Sitting of 8 August 1918

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Heading deferred till Tuesday, 15th October.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 9) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Copy presented of Forty-seventh Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1917–18. Part I. Administration of the Poor Law. Special Work arising out of the War. Part II. Housing and Town Planning. Part III. Public Health; Local Administration; Local Taxation and Valuation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL DEBT.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 7th August; Mr. Baldwin]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 112.]
AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1916. Vol. V., Part I. Acreage and Live Stock Returns of Scotland, with a Summary for the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MILITARY SERVICE (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 16).
Copy presented of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Greece respecting the liability to Military Service of British Subjects in Greece and Greek Subjects in Great Britain [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1916.
Copy presented of Supplementary List of Persons, Firms, and Companies as to whom orders have been made under Section 1 (1) of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    RUSSIA.

      ALLIED EXPEDITIONS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to give an assurance that General Gourko has nothing to do with either the Archangel or Vladivostock Expeditions which are being conducted by the Allies against the Soviet Government of Russia, and that General Gourko will not be allowed to join the Vladivostock Expedition?
      The ASSISTANT-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): This question contains implications and attributes motives which are not in accordance with the facts. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that General Gourko has nothing to do with either the Archangel or the Vladivostock Expeditions.
      Mr. KING: Is the Noble Lord aware that there was no implication, at any rate in my mind, when this question was asked?
      Lord R. CECIL: It must be perfectly evident to the hon. Member, or to anyone else reading it, that it is very offensive.
      Mr. KING: Is the Noble Lord aware—
      Mr. SPEAKER: We must get on. We have over 100 questions to-day, and a very short time in which to dispose of them.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the position and objectives of the Allied forces operating from Vladivostock; whether he is aware that the American statement issued on 5th August spoke of safeguarding the country to the rear of the westward-moving Tchecho-Slovaks

      1511
      and also of protecting them against Austrians and Germans; whether he will elucidate this obscurity and give the actual position and objects of the Tchecho-Slovak movement in Siberia; and whether the House may now expect to hear a statement of Allied policy in Russia and the Far East?
      Lord R. CECIL: I have nothing to add to the statement of the Prime Minister on this subject.

      AMERICAN CIVIL COMMISSION.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether this country and France will co-operate in the intention of the United States, which is going to send to Russia at the earliest opportunity a commission of merchants, agricultural experts, legal advisors, Red Cross representatives, and agents of the Young Men's Christian Association; and, if so, how soon these persons will be ready to start for Russia?
      Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, as far as His Majesty's Government are concerned. I can give the hon. Member no information as regards the second.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONVENTION WITH AMERICA.
      The following question stood on the. Taper in the name of Brigadier-General McCALMONT:
      4. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the exemption of Irishmen resident in the United States and of Americans resident in Ireland from the provisions of the recent compulsory Military Service Convention was due to any representations made on behalf of the Government of the United States: and whether, under the terms of the Convention, the cancellation of these exemptions will automatically follow the enforcement of Conscription in Ireland?
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: This question raises a subject of considerable interest, and may I ask the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) whether it is possible to answer it or whether it has been postponed by desire?
      Lord R. CECIL: I am sure the hon. and learned Member will realise that I never answer questions unless they are asked.
      Mr. HEALY: Has the Noble Lord any objection to stating whether it has been postponed by request?

      RUSSIAN SUBJECTS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the military measures being now taken against Russian forces and the Soviet Government by British and other Allied forces, it is intended to retain in the British Army those Russian subjects who were brought into it by the Anglo-Russian Military Convention; whether any more Russians will be conscripted into the Russian Army, seeing that a sort of war exists with Russia; and whether he will promise that no Russians not voluntarily recruited into the British Army will be sent to fight in any Russian campaign?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am afraid it is not possible to answer the second part, nor can I give any pledge of the nature suggested in the last part of my hon. Friend's question.
      Mr. KING: In view of developments in Russia, will this matter have the Government's consideration, inasmuch as it causes a certain amount of suspicion to conscript Russians when we are sending our Army against the Russian people?
      HON. MEMBERS: No!

      COLLIERS.
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to increasing coal production, he has approached the War Office with a view to returning to the pits colliers now serving in the Army in this country of Grade B1 as well as B2 and B3?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): The answer to this question is in the negative. Every effort is being made to expedite the release of miners of categories B2 and B3 now serving at home, and the Controller is confident that until these categories have been exhausted the Army Council will be unwilling to release men of higher medical category.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is my hon. Friend aware that the coal production for July is likely to be less than for June, and may I ask whether, in view of that situation, the Coal Controller is prepared

      1513
      to bring pressure to bear on the War Office to return B1 men as well to this country?
      Mr. WARDLE: I should like notice of that question.
      General McCALMONT: Will the hon. Gentleman approach the War Office with a view to the return of some of the men who are in non-fighting services abroad for this purpose?
      Mr. WARDLE: That has already been done.

      MEDICAL GRADING.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that Mr. A. F. W. Rumsey, a commercial traveller in the woollen trade, aged forty-three, and graded 2, was decertified under the Order of 9th April last, and held a certificate valid until 11th October next from the Huddersfield Tribunal, on business grounds he appealed at his home to the Cambridge Tribunal and was refused, not satisfied with has grading he appealed to the regional director, East Anglia, and was told he could apply for re-examination by a medical board, on this he applied at the Hotel Windsor for instructions, and was referred by them to the London regional headquarters, by whom, without any question, he was sent to and examined by a medical board at Whitehall, and graded 3; on this he applied to go to the tribunal again on the regrading, and was told he had committed a grave breach of etiquette in going outside the East Anglian region; his solicitor then wrote the director, who first agreed to rehearing and afterwards refused it, and he was ordered to join up forthwith under pain of arrest, and is now in the Army Service Corps Motor Transport Department; and whether he will have this man released at once, as he has double rupture and varicose veins, and he is graded 3 by the medical board at Whitehall?
      The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): Inquiries are being made, and I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

      DISCHARGE (PRIVATE TIMBERLAKE).
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Minister of National Service if he is aware that Private E. D. Timberlake, No. 204533, at Farnborough Hospital, has been on the discharged list since February last, and recommended by his commanding officer to be allowed to return to his old
      1514
      employers; and, seeing that he has been refused the permission of this Department to return, will he say what public advantage is served by retaining this man in hospital?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I will make inquiries, and acquaint my hon. Friend of the result as soon as possible.

    IRELAND.

      CRIME.
      Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the number of reported cases in Ireland for the three months ending 31st July for the years 1917 and 1918, respectively?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): The following are the figures:

      May, 1917

      216 cases.

      June, 1917

      133 cases.

      July, 1917

      187 cases.

      May, 1918

      294 cases.

      June, 1918

      174 cases.

      July, 1918

      175 cases.

      PRESS CENSORSHIP.
      Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that on the 2nd July two Press telegrams, one addressed to the "Herald," of London, and another to an Irish paper, the "Kerryman," were handed in at Cahirciveen, these telegrams referring to the arrest of Denis Daly; that the Irish newspaper message was never delivered, and that the London newspaper received its telegram; whether this was due to action by the Irish Censor; and whether it is the Censor's policy to let England but not Ireland know the news which is chiefly of interest to Irishmen?
      Mr. SHORTT: I am informed by the Press Censor that the Press telegrams addressed to the two newspapers referred to were received in his office on 2nd July, at 4.40 p.m., were passed and dispatched to the Central Telegraph Office at 4.45 p.m. The action was not, therefore, due to the Press Censor, nor is such action his policy.

      RECRUITING.
      Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can now state in outline, or by a detailed statement

      1515
      in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the recruiting scheme by districts which has been adopted in Ireland; whether the threat of Conscription is being used as a lever to induce voluntary enlistment; whether the speech of Mr. Sergeant Sullivan at Limerick, in which he stated that Irish recruits could be easily placed in a barbed-wire cage and then taken to France and watched over by some 3,000 invalids, will be censured as a recruiting speech not to be repeated; and whether he can state how many voluntary recruits have come forward?
      Mr. SHORTT: The details of the scheme and the figures asked for will be ready for publication on Saturday. I am not aware that the threat of Conscription is being used as a lever to induce voluntary enlistment. The statement made by Sergeant Sullivan was not as represented in the question. He did not refer to recruits, but only to people who were likely to disturb the recruiting movement.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the great amount of comment and publicity given to this statement of Mr. Sergeant Sullivan, and will he take notice of it and tell the recruiting authorities to be a little more tactful?
      Mr. SHORTT: I am aware of the publication of the correct statement of Sergeant Sullivan, but not of the incorrect.

      COAL SUPPLIES (ARIGNA MINES).
      Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the three and a half miles of railway at the Arigna mines now in course of construction only connects these mines with the terminus of the Cavan and Leitrim Railway at that place, leaving a gap between that station and Collooney, situate on the Midland and Great Western and Great Southern Railways, which shuts out the people of the West of Ireland from all communication with the mines in question; and whether, seeing that the Treasury are constructing ten miles of railway for Mr. Parkinson at Wolfhill and ten miles more for Mr. Wandesford at Castlecomer, he will reconsider his decision in regard to the giving of a Grant for the construction of a line from Arigna to Collooney?
      Mr. SHORTT: I do not see any prospect of the construction of a railway between
      1516
      Arigna and Collooney being considered during the War. The line under construction at present affords the quickest means of making use of the Arigna coal mines, and the Cavan and Leitrim Railway will be quite able to convey their output.

