  VOLUNTARY RATIONING.
  SURREY FARMS.
  SURREY FARMS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (FARM WORK).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (FARM WORK).
  ARRESTS AND DEPORTATIONS (IRELAND).
  ARRESTS AND DEPORTATIONS (IRELAND).
  IRISH BREWING TRADE, GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS (IRELAND).
  IRISH BREWING TRADE, GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS (IRELAND).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (DUBLIN).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (DUBLIN).
  AFFORESTATION (IRELAND).
  AFFORESTATION (IRELAND).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  SHIPPING LOSSES.
  SHIPPING LOSSES.
  RAILWAY FARES (DOCKYARD EMPLOYES).
  RAILWAY FARES (DOCKYARD EMPLOYES).
  AIR SERVICES (TOOLS ALLOWANCE).
  AIR SERVICES (TOOLS ALLOWANCE).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  LOCAL TRIBUNALS (MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES).
  LOCAL TRIBUNALS (MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES).
  SOLDIERS UNDER NINETEEN.
  SOLDIERS UNDER NINETEEN.
  MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
  MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
  IRISH LABOURERS.
  IRISH LABOURERS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE EMPLOYES.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE EMPLOYES.
  GERMAN EAST AFRICA.
  GERMAN EAST AFRICA.
  NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER REDUCED.
  NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER REDUCED.
  RHODESIAN SIGNALLING SECTION (MISSING CORPORAL).
  RHODESIAN SIGNALLING SECTION (MISSING CORPORAL).
  ARMY DENTAL SURGEONS.
  ARMY DENTAL SURGEONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ARMY SHIRTS (PACKING).
  ARMY SHIRTS (PACKING).
  TIMBER PURCHASES (IRELAND).
  TIMBER PURCHASES (IRELAND).
  WAR OFFICE SUPPLIES (IRELAND).
  WAR OFFICE SUPPLIES (IRELAND).
MUNITIONS.
  CLEVELAND MINERS.
  CLEVELAND MINERS.
  LEAVING CERTIFICATES.
  LEAVING CERTIFICATES.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY SALE).
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY SALE).
  AIR SERVICES.
  AIR SERVICES.
  RUSSIAN INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS.
  RUSSIAN INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS.
  COUNTESS MARKIEWICZ.
  COUNTESS MARKIEWICZ.
  NATURALISATION CERTIFICATES (REVOCATION).
  NATURALISATION CERTIFICATES (REVOCATION).
  FRONGOCH CAMP (IRISH PRISONERS).
  FRONGOCH CAMP (IRISH PRISONERS).
  CENSORSHIP (LORD MILNER'S STATEMENTS).
  CENSORSHIP (LORD MILNER'S STATEMENTS).
  POST OFFICE EMPLOYES (PAY).
  POST OFFICE EMPLOYES (PAY).
  "WITH KITCHENER IN CAIRO" (EGYPTIAN AUTHORITIES' ACTION).
  "WITH KITCHENER IN CAIRO" (EGYPTIAN AUTHORITIES' ACTION).
  RENT RESTRICTIONS (SCOTLAND).
  RENT RESTRICTIONS (SCOTLAND).
  NATIONAL SERVICE.
  NATIONAL SERVICE.
  Metric System.
  Metric System.
  Railway Pares (Ireland).
  Railway Pares (Ireland).
  Department of Agriculture, Ireland (Ship Inspectors).
  Department of Agriculture, Ireland (Ship Inspectors).
  Evicted Tenant (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenant (Ireland).
  Ballyhaise Agricultural Station.
  Ballyhaise Agricultural Station.
  Burtonport Railway.
  Burtonport Railway.
  Drunkenness (Convictions).
  Drunkenness (Convictions).