      ULSTER VOLUNTEERS (ARMS).
      Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the rifles of the Ulster Volunteers have since the outbreak of war been stored in premises known to the authorities and actually guarded by the police; will the exact number of these rifles seized by the Government since the issue of Lord French's Proclamation be given; whether he is aware that a fortnight ago Sir George Clark, of Workman and Clark, Belfast, who is a member of the Ulster Provisional Government, in an interview by an American Press man, said the Ulster Volunteers had thousands of war weapons of all kinds, as well as ammunition, and would hold them in defiance of any Proclamation so as to be ready to meet any attempt to put Home Rule into operation; and what actual steps, if any, are now being taken to put Lord French's Proclamation into force in Ulster?
      Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is now in a position to state what action he has taken to disarm the Ulster Volunteers in North-East Ulster; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any definite action before the reassembling of Parliament in October?
      Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is in a position to state, or has asked to ascertain, the number of rifles under the control of the Ulster Provisional Council or where such rifles are stored; whether he is in possession of the information that a Member of the House has intimated that he has not been asked for the surrender of the rifles; whether he is aware that feeling is growing in Ireland and outside of Ireland that the Irish Government cannot ask or could not interfere with the rifles taken from Germany for the use of the Ulster Volunteers; and what steps he purposes taking in the matter?
      Mr. SHORTT: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply given to previous questions with regard to the matters referred to.

      HOUSING.
      Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if any steps are being taken to see that, in the allotment of money for the purpose of the housing of workers in towns and cities after the War, the claims of Ireland are included?
      Mr. SHORTT: I will do my best.

      EDUCATION COMMITTEE.
      Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he received any request from the pensioned teachers to have one of their body nominated on the new Educational Committee; and, if so, will he comply with their request, and thus have the assistance of a body which rendered such services to education in the past and whose rights need safeguarding in any scheme which may be brought forward?
      Mr. SHORTT: I have received the communication referred to, but I am unable to accede to the request. The Committee is to inquire into and report as to the improvement in pay and pensions of existing and future teachers, and it has no concern with those who have left the service.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint some one to this Committee to represent the union teachers—that is, the teachers of the workhouses?
      Mr. SHORTT: That has not been brought to my attention before. If the hon. Gentleman will send me a representation about it I will, of course, consider it.

      NATIONAL CELEBRATIONS (TRAIN SERVICE).
      Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Great Northern Railway Company ran special or auxiliary trains for the convenience of those who wished to participate in the Orange celebrations of 12th July; if so, will the number of such trains be given and were engines actually borrowed from the Great Southern and Western Railway Company for the above purpose; and whether he will see that similar facilities are afforded to the Ulster Nationalists in case they apply for them on the 15th of August?
      Mr. SHORTT: I am informed that the Great Northern Railway Company did not run any special or auxiliary trains for the convenience of those who wished to participate in the Orange celebrations in
      1518
      the North on the 12th July, nor were any engines borrowed from the Great Southern and Western Railway Company.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Michael Cranny, of Ballylinan, Queen's County, has been refused an old age pension by the pension officer at Athy, on the ground that he has no claim; whether he is aware that, although Cranny cannot produce a baptismal certificate of age, no record appearing in the parish register, he has submitted a declaration made by Mr. Murphy, of Drimroe, a respectable farmer, stating he has known Cranny since he was a young child and that he is over seventy years of age; whether he is aware that this statement has been supplemented by a Member of this House, who declares in writing that Cranny came into his employment as an agricultural labourer in 1870 and was then over twenty-two years of age; whether he is aware that Cranny now lives with his son, who occupies 9 acres of land, Michael Cranny having no land in his possession; and whether Cranny's claim to an old age pension will be considered?
      Mr. SHORTT: The claim of Michael Cranny, of Ballylinan, Queen's County, for an old age pension was disallowed by the Local Government Board primarily on the ground that the claimant deprived himself of means exceeding £31 10s. per annum in order to obtain pension. His first claim was disallowed by the local committee in October, 1916, and after that the farm was assigned to an unmarried son in December, 1916, and a fresh claim was made soon after which was disallowed by the Board on appeal in October, 1917. A further claim was disallowed by the local committee on the 6th June last and by the Board on appeal on the 30th ultimo.
      Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why the Local Government Board, on appeal, refused to sanction an old age pension granted by the local pensions sub-committee to Bridget Clancy, of Teevebunnan, Tullyrossmearn, county Fermanagh; is he aware that, although the name of the claimant cannot be found in the Census Returns of 1851, the pensions officer in his Report to the Local Government Board expressed his belief that she is over seventy years old

      1519
      and that some of her neighbours who are old age pensioners are prepared to swear that she is over seventy; and will he ask the Local Government Board to reconsider the case although, through no fault of hers, no official record of her age or marriage can be found?
      Mr. SHORTT: It is the case that the pension officer expressed the opinion that the claimant is over seventy years of age, but, on the other hand, the family of claimant's parents was found in the Census Returns and her name did not appear therein. It is, therefore, doubtful whether she was born till after March, 1851. The case was decided on the 9th ultimo, and it is not open to the Local Government Board to reconsider it except on receipt of appeal on a new claim.
      Mr. CRUMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Local Government Board to send down an inspector to deal with this matter? It has been done in some cases before.
      Mr. SHORTT: I am sorry I cannot hear.
      Mr. CRUMLEY: It has been done in some cases before.
      Mr. SHORTT: That is my information.
      Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why the Local Government Board, on appeal, refused to sanction an old age pension granted on two occasions by the local pension subcommittee to Michael M'Cusker, Gattymoyle, near Fintona, county Tyrone; and whether a claimant is to be deprived of an old age pension because there was no State registration of births in Ireland until 1864 and no record of his family can be found in the Census records of 1841 or 1851, although his general appearance affords strong evidence that he is over seventy years old?
      Mr. SHORTT: The onus of proving that he is seventy years of age rests upon the claimant, and until he can show that he is that age no pension is allowable. In this case, moreover, the Local Government Board ascertained from the Registrar-General's records that M'Cusker was married on the 26th November, 1883, when he was twenty-eight years of age. This makes him at present only sixty-two years old.

      KELP.
      Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in view of the fact that 4,150 tons of kelp of the estimated value of £31,125 was exported from Ireland in 1916, what steps have been taken to increase the output during the present season?
      Mr. SHORTT: The Department of Agriculture and the Congested Districts Board have not considered it necessary to take any special steps to increase the output of kelp in Ireland during the present season, the increase in price being a sufficient inducement to kelp burners to produce as much as possible. There is at present a keen demand for kelp by flax growers and manure manufacturers owing to shortage of potash.

      LAND PURCHASE.
      Mr. HACKETTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. W. P. Hanly, owner in fee of the-lands of Cloneyross and Annesgrove, county Tipperary, has recently offered Annesgrove House and lands for sale by-private treaty, and that the people of the district object to the sale of this farm unless the owners dispose of the evicted lands of Cloneyross to the Estates Commissioners for redistribution; whether he can state the cost of extra police in this district for the last two years; and what amount of the cost will fall upon the ratepayers of the district?
      Mr. SHORTT: The lands of Cloneyross were purchased under the Land Purchase Acts in 1893 by Patrick Cody, the tenant in occupation, and they were vested in him as owner in fee simple in 1894. He subsequently transferred them to Mr. Hanly, by whom the outstanding instalments of the land purchase annuity were redeemed in March, 1916. The Estates Commissioners received applications from four persons seeking reinstatement as tenants evicted from the lands of Cloneyross, and they provided them with new holdings on untenanted land acquired by the Commissioners under the Irish Land Act, 1903. Mr. W. P. Hanly sold portions of the lands of Cloneyross and Annesgrove some time ago, and, owing to local trouble in connection with these sales, it was necessary to quarter extra police in the locality for the past two years. These extra police cost approximately £1,430, but none of this will fall on the ratepayers of the district.

      EDUCATION GRANTS.
      The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. BOLAND:
      22. To ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the official statement issued in connection with the Education (Scotland) Bill with respect to the equivalent Grant for Scottish education; whether, in view of the fact that Scotland's equivalent Grant, being eleven-eightieths of £4,865,915, the excess of estimated expenditure for education in England and Wales in 1918–19 over 1913–14, is stated to amount to £669,063, he will state what is the amount of the equivalent Grant for Irish education; whether it has been allocated; and what is the exact amount of that equivalent Grant estimated to be expended in Ireland in the current financial year?
      Mr. BOLAND: I have been asked by the right hon. Gentleman to postpone this question. Would he supply me with the information as soon as he gets it—it is very urgent?
      Mr. SHORTT: Certainly.

      EXPLOSIVES (CONTROL).
      Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the military have taken possession of all explosives in Ireland used for the purpose of obtaining metal for the roads; that contractors are obliged to make long and expensive journeys to obtain the necessary explosives, and are allowed only 2 lbs. at each application; and whether he will see that some arrangements are made by which the necessary explosives can be obtained without the long and expensive journeys now rendered necessary?
      Mr. SHORTT: It is the fact that the military authorities have assumed possession of explosives in Ireland as a necessary precaution against their illegal use, and it is imperative in existing circumstances to release the explosives in small quantities only. It is not a fact, however, as alleged, that contractors are limited to 2 lbs. of explosives. In certain cases the amounts may have been so limited as a necessary precaution, but in other cases up to 50 lbs. of explosives have been used on one day under the supervision of the police. The military authorities are, however, prepared to consider applications from road contractors or other persons to
      1522
      whom explosives are now supplied for any alternative method of supply which would remove or reduce inconvenience without lessening present safeguards.

      SCHOOL TEACHERS.
      Mr. BOLANDasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state if the Treasury has agreed to meet the claim put forward by the paper-promoted teachers in Ireland?
      Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The answer is in the negative.
      General McCALMONT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the few questions in which the representatives from Ireland are entirely agreed, and cannot he give it some further consideration?
      Mr. BALDWIN: Members from Ireland, I think, are generally agreed on matters of this kind, but the matter has not yet been officially brought before the Treasury.
      Mr. BOLAND: Do I understand the matter has not been officially brought to the notice of the Treasury by the Irish Government or anyone else?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I would like to say it has been brought to my notice, which is more or less official, and is being considered.

      DUBLIN (SHELL FROM LIFFEY).
      Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary whether he has made inquiries into the action of a gunner on board a boat sailing down the Liffey, who a few days ago discharged a shell into one of the most thickly populated portions of the city of Dublin, thus endangering many lives; and, if so, what action he intends taking in the matter?
      Mr. SHORTT: I understand that this man is under arrest, and I am not at present in a position to make any further statement.
      Mr. NUGENT: Will the man be tried before a civil or a military tribunal?
      Mr. SHORTT: I am not informed as to that.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    Mr. WILESasked the Home Secretary what extra remuneration he pro-

    1523
    poses to recommend for the members of the Metropolitan Police Force; and, if so, on what date it will come into force?
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the delay in announcing any decision as regards a further war bonus to officers and men of the Metropolitan Police Force is causing disappointment and also hardship amongst the older and married men of the force; in view of the Adjournment, can he see his way to make a decision; and, if not, can he state when he can do so?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave on this subject on the 24th July.
    Captain BARNETTasked the Home Secretary what steps are being taken to provide policemen discharged from the Army who are found unfit for ordinary police duty with employment at Scotland Yard or in the museums and picture galleries?
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Secretary for Scotland has addressed a circular letter to certain police authorities in Scotland recommending them to reinstate, wherever possible, members of their forces who have been discharged from the Army; that the circular points out that a disability which unfits a man for naval or military service may not preclude him from the efficient performance of police duty, more particularly the lighter kinds, for which even the loss of a limb need not necessarily be a disqualification; and whether, in view of the desirability of obtaining some uniformity in this matter, he will send out similar instructions to the police authorities of England and Wales, some of whom, acting on the recommendation of their police surgeons, are declining to reinstate men suffering from the disabilities described in the second paragraph of this question?
    Sir G. CAVE: I will carefully consider both these suggestions.
    Captain BARNETTasked the Home Secretary why policemen who have been discharged from the Army and subsequently from the police force are denied all benefits under a superannuation scheme to which they have contributed for years;
    1524
    and why the receipt of a disablement pension should prevent or postpone the enjoyment of rights which have accrued by virtue of such contributions?
    Sir G. CAVE: Police pensions are only payable from public funds in accordance with the provisions of the Police Act, 1890, as modified by subsequent legislation. If the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars of the cases of hardship which he has in mind, I will have inquiry made.
    Mr. WILESasked the Home Secretary what is the amount paid from police funds to the wives of Metropolitan constables who have joined the Army with the permission of the Commissioner; and whether the amount is fixed or is increased in accordance with the amount of the war bonus granted to the police as provided by the Police and Factories (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916?
    Sir G. CAVE: The allowance made from the Metropolitan Police Fund to the wives and children of constables serving in the Army, in addition to the Army allowances, is 15s. a week for the wife and 2s. 6d. for each child under fifteen years of age, subject always to the limit fixed by the Act of 1914. This limit was raised, so as to take into account the police war bonus, not by the Act referred to in the question but by the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1917. All allowances which were limited by the earlier Act were revised after the passing of the Act of 1917.

    ALIENS.

      REPATRIATION.
      Colonel YATEasked what progress has been made in the repatriation of undesirable aliens; how many have been repatriated and how many more it is proposed to repatriate; and whether the wives and families of Russian subjects who have been returned to Russia rather than face enlistment in this country, and who are now receiving allowances in this country, will be included in the number?
      Sir G. CAVE: As I explained in the Debate on the 11th July, the deportation of undesirable aliens is being constantly proceeded with in individual cases, but difficulties of transport have so far prevented deportation on a large scale, and

      1525
      these difficulties apply especially as regards Russians. Every endeavour is being made to overcome the difficulties, and I am in communication with the Shipping Controller on the subject. As soon as transport facilities to Russia again become available, the repatriation of the persons referred to in the last part of the question will be one of the first matters to receive attention.
      Sir R. COOPER: Is it the intention to give German women whom we might desire to repatriate the option of being interned if they so desire, and thus save transport?
      Sir G. CAVE: That has not been considered.
      Colonel YATE: Will these undesirable aliens be deported by Archangel?
      Sir G. CAVE: It can only be by Archangel or by Scandinavia. There are difficulties in both cases.
      Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that Archangel will be closed in a few months?

      SUPERVISION.
      Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the complaints made by people in the neighbourhood of Grassington on account of the aliens there interned being frequently seen without any guard whatever in the village, and especially in the public-houses; and whether he will take steps to have these aliens confined to their place of internment and only allowed at large with proper guards and subject to discipline?
      Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir; careful inquiry was made into these complaints, and the local chief constable declared himself satisfied with the arrangements made for the employment and supervision of these men, which I mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member on the 8th July. There have been no further complaints for some time past.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is it possible to provide guards for small parties of two or three?
      Sir G. CAVE: We cannot always provide guards for small parties.

      EMPLOYMENT (PAT).
      Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Home Secretary whether alien enemies when employed are paid as much as from £2 to £5 a week whereas the widows, wives,
      1526
      and dependants of British soldiers have to subsist on much smaller allowances; and whether, assuming that it is desirable to pay trade union rates to employed alien enemies, he will arrange that the total sums so earned, less a few shillings a week, shall be retained and paid over to the voluntary fund of the Minister of Pensions or to the British Red Cross?
      Sir G. CAVE: Alien enemies who are skilled workers receive when employed the standard rates of pay for the work in which they are engaged. If their pay were reduced to a few shillings a week as proposed, they would probably refuse to do the work which is required in the public interest, and in any case the maintenance of their families would fall on the rates. For these and other reasons, I fear that effect cannot be given to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

      TOYNBEE HALL LECTURER (O. SALLMANN).
      Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction occasioned by his neglect to take notice of the representations that have been made to him regarding the case of one Otto Sallmann, residing at 11, Girdler's Road, Brook Green, a lecturer on Shakespeare at Toynbee Hall; whether this man is a naturalised or an unnaturalised German; whether he is aware that Sallmann and his wife have made themselves offensive in their neighbourhood by their ostentatious rejoicing on occasions of enemy successes in the War; why Sallmann has not been interned; and whether, in case of Sallmann having been naturalised, he will consider the propriety of cancelling his certificate as soon as the Aliens Bill becomes law?
      Sir G. CAVE: I cannot find that any representations have been made to me with regard to this man who, I am informed, is a natural-born British subject. I am making inquiry into the allegations made in the question, and will be glad if the hon. Member will submit to me the evidence on which they are based.
      Mr. E. HARVEY: Is it not possible when a personal attack is made upon people who have no opportunity of replying for their names to be submitted privately to the Minister concerned, so that inquiry may be made and all information elicited without injustice being done to the individuals?
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member has frequently put down similar questions giving names and addresses of various people, and that, on inquiry being made, the reply of the Minister has been that there was no foundation for the statements made in the question?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have no recollection of any cases.
      Mr. MacNEILL: If my right hon. Friend is willing to receive the evidence, I am quite ready to submit it to him.
      Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask, can there be no protection for innocent people outside against these attacks in Parliament, where they have no opportunity of defending themselves, and, in view of the fact that there are Select Committees dealing with these things, is it not most unfair to hold them up to public odium and scorn?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I am quite in accord with the views of the hon. Member. I have regretted during the whole Session the way in which a number of perfectly innocent people have been referred to in questions in this House, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for what he has said, but the hon. Member for St. Augustine's is not the only offender.
      Sir R. COOPER: Is it not a fact that questions were repeatedly asked in this House about Mr. de Laszlo, and during a period of two years we were assured that this man was absolutely harmless, whereas he had been communicating with the enemy all the time?
      Sir G. CAVE: No question was ever asked me about this man until after he was interned.

      CHANGE OF NAME.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances he will permit aliens to change their names; and if every change will be announced in the "London Gazette," as in the past?
      Sir G. CAVE: No general rules as to the circumstances in which changes of name will be allowed under the Regulation have yet been adopted, and I cannot therefore make a statement on the subject at the present moment. I am not aware that it has been the practice to announce all changes of name in the "Gazette," but
      1528
      I am considering the question of giving publicity to cases in which a change of name may be sanctioned under the Regulation.
      General McCALMONTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of a British-born son of German parents who, since the outbreak of war, has assumed by deed poll the well-known double surname assumed by royal licence some years ago by a British family and who uses the name for business as well as private purposes; and whether he will, in accordance with recommendation No. 10 of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, so extend the scope of the recently issued Order under the Defence of the Realm Act as to include the children of enemy aliens who preferred their alien names until after the outbreak of War?
      Sir G. CAVE: The hon. and gallant Member has furnished me with particulars of the case to which he refers. My attention had not previously been drawn to it. I doubt whether Defence of the Realm Regulation 14II could be extended to natural-born British subjects, but I appreciate the objections to the existing law as to changes of name, and I hope that the whole matter may before long be dealt with by legislation.
      General McCALMONT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the family in question are perfectly prepared to take any individual action to protect themselves, but according to counsel's opinion find themselves unable to take any action under the existing law?
      Sir G. CAVE: I am aware of that, and I regret it very much.

      SHIPPING SPACE (ALLOCATION).
      Captain BARNETTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he is aware that in the allocation of shipping space from American ports to this country preference has on more than one occasion of late been given to the naturalised Austrian firm of Weiss, Biheller, and Brooks, Limited; whether any reason exists for such preference; whether British firms engaged in the same business have been unable to obtain tonnage; and, if so, whether steps will be taken in future to ensure that priority is given to British importers rather than to alien enemy firms?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I have made inquiry, and am informed that space has been allotted to the firm in question on exactly the same basis as to all other shippers of the same commodity. No preference has been given to this particular firm and others have received a proper share of the space. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

      PARTY FUNDS (CONTRIBUTIONS).
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Minister whether he has made inquiry to ascertain to what extent payments have been made to the funds of political parties in this country by wealthy aliens of enemy origin; and, if such payments have been made, what action he proposes to take?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
      Sir R. COOPER: Is it not the intention of the Government, while exterminating German influence from businesses, equally to do so from politics?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the hon. Member is acquainted with the particulars in regard to only one of the parties. I have no knowledge of any such contribution, so far as I am concerned.

      PUBLIC LOANS.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order completely to frustrate for the future the methods of pentration practised by Germany's state-directed finance, His Majesty's Government will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to ensure that henceforward no British bank or financial group be allowed to negotiate or raise any public loan for any foreign country in partnership, or agreement with any German bank or financial group; that any or all such partnerships and agreements, existing or suspended, be definitely terminated; and that no British bank or financial group concerned with the raising of public loans be permitted to include amongst its directors or staff any persons of German nationality or birth?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The suggestions made in the question will be carefully considered by His Majesty's Government.

      BANK DEPOSITS.
      Mr. SMALLWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in
      1530
      respect of the large sums deposited by foreigners in British banks and bearing interest for purposes of taxation, bankers are required to give particulars to the authorities of interest paid; and, if not, how the information is obtained for purposes of taxation?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: All persons are required to account to the Revenue for the Income Tax deductible from annual interest payable by them.

      SOLDIERS.
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether naturalised British subjects of German origin now serving in His Majesty's Army will be affected by the inquiry now proceeding as to alien enemies, or whether, in the case of men against whom no charge or suspicion of disloyalty exists, they will be permitted to continue their services in His Majesty's Army?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Brentford on the 1st instant. Combatant officers, unless employed in a Government office, will not be affected by the inquiry.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then do the British Army consider that people serving in it, although they may be of German origin, make good soldiers?
      Mr. MACPHERSONwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

    AIR-RAID WARNINGS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to alter in any way the present system of air-raid warnings in London or if it is proposed to continue during the autumn and winter months the present warnings by maroons; whether he will state what arrangements have been made for the opening of tube stations and other shelters if raids take place late or after midnight; and if he will issue posters on all public buildings giving the present warnings and especially advising the public to stay at home?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is proposed to continue during the autumn and winter months the present system of air-raid warnings in London, which has proved effective.

    1531
    Arrangements have been made under which all the tube stations, with the exception of a few which are unsuitable, will be available as shelter at whatever time a raid may occur, in addition to the great majority of the buildings classed as public shelters. It is not proposed to issue posters warning the public to stay at home when warning is given of a raid, as this advice has been frequently given, and is, I believe, now well understood and generally followed.

    SUMMER TIME.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the necessity of saving gas and electricity for lighting purposes, he will consider as to extending the present Daylight Saving Order for another month, so that it will continue until the end of October in the present year?
    Sir G. CAVE: This question was very carefully considered at the time the Order was made, but it was not thought advisable to prolong the period of Summer Time beyond the end of September. The saving of light which would be effected in the afternoon would be largely counterbalanced by the additional consumption of artificial light in the early morning; and it was felt that the gain was not sufficient to outweigh the inconvenience and hardship which would be occasioned to the great body of persons who have to start work at an early hour. In fixing the 29th September as the date for the termination of Summer Time this year, I extended the period beyond the time recommended by the Departmental Committee, and it will continue for a fortnight longer than it did last year.

    OMNIBUS QUEUES.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the crowds using omnibuses at certain termini and stopping places in London; and whether, in view of the danger to the public caused by this crowding, he will instruct the police authorities to arrange for queues for passengers at these various stopping places similar to those arranged for by the tramway authorities in London?
    Sir G. CAVE: Omnibus queues have been established at certain points in London, and the police are anxious to extend the system wherever this can be done without unduly interfering with the rights of frontagers.
    Sir H. NIELD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman, to meet the needs of the moment, introduce, at any rate, at some point the French system of issuing tickets?
    Sir G. CAVE: There are great difficulties in the way. I believe that even the London County Council, who have powers, cannot do it.
    Mr. WHYTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is the universal practice in Paris, in order to avoid a crush, to issue these tickets, which are taken down by the public from a lamp-post in their order as they arrive?

    WAR AIMS (LABOUR CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM).
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the published statement to the effect that direct communications had taken place with Socialists in enemy countries on the proposals contained in the memorandum of the Inter-Allied Labour Conference on War Aims; if so, has he made inquiry into the statement; and is he satisfied that the Defence of the Realm Regulations have not been contravened?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have not seen any statement indicating that direct communications have taken place with enemy countries, but if the hon. Baronet will refer me to the particular statement which he has in mind, I will make inquiry.

    STEAMSHIP "ORMONDE" (SEAMEN).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether it is the intention to bring to trial the forty-three men of the "Ormonde" who have been interned for over four months in Bombay, seeing that they have had no opportunity of proving their innocence; whether the Ministry have compelled these men to join the Mercantile Marine Reserve, despite the fact that they have refused to sign articles

    1533
    and desire to return to the United Kingdom; if the Government propose to pay the wages of these men during the period of internment, especially in view of the destitute condition of some of their dependants in Glasgow; and whether it is proposed to have an inquiry into the circumstances of this case?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I gave my hon. Friend a full statement regarding this case on 19th March. The subsequent course of events has been as follows: I am glad to say that the forty-three men in question have all agreed to engage for service under Admiralty articles and are now serving under those articles in various capacities in Egypt and the Mediterranean. A communication has recently-been received, however, indicating that some of the men signed in the belief that they would immediately be sent home. This matter is now being investigated, but, in the meantime, I may point out that the men have all been in receipt of pay since the date of signing the Admiralty agreement. I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible on the outstanding points.

    SEDITIOUS PROPAGANDA.
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the question of taking special measures to put a stop to the Bolshevist propaganda that is apparently being allowed to go on unchecked, and is doing so much harm amongst the workers throughout the country?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Measures have been taken both by prosecution and by deportation for checking seditious propaganda. If my hon. and gallant Friend will send me the information on which (he bases his question, I will have immediate inquiry made.
    Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to certain articles in newspapers calling upon the Government to take drastic steps to put a stop to this propaganda, and can he say how many people have been prosecuted?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have seen general statements, but in every case where I have had evidence proceedings have been taken, and in certain cases aliens who have indulged in propaganda have been deported.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (ELIGIBILITY OF WOMEN).

      LAW OFFICERS' OPINION.
      Sir WILLOUGHBY DICKINSONasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has now been advised as to the legality of a woman being elected to and sitting in Parliament; and, if such action is not legal, whether he will introduce legislation to make it so?
      Captain BARNETTasked the Prime Minister whether any decision has yet been arrived at on the question whether women are legally qualified to sit in Parliament?
      Mr. DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now-state the result of the inquiry into the question as to the legality of women being elected to Parliament?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: In the unanimous opinion of the Law Officers of England, Scotland, and Ireland a woman is not entitled to be a candidate for Parliament. As regards the last part of the question of the right hon. Member for West Padding-ton, the subject has not been considered by the Government.
      Sir R. COOPER: Does the Government intend, after the Recess, carefully to consider whether or not this matter should not be brought into conformity with the privileges which this House has given to women in according them the vote?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said that the subject has not yet been considered, but that does not mean that it will not be considered.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Will it be considered?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, yes; certainly it will be considered.
      Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is it not the fact that where the franchise has been granted to women their presence in Parliament has followed, if not immediately, eventually; and when the Bill was passed in this House was it not constantly said that there could be no question as to the admission of women to this House?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the hon. Member is right. I remember that on the occasion this subject was discussed, it was repeatedly said that when we gave the franchise to women we could not refuse their admission to this House.
      Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether the reasons of the decision can be communicated to the House?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give the reasons for the decision until a decision has been arrived at.
      Sir J. D. REES: I mean the reasons of the Law Officers' decision.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have seen their decision, and, as usual, they were wise enough not to give their reasons.

    PARIS ECONOMIC RESOLUTIONS.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether he will call another Inter-Ally Economic Conference, at which the United States would be represented, for the further consideration and revision of the Paris Resolutions in the light of later developments?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the previous replies on this subject.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the intention of the Government to have a formal conference, with the United States represented, in view of the fact that the United States have now the largest part in the Alliance?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member may be quite sure (that no proposal on this subject will be passed except in conjunction with the United States.
    Mr. WHYTE: Is it not the case that the Assistant-Secretary for Foreign Affairs had correspondence abroad which contained a broad hint that it was the intention of the Government to make a general statement on the whole question of our economic policy before the introduction of the Imports and Exports Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is our intention.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      DIRECTOR OF FOOD PRODUCTION.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Sir Charles Fielding, the new Director of Food Production, is director of the Rio Tin to Company, which is interested in chemical manures and declared a dividend
      1536
      for 1917 of 95 per cent. on ordinary shares after allocating large sums as reserves; whether Sir Charles Fielding held any office at the Ministry of Munitions or other Government Department during 1917; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, it is proposed to continue his appointment as Director of Food Production?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): Sir Charles Fielding is a director of the Rio Tinto Company. The company supplies the English Government and the Allies with pyrites at pre-war prices, and to some slight extent pyrites enter into the manufacture of chemical manures, and otherwise the company is in no way interested in such manures. The company did declare a dividend of 95 per cent. for 1917, but this rate was less than in pre-war periods. The company made its profits almost entirely from copper mining. Sir Charles Fielding was chairman of the Economy of Metals and Materials Committee of the Ministry of Munitions in 1917, besides serving on other Government Committees. He left the Ministry of Munitions, at the request of the Minister of Reconstruction, to become one of the chiefs of staff of that Ministry. Sir Charles Fielding's powers of organisation, business experience, and financial ability will, it is hoped, be of great service to the Board, and I propose to continue his appointment as the unpaid Director-General of the Food Production Department.

      TEA.
      Sir H. NIELDasked the Food Controller (1) whether he is aware that, under the scheme formulated by the Tea Controller, one class of wholesale dealers in tea is preferred to another, whereby the latter are being deprived of their business, in some cases established for many years; whether he is aware that in the administration of this scheme traders are compulsorily obliged to disclose the names of their customers and the method and details of their business, and that such information is used to the detriment of those who are so dealt with; and whether any appeal lies, and to whom, against the decision of the Controller; and (2) whether, when disputes arise under the Tea Controller's scheme with reference to the different classes of traders and the category in which the Controller has placed them and the rebates

      1537
      to which they are entitled, he will provide an independent tribunal of arbitration to whom such disputes may be referred for decision, and not compel traders to submit to his arbitrary decision except under terms of accepting arbitration and an umpire nominated by the Controller?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): There has been no undue preference in the case of wholesale dealers in tea, nor has any class of these dealers been deprived of its business. Brokers claiming allotments of tea have been required to disclose the names of their principals to enable their claims to be verified. Secondary wholesalers claim rebates through the primary wholesalers from whom they buy, and to this extent there is a disclosure of names, but not of the method and details of their business. Such information as is disclosed is certainly not used in the manner suggested in the question. The determination of the class to which particular traders belong under the tea distribution scheme must rest with the Ministry of Food.
      Sir H. NIELD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he maintains that the Food Controller's Department shall arbitrate in their own cause and stop a man carrying on his business by a decision which cannot be challenged?
      Major ASTOR: The Ministry always consult experts. In the case which I believe my hon. Friend has in mind, the names of the experts whom the Ministry proposed to consult were given to the firm in question. They, however, declined their advice as experts.
      Sir H. NIELD: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether they were perfectly independent persons or merely delegates of the Food Controller?
      Major ASTOR: The persons were the chairman of the Tea Buyers' Association, the chairman of the Tea Brokers' Association, and the ex-chairman of the Tea Brokers' Association.
      Sir H. NIELDasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that public money in the form of rebates is given by the Tea Controller under his scheme of distribution which vary in amount to the different classes of dealers in tea, and that the various classes are differentiated against to the exclusion of some who for years have carried on their business and
      1538
      can only carry on by inducing customers to voluntarily pay an additional price; whether he is aware that by the offer of a higher rate of rebate out of public moneys, customers are being induced to transfer their business to other and favoured classes of dealers; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
      Major ASTOR: Under the tea distribution scheme, tea is sold by wholesale dealers at the cost price to them, and those dealers receive rebates to cover their expenses and profit. These rebates are part of the cost of distribution, and are provided for in calculating the selling price of the tea. They vary in amount for different classes of dealers in tea, and have been arranged so as to retain business in existing channels as far as possible. If, however, a dealer employs the services of a buying broker, he must pay for those services out of the remuneration allowed to him under the scheme. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative; the third part does not, therefore, arise.

      SALMON.
      Mr. GULLANDasked the Food Controller whether he will take steps to increase the food supply this autumn by extending the period of salmon fishing round the coasts of this country?
      Mr. PROTHERO: As regards England and Wales, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries do not propose to make any general Order extending the open season for salmon. As a rule, extensions at the end of the season are undesirable, because the salmon are not then in the best condition for human consumption. The conditions vary, however, in different rivers, and the Board are prepared to consider proposals for an extension in any particular river on their merits. Limited extensions have already been granted in certain cases where it appeared that the stock of salmon in the river would not be injured.
      Mr. GULLAND: May I have a reply from the Food Controller about Scotland?
      Mr. PROTHERO: I will communicate the tenour of this answer to the Secretary for Scotland, and I hope he will find similar circumstances in Scotland.
      Mr. GULLAND: I want an answer from the Food Controller. I had an answer from the Secretary for Scotland, but this

      1539
      is a matter affecting our food supply. I put the question, therefore, to the Food Controller, and I should like an answer from him.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Treasury has issued an Order reducing the sick pay of discharged soldiers who rejoin their departments and fall ill within a month of resuming duty in cases where the sick leave is due to the cause which invalided the man from the Army; whether he is aware that the men claim that this is an infringement of their conditions of service, and are supported in their contention by legal opinion; and whether, as the Treasury cannot be sued by a Civil servant, he will consent on behalf of His Majesty's Government to submit the matter to legal arbitrators?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I was not aware of the circumstances mentioned in the second part of the question, but if the hon. Member can arrange for the case and opinion referred to to be forwarded to me, I shall be glad to have it examined.
    Captain BARNETTasked the Pensions Minister whether he will consider the desirability of granting an increased separaton allowance to childless wives who produce a certificate proving inability to go out to work?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The need for an increased separation allowance in these cases is already met by a provision in Part II. Regulations of the Special Grants Committee Regulation 7 (1) (d) enables a supplementary separation allowance to be granted up to the amount of 4s. to a childless wife who is physically unfit or unable for other reasons to obtain employment, provided that her present income is insufficient to maintain her in a standard of comfort which is reasonable having regard to the standard of comfort of the home at the date of the man's enlistment. Application for this allowance should be made to the war pensions committee for
    1540
    the district in which the applicant resides. In addition to this, a childless wife is entitled, if she is ill, to get a sickness grant amounting to 10s. a week; also, in certain cases, there is a grant for rent, which can amount to as much as 8s. a week.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Seeing that the hon. Gentleman has said that a childless wife in certain circumstances is entitled to certain grants, may I ask if it is obligatory upon these local war pensions committees to make these supplementary grants, where evidence proves the inability of the woman to go out to work, or is it at their discretion?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is at their discretion, having regard to the circumstances. They investigate, and if they were not doing their duty they would be reported, and steps would be taken to see that they did do their duty.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Has the Minister of Pensions power to compel a local war pensions committee to make grants when they refuse to do so in a desirable case?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No; I do not think we have, but we are bringing in a Bill which, we hope, will largely increase our power over local war pensions committees.
    Captain BARNETT: Does he consider a 4s. grant is adequate if a woman is unable to go out to work—not really ill, but unfit for work, or is over age?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: But my hon. Friend must take into consideration the other point I have mentioned, namely, that she can get a rent allowance and sickness grant if she is ill.

    CONDENSED MILK COMPANY (FRESH CAPITAL).
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Nestlé and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company, to whom he has given permission to issue 4,000,000 francs of shares to the British public, is a German-owned company which has during the War issued a notice informing its German customers that it is carried on for the benefit of German capitalists and of German workmen; and whether this is in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that the hon. Baronet is mistaken in suggesting that this company is German-owned, and, so far as I have been able to ascertain, it has issued no such notice as that referred to. Permission was given for the issue of fresh capital to the English shareholders only, and this issue was, I understand, approved by the Fresh Issues Committee because of the importance to the Admiralty and War Office of their contracts with this company.
    Sir R. COOPER: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to suggest that this company has not issued a circular in Germany with regard to finance and the employment of German people, and is it not the fact that this company has no British directors?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know about the directors, but I was told that the circular was not in the terms stated in the question. Perhaps my hon. Friend is in some confusion by not recognising that there is a Swiss company, which is distinct from the German company.
    Sir R. COOPER: May I send a copy of the notice issued in Germany upon which this question was based?
    Mr. WRIGHT: Has it not been stated in this House by the President of the Board of Trade that the shares of the company are bearer shares, certain of them owned by Germans, and that there are no directors of British nationality?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know about the directors. I saw the information possessed by the Board of Trade with regard to the share-holding, but it does not bear out my hon. Friend's statement.
    Mr. WRIGHT: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the official answer given in this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not remember it, but I certainly will look at it if required to do so.

    COAL SUPPLIES.
    Sir J. AINSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what steps he is prepared to take to increase the output of coal from the collieries of the United Kingdom; and whether he can see his way to arrange that the Coal Controller should be pre-
    1542
    pared to provide and supply the necessary amount of coal required to supply the industries and householders of the Kingdom, in the same way that the Food Controller has already provided for the supply of food required by the population of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. WARDLE: Every effort is being made to diminish the decline in the output of coal which must inevitably result from the withdrawal of 75,000 miners from the mines for the Army. The Army Council are engaged in releasing 25,000 miners of medical categories B2 and B3 now serving at home. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain have given the Prime Minister a pledge to take every step in their power to improve the output, and this pledge is to be carried out by means of the influence of Joint Pit Committees at every colliery and by means of mass meetings and addresses by the miners' leaders in the coalfields. The Executive of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain are also issuing a manifesto on the subject.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask my hon. Friend whether they are taking the obvious steps of trying to get back B2 and B3 men from the Army whose return has been authorised, and are extending that to recovering B1 men also?
    Mr. WARDLE: For the present the B2 and B3 men are being recalled as rapidly as possible.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are you taking stops to increase the coal production by getting back the B1 men as well?
    Mr. WARDLE: No; not at present.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are you taking any steps to prevent the remainder of the 7,000 men who have been called up recently, but who have not yet gone, from being taken and to retain them in the pits, or are you still further depleting the collieries of the country?
    Mr. WARDLE: I must have notice of that.
    Colonel ROYDS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that the supply of coal for steam ploughing tackle has for some weeks been totally inadequate, and that many sets of steam ploughs are idle and making long and fruitless journeys, and whether arrangements will be made for an immediate and adequate supply of coal for steam ploughing and thrashing?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): In view of the prospective rationing of coal, the Food Production Department have been in constant touch with the Coal Controller, in order to secure the best possible treatment for agriculture. The Department are represented on the Coal Priority Committee. Independently of this committee, they have been in consultation with the Coal Controller's Office for the purpose of arranging a workable scheme. At a meeting yesterday a tentative agreement was made which would meet the full requirements of agriculture, without interfering with the ordinary channels of trade. Any person not obtaining his full requirements would be supplied on the recommendation of the agricultural executive committee, who would act directly with the district officers of the Coal Controller. This proposal was to be discussed to-day at a meeting of district officers at Birmingham. The result will be known within the next few days. Meanwhile, it is impossible to state the definite shape which the arrangement will take. In any case details will require adjustment.
    Colonel ROYDS: Does the Coal Controller realise the great loss of food which may result from this tackle standing idle?
    Sir R. WINFREY: We fully realise it, and are doing our best to press the point on him.

    EXPORTS TO GERMANY (1913).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the total value of goods of British origin exported to Germany during the year 1913?
    Mr. WARDLE: The exports to Germany during 1913 of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom were valued in the aggregate at £40,677,030.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can state the tonnage and value of British coal sold to Germany in the year 1913?
    Mr. WARDLE: In the year 1913 the exports of coal from the United Kingdom to Germany amounted to 8,952,328 tons, valued at £5,327,733.

    BRITISH MERCANTILE TONNAGE.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can state the British ocean-going mercantile tonnage at the outbreak of the War and at the present time?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I have been asked to answer this question. In round figures the desired information is as follows:
    Total British ocean-going mercantile steam tonnage at the outbreak of the war, 18,500,000 tons gross.
    Corresponding figures at the present time, 15,000,000 tons gross.

    FOOD RATION BOOKS (PRINTER'S NAME).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, on the millions of food ration books recently issued, the name of the firm that printed them was allowed to be shown in a prominent position; and whether any consideration was given by the printers for this privilege, or whether any reduction has been made in the price by the firm for this advertisement?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware of the fact mentioned. The value of the advertisement will be taken into account in connection with the payment to be made to the printers for work done.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Did this firm get this contract as the result of competition?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I shall require notice of that.

    BRITISH SCHOOL OF MOTORING, LIMITED.
    Sir HENRY COWANasked the Minister of National Service whether his attention has been called to an advertisement, widely displayed at railway stations and elsewhere, by the British School of Motoring, Limited, stating that 5,000 men and women are wanted immediately for positions of national importance, and that the country needs that number of motor drivers and will pay them well; whether he is aware that the British School of Motoring undertakes to train applicants for such employment in a period of two

    1545
    weeks; whether he is aware that numbers of women who, relying upon these representations, have taken this course of instruction and incurred expense in so doing, have failed to obtain Government employment on account of the inadequacy of such training; whether the Ministry of National Service has sanctioned the action of the British School of Motoring; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take for the protection of the public?
    Sir A. GEDDES: No, Sir; I have no information regarding the points raised by my hon. Friend.
    Sir H. COWAN: May I hand in the particulars to my right hon. Friend?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Certainly.

    MUNITIONS.

      AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURE (WAGES).
      Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has received any applications from controlled firms engaged in the manufacture of aircraft to allow them to pay certain of their workpeople an increased wage, such increase to be paid from the funds of the firm concerned; if so, whether the request has been refused; and whether he will state the reason for such refusal?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have not in mind the particular case referred to by my hon. Friend. It is not the practice of the Department to sanction proposals for increases in wages to any class of workpeople already in receipt of the recognised standard district rate, unless exceptional circumstances justifying the increase are shown. It is in the interest of all concerned that uniformity in wages should be maintained so far as possible.

      CELLULOSE ACETATE (INQUIRY).
      Mr. WRIGHT (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister what Department of what Ministry was prior to February, 1917, and has since that date been responsible for advising the War Office or the Ministry of Munitions whether proposals for the production of cellulose acetate should be accepted?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I only received notice of this question a few minutes before I entered the House. The subject being under inquiry, I think it would be
      1546
      premature and might be misleading to attempt to furnish information as to the respective responsibility of the various sections of the War Office and Ministry of Munitions concerned.
      Sir W. BULL (by Private Notice)asked the Leader of the House if he has been able to meet the demand of the British Cellulose Company for a full inquiry on oath into the charges made in this House and in the Press against that company?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have invited one of His Majesty's judges, who will act as chairman, and two business men whose names will, I am sure, inspire confidence, to inquire into this matter, with the following terms of reference:
      "To inquire into and report upon the formation and financial arrangements of the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company, Limited, and associated companies, and upon their relations with Departments of the Government."
      I have not yet, owing to their absence from town, received the consent of these gentlemen, and I cannot, therefore, give their names, but if possible I shall give them before the House rises to-day. The power to take evidence on oath could not be given except by legislation which, in any case, would have been impossible before the House rises, and I am confident that the absence of this power will not prevent the fullest inquiry into all the circumstances of the case.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a Bill down on the Order Paper to-day dealing with certain complaints of inhumanity in Belfast Prison in order that evidence may be taken on oath; why not have one commission to take these inquiries?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not see how it is possible that the Bill to which my hon. and learned Friend refers can be passed. I do not think it is possible.
      Mr. HEALY: Then why not make the reference to Belfast the same as is being done in this case, so that there shall not be a delay of three months? You are giving to English Members in the case of an English scandal an immediate inquiry, and you say that an oath is not necessary. In the case of the Irish scandal you say that it is necessary, and the matter will consequently be delayed for three months?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe a question is being addressed on that question to my right hon. Friend.

    ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE (PROMOTION).
    General McCALMONTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether an officer of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve holding the temporary rank of lieutenant-commander was recently promoted temporary commander and acting captain on the same day; if so, whether promotion to such a rank is usually reserved as a reward for service in action; and whether he will state the combatant services for which this officer has been selected for this promotion?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): An officer holding the acting rank of Commander, R.N.V.R., but whose substantive rank was that of temporary Lieutenant-Commander, R.N.V.R., was recently confirmed in his rank as temporary Commander, R.N.V.R., and given the acting rank of Captain, R.N.V.R., and this presumably is the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. It has never been the practice to limit such promotions to cases in which services have been rendered in action, and the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise. I may add, however, that the officer in question holds an important post, which he fills with marked ability, and the promotion was decided upon only after very careful consideration.
    General McCALMONT: Is there another instance in which an officer has been promoted to acting rank since the War, except for service in action, and, if so, is it not unfair that those who have been in action should see a man with no sea service at all so promoted?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There have been cases in which acting rank of captain has been conferred for service other than service rendered in action.

    REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he can state the number of unmarried men serving with the forces of the Crown who are Parliamentary but not local government electors in Glasgow, or if he can say whether the number of them is estimated to be about 30,000?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I understand that, so far as can be estimated at present, 30,000 naval and military voters will be on the Parliamentary but not on local government register in Glasgow. It is not possible to say how many of these are unmarried.
    Mr. GULLANDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can now say what is to be the qualifying date for the second electoral register; and whether he is issuing instructions for its preparation?
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can now make any statement as to instructions being issued to registration officers for the preparation of the second register of voters, so as to enable them to retain their existing staff and organisation for the preparation of the lists; whether he can state if the qualifying period for voters on the second register will be in October; and, if not, what date will it be?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I am not at present in a position to say what the date of the qualifying period for the second register will be. As I stated, in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Newington West on the 1st instant, an Order in Council will be necessary, and as soon as it is issued instructions will be given to registration officers and a public announcement will be made in the Press.
    Mr. GULLANDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, in many constituencies, thousands of claims to be registered as electors have been made; whether these claims are being thoroughly inquired into by the registration officers; and whether he now expects that all the registers will be ready and issued on the 1st day of October?
    Mr. FISHER: I have no particular information as to the number of claims, but no doubt the lists of claims have been very much augmented in many areas, owing to the provision in the Order in Council, under which cards received from naval or military voters too late for the inclusion of the voters' names in the lists, were to be treated as claims, so that the registration of these voters should be secured. I have no reason to suppose that

    1549
    the registration officers will not make sufficient inquiry or that the registers will not be issued by the date prescribed. But the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for reminding him that there is a war in progress, and that circumstances may occur which will nullify premature pronouncements.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman speaking for Great Britain or for Great Britain and Ireland? Does his reply extend to Ireland?
    Mr. FISHER: The reply seems to me to extend to Ireland as well.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will publish a Return of the information obtained last year from local authorities showing in each case the shortage of houses in their areas, the number of vacant houses, and the number of houses for which each authority was willing to prepare a building scheme?
    Mr. FISHER: I am afraid the publication of such a Return as the hon. Member asks for would not be justifiable. The information supplied by the local authorities is frequently not in a form which lends itself to statistical treatment. The position has also been modified in a number of eases after correspondence or local conferences or otherwise, and the publication of the Return suggested might lead to erroneous inferences.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE.

      FLYING OFFICER OBSERVERS.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether his attention has been called to the fact that flying officer observers, many of whom have seen active service in the Infantry as well as having served with fighting squadrons in France and some of whom have commanded companies and have gained honours, are treated, on their return to England to obtain pilot certificates, in the same manner as cadets who have recently been called up, and that at one school of military aeronautics they are fallen-in on Sunday mornings and inspected as private soldiers and are also
      1550
      liable to punishment parades; and whether any steps will be taken to remove this cause of resentment?
      Colonel GIBBS: Courses of instruction for officer observers are administered on the same system as that which prevails for all young Army officers under instruction, and no reason is seen for its alteration.

    JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Minister of Labour whether he has had representations made to him by the representative of the Civil Service Alliance regarding the position of the clerical staff in any scheme in connection with the setting up of Whitley councils in Government Departments; and whether, at an early date, he will be able to meet representatives of its clerical staff to discuss the whole question?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): Representations have been received from the Civil Service Alliance as to the position of the clerical staff in regard to the Whitley councils in the Civil Service, and will be laid before the Interdepartmental Committee. In its deliberations the Committee hopes to avail itself of the co-operation of representative organisations in the Civil Service, and will no doubt take such steps as may be necessary to ascertain the views of such organisations as early as possible.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Minister of Labour whether the Interdepartmental Committee over which he presides which is examining into the conditions under which the principles of the Whitley Report can be made applicable to Government Departments has made satisfactory progress and is likely to be able to report at an early date; and whether he realises the importance as far as possible of getting each Department to discuss the matter with the representatives of the unions concerned, so that when the councils are set up the workers may feel they have had a real share in framing the schemes?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Interdepartmental Committee is making satisfactory progress, but is not yet in a position to present its Report. The Committee fully realise the importance of any schemes that may be adopted in regard to the

    1551
    different Departments being framed on lines which commend themselves to the employés concerned, and will no doubt ensure that they have an opportunity of discussing and submitting their views upon such schemes, either directly or through their representative organisations.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      REPATRIATED CIVILIANS (CHARGES).
      Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) (1) what principle regulates the charge made by the Prisoners of Wax Committee to British civilian prisoners repatriated from German internment camps; (2) whether the Rotterdamsche Lloyd Steamship Company have made no charge for the hire of their vessels used for the repatriation of British interned prisoners from Germany other than actual running expenses; and whether the generosity of this Dutch company was borne in mind by the British Prisoners of War Committee when the committee decided to charge the returned prisoners for the cost of their voyage; and (3) whether the British civilian prisoners repatriated to England from Germany in January last were asked to sign any paper promising to pay the cost of their journey; whether the signing of such a paper is now made a condition of embarkation before the prisoner leaves Holland; and, if this is not the case always, what principle of differentiation between British prisoners is adopted by the Prisoners of War Committee?
      Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I was not aware that these questions were to be put, but I will see that the answers are circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      The following is the answer circulated:
      In reply to these questions, I may say that the charges mentioned are made in accordance with Treasury Regulations. The whole matter is being reconsidered by the Treasury, and in the meantime I can add nothing to the answers given on this subject by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 16th and 22nd July.

      RELIGIOUS EMBLEMS.
      Mr. S. MacNEILL (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for
      1552
      War if he will now state the precise Regulation under which the English Press Censor forbids religious emblems being sent to Irish Roman Catholic Prisoners of War by their relatives at home and what are the reasons on which that Regulation is founded?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: As I stated yesterday, no insult is intended by the enforcement of a Rule which has been in existence for so long a time, and the only consideration has been the best interests and safety of the country. The Rule applies not merely to the articles referred to, but also to every article of similar material sent from any part of the country in which messages intended for the enemy might, by any possibility, be concealed. Every such article, I fear, must be examined, but my advisers are now considering how to do so as expeditiously as possible before they are forwarded to their destination.
      Sir W. ESSEX: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue such instruction as will enable such emblems to be sent to these poor fellows abroad—properly safeguarded, of course?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think my right hon. Friend heard my answer. That is exactly what I am doing.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say by what methods people desirous of communicating with the enemy can do so by means of these emblems?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed there are emblems and emblems, and such communication has thus been made.

    SPECIAL RESERVE BATTALIONS (OFFICERS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, considering that officers in command of Special Reserve battalions throughout the War have had all the responsibility of training drafts and maintaining efficiency and get no pension however long they may serve, the Army Council will now, on the occasion of the completion of the fourth year of the War, consider the question of giving a brevet-colonelcy to those lieutenant-colonels who have commanded their battalions during the whole four years?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am fully aware of the good services rendered by these officers, and it was decided early in the present year to award brevet promotion where recommended to officers commanding Reserve battalions and draft-finding units who had completed three years in command. A considerable number of promotions to brevet-colonel for these services were notified in the "London Gazette" of 3rd June, and a number of appointments to Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George for similar services were announced in the "London Gazette" of the 8th March last.

    EAST COAST TOWNS.

      REQUISITIONED HOUSES.
      Sir EDWARD BEAUCHAMPasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, when the owner of a house in an East Coast town which was requisitioned when vacant has now the opportunity of letting it for a term of years at a reasonable rent, he has any claim for compensation for loss of rent because the War Department refuses to quit; and, if so, to whom it should be preferred?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: If the premises were requisitioned, the question of payment for the military occupation would be a matter for the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, and the owner could submit another claim to that body if, owing to altered circumstances such as are indicated in my hon. Friend's question, the amount awarded no longer represents the actual loss sustained through the continued military occupation. The Commission would, however, require the War Department to furnish a report on the claim before dealing with it. In the absence of details as to the particular property in question, I cannot say whether, in the circumstances stated, it is possible to vacate the premises, but if my hon. Friend will furnish me with the necessary particulars, I shall be happy to make inquiries.

    PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES (SOLDIERS).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what Regulations have been made by the War Office for soldiers who are to stand as Parliamentary candidates if an election should take place during the continuance of the
    1554
    War; whether they will be granted leave of absence during the election, and, in case an organisation in the constituency desires to hear the views of the prospective candidate, whether he will be granted an opportunity of making such a statement; and whether all Army Regulations in regard to the right of attendance at political meetings and the expression of political opinions will be suspended during any election contest?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 21st March last to a question by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham, of which I am sending him a copy.

    SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that soldiers who have served for one or two years, without any leave, in Egypt and Palestine have been transferred for service in France without first having an opportunity of leave at home; and whether, especially having regard to the universal practice in the French Armies of granting leave in corresponding cases, general instructions can be issued to provide for leave to be granted to British soldiers in these circumstances?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 24th July to questions by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, and to the statement which I made last night.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if men outside the lines in France are getting the same kind of consideration in respect to increased leave?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:The only arrangement that I have made so far is that I am trying to get preferential leave to soldiers who have fought in the Eastern theatres of war, and who are now in France.

    EXPEDITIONARY FORCE CANTEENS (CHARGES).
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Prime Minister what is the amount of money in hand as the result of excess

    1555
    charges made to soldiers by the Expeditionary Force canteens; how is it invested; and how soon will the undertaking be carried out that the money so collected shall be devoted to purposes in aid of wounded and disabled soldiers?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no evidence that excess charges have or are being made. Any profits which have been made are invested in the canteen business, and any surplus, when available for distribution, will be devoted by the Army Council for the benefit of the soldier and his dependants, and not necessarily in aid of wounded and disabled soldiers.

    COMPANY LAW AMENDMENT (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
    Sir OWEN PHILIPPS (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give instructions that the Report of the Company Law Amendment Committee shall be at once published?
    Mr. WARDLE: The Report will be issued almost immediately.

    BLOCKADE POLICY.
    Mr. DENNISSasked the Minister for Blockade whether he can give any information as to what arrangements are in force for co-ordinating the blockade policy of the Allies?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of BLOCKADE (Commander Leverton Harris): We are working in complete accord with our Allies in a joint policy of blockade, which is settled by constant exchange of views and comparison of information between the Governments concerned. An Allied Blockade Advisory Committee, which is presided over by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Blockade, sits regularly in London, and Allied Sub-committees, which have proved to be of great value, have been set up in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Holland to advise this Committee regarding blockade matters in these countries. Representatives of the Allied countries are also giving valuable assistance on other Committees dealing with specific blockade questions. I regret that, by mistake, this answer was circulated yesterday, when the question was postponed.

    INTOXICANTS (YOUNG PERSONS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Home Secretary whether, although it is not possible under present circumstances to introduce legislation to enforce a general regulation against serving intoxicating liquors in licensed houses to young persons under the age of eighteen years, he will consider the question of addressing the various licensing authorities on the subject of the provision of tables and chains and refreshments other than intoxicating liquors in licensed houses, so that young persons can find accommodation there without being compelled to stand at a drinking bar, and informing them that the Government will be glad to favour any move by them in the accomplishment of such a reform?
    Sir G. CAVE: I regret that, much as I sympathise with the hon. and gallant Member's desires, I cannot at present add anything to the answer which I gave him on the 23rd July. He will no doubt be aware that structural alterations of licensed houses are practically out of the question at the present time.

    VENEREAL DISEASE.
    Mr. JACOBSENasked the Home Secretary if he will say how many women have been medically examined under Regulation 40D of the Defence of the Realm Act, and of this number how many were found to be free from venereal disease?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have no statistics on these points, but I will consult the Prison Commissioners as to whether a Return can be obtained.

    INDIAN SOLDIERS (MEMORIALS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the provision of suitable gravestones or other memorials for Indian, soldiers who have fallen in the War?
    Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): The subject has engaged and is engaging the careful attention of the Imperial War Graves Commission. It is proposed to replace the present temporary wooden headmarks on the graves of Indian soldiers by permanent headstones. The several units of the Indian Army have been asked

    1557
    to submit suitable designs, and the final selection will be made by the Commission, who will have the advice of two Indian members of the Secretary of State's Council. The erection of a central memorial to Indians has also been approved by the Commission, and designs for this are now being prepared by eminent architects in consultation with the two members of the Council.

    CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS, BURMA.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India, whether the Government of Burma is to be invited to state to what extent it considers the proposals and recommendations of the Report on Indian constitutional reforms are applicable to and suitable for adoption in Burma?
    Mr. PRATT: Yes, Sir; the exact position is discussed in paragraph 198 of the Report.

    WAR OFFICE CONTRACT, SHORNCLIFFE (RATES OF PAY).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that the instructions which he issued on the 10th June to Messrs. Hutton and Company with regard to the payment of their workmen employed in the Shorncliffe area have never yet been complied with; and whether he will now give peremptory orders that the prevailing local rates, plus the 12½ per cent. bonus with all arrears, shall be paid forthwith to the men concerned?
    Mr. FORSTER: The contractor wrote to the Department on the 1st instant, saying that he was paying the official rate of wages. In view of my hon. Friend's question, I have asked for further information, but it has not yet been received.

    BELFAST PRISON (SPECIAL COMMISSION).
    Mr. KING: Will the Chief Secretary explain his policy in connection with the Bill which he proposes to present to-day to set up a special commission to inquire
    1558
    into occurrences at Belfast Prison, and will no inquiry be held until the Bill has-become law and a Commission is set up?
    Mr. SHORTT: The policy is simply to set up a tribunal if possible which will command respect and confidence and elicit the truth. It seems to me this is essentially a case where the power to administer the oath is imperative if the truth is to be elicited. Any tribunal which might be set up and which would include a judge, and would command universal respect and confidence, could not be set up except by Act of Parliament. It would be possible for one of the Prison Commissioners to hold an inquiry and to administer the oath, but the only result would be that hon. Members would say it is not a fair tribunal. I have a resolution from the Kerry County Council, some of the members of which are among the prisoners, demanding an inquiry, upon oath, and this is the only method in which it is possible to obtain such a tribunal as is desired.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The delay is very unfortunate. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that an inquiry by one of the Prison Commissioners would not command confidence, but if he would appoint the Vice-Chairman of the Prisons Board, the McDermot, who is a son of a former Attorney-General and comes of ancient Irish lineage, I think an inquiry by that gentleman would certainly be satisfactory to the Irish people. I take it that the Vice-Chairman of the Prisons Board has the necessary legal qualifications, and I suggest that if an inquiry were held by him, if it were conducted openly, if the prisoners were given a chance of attending, and if there were full public notice of it, it would be quite satisfactory to the Irish people.
    Mr. SHORTT: Of course, the delay is very unfortunate. I quite agree, but it is unavoidable. And my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate the fact that we cannot carry the Act through to-day. We must, first of all, get the consent of the Commissioners who may serve. With regard to the other suggestion, I cannot possibly give any answer to-day, but I should be very glad indeed to consider it with the hon. and learned Gentleman, or any other hon. Member on those benches. Meantime, I must present the Bill, which has been prepared so that we may proceed with the inquiry at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. KING: If it is found possible to have an inquiry by the Prison Commissioners, will the prisoners be able to be represented by counsel?
    Mr. SHORTT: Naturally witnesses will not be represented by counsel, but I assume that any parties implicated may be so represented.
    Mr. DEVLIN: And will there be no inquiry until the Bill has been passed?
    Mr. SHORTT: It is not possible.
    Mr. DEVLIN: And if the Bill is not passed there will be no inquiry?
    Mr. SHORTT: If another procedure were suggested instead of the tribunal set up under the Act, and if it were really going to give satisfaction and command confidence in the country, I should be prepared to consider that course.
    Mr. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to see that the prison books and other documents are-impounded pending the inquiry?
    Mr. SHORTT: I will look into that.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and, having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act, 1918.

2. Public Works Loans Act, 1918.

3. Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918.

4. Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1918.

5. Government War Obligations Act, 1918.

6. British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1918.

7. Education Act, 1918.

8. Trade Boards Act, 1918.

9. Asylums and Certified Institutions (Officers' Pensions) Act, 1918.

10. Public Health (Borrowing Powers) (Ireland) Act, 1918.

11. Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918.

12. Naval Prize Act, 1918.

13. Corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918.

14. Income Tax Act, 1918.

1560

15. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1918.

16. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1918.

17. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1918.

18. Rothesay Tramways (Amendment) Order Confirmation Act, 1918.

19. Rotherham Corporation Act, 1918.

20. Maidenhead Gas Act, 1918.

21. St. Olave's Church, Southwark, Act, 1918.

22. Wandsworth, Wimbledon and Epsom District Gas Act, 1918.

23. West Sussex County Council (Bridges) Act, 1918.

24. Bristol Corporation Act, 1918.

25. Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Act, 1918.

BILLS PRESENTED.
MIDWIVES BILL,—"to amend the Mid-wives Act, 1902," presented by Mr. HAYES FISHER; supported by Mr. Walsh; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 15th October, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL,—"to amend the Law with respect to Customs in the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. BALDWIN; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 15th October, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]
SPECIAL COMMISSION (BELFAST PRISON) BILL,—"to constitute a Special Commission to inquire into certain complaints as to the treatment of prisoners in Belfast Prison," presented by Mr. SHORTT; supported by the Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 15th October, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill,
Rothesay Tramways (Amendment) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Income Tax Bill [Lords],
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what business will be taken when our sittings are resumed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Tuesday, 15th October, we shall take the Midwives Bill, the Tithes Bills, the Isle of Man Customs Bill, and the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, Report stage.
  On the Wednesday and Thursday we shall take the Scottish Education Bill.
  Mr. DILLON: Is it proposed to take to-day Order No. 5 on the Paper [Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Bill]?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No.
  Mr. KING: When will the Bill for the Special Commission to inquire into the Belfast prison matter be taken? The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned it, but I hope it will be brought forward as early as possible after the holiday.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider that.
  Mr. DEVLIN: When is the Home Rule Bill to be introduced?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot make any statement on that.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask when the statement will be made on the policy of the Government regarding the economic situation?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As soon as possible after the House resumes.
  Colonel YATE: Does that mean within a week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say anything more definite.

  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Resolved, "That it is expedient to make provision, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for the grant
  1578
  of Superannuation Allowances and Gratuities to Teachers and of Gratuities to legal personal representatives of deceased Teachers, of charging deferred annuities under the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1898 to 1912, on the Consolidated Fund, and of otherwise amending these Acts."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Tuesday, 15th October.

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE (AUTUMN).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until 15th October."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE (AUTUMN).

    WAR AIMS.
    Mr. ANDERSON: The House to-day is going to adjourn for some ten weeks, and during that time it is probable that the political and diplomatic aspects of the War may assume a new importance. It will be impossible for the House to discuss those matters. Therefore, we make no apology at all for drawing attention to some of the aspects of the situation now. My own contribution to the problem will be limited in scope, but not, I think, unimportant in character. I would remind the House, first of all, that the War has entered upon its fifth year, and in all the countries there is a growing sense of gravity and seriousness on the part of the peoples in relation to the tragedy that is being enacted. They see on all hands the accumulating misery and the accumulating cost, and I do not believe that the world has ever realised so clearly as it does now the meaning of war and the misery of war. I would draw attention to an article written by a very well-known journalist, Mr. Gardiner, of the "Daily News," in which, speaking of the cost of the War, he says this:
    "We know what war is. We have four years of such experience as the world has never had before. If we sat day and night and saw the ghostly procession of those slain file by in ranks of four, minute by minute, ten years would pass and still the tale of the world's sacrifice of its youth and strength and hope would not have been told. And if, behind the dead, there filed the host of the maimed, the halt, the blind, the dumb, the paralysed, fifty years would hardly exhaust the dreadful spectacle. The material cost we do not yet realise. We are burning down

    1579
    the house of Bo-bo and it makes a fine blaze—plenty of work, plenty of money, plenty of profits. We shall have to wait till the fire is out and we survey the heap of ashes before we appreciate the meaning of these thousands of millions of debt which Mr. Bonar Law announces to a House that used to be seized with visions of national bankruptcy if anyone asked for a million, to build schools, or house the poor, or heal the sick."
    I am quite sure that what is needed here and elsewhere is not shouting, of which we have had too much in the Press and from the platform, but clear, sustained, and moderate thinking, and that our statesmen should try to do away with non-essentials, false issues, and selfish aims, and, as far as in them lies, move forward steadily towards a good settlement. I am also certain that the ordinary channels of traditional diplomacy have not been adequate to grapple with this new situation. This terrible accumulation of passion, of anger, and of tragedy has overflowed the ordinary banks and channels of diplomacy, and I am going to ask the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office that, among other things, they should watch very carefully the movements of opinion in the various countries outside the ordinary diplomatic channels, because I am certain that by our declarations we can either help or hinder these domestic movements. I am also equally sure that the progress of these movements or the retarding of them will either lengthen or shorten the period of the War itself. Let there be no mistake about it. In all the countries there are cleavages of opinion not merely with regard to the War, but with regard to the end towards which we ought to move, what our purpose ought to be, and what form the settlement ought to take. If you take Germany, you get, on the one hand, Von Tirpitz, Ludendorff, and Reventlow standing for an Imperialistic Germany with Imperial aims and ideas, and at the other end of the scale you get men like Liebknecht, who is now in prison for standing against a false Imperialism and Kaiserism, but whose influence, though he lies in prison, remains, and in whose constituency a Minority Socialist, standing definitely against the War and against the militarism of Germany, has been returned at a by-election. Side by side with him there are men like Bernstein and Ledebour, who have pursued a moderate policy in Germany all the way through, and who have fought the false issues and aims. I am certain that we
    1580
    ought to be able to differentiate between these men, and by our own policy we ought to strengthen the forces at homo that are definitely against the forces of evil abroad.
    It is very often said in this War that the battle is being fought to make this world safe for democracy. If that is true, democratic opinion in all the countries ought to count for much. I cannot help feeling that while we have been striving for unity of command in regard to military operations, there has not been anything like unity of statesmanship among the Allied countries in regard to the aims and purposes which we are seeking to achieve. The opinion is very general that, apart from America, nothing has been done by the Allied Governments to crystallise and clarify opinion, and to make the aims as clear as they might be. That was one of the reasons, though not the only reason, why the Labour and Socialist movements of all the Allies felt that it was necessary to get together to draw up themselves certain aims and certain principles, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, an Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist Conference was held in February in London. That conference represented various movements in various countries. In this country our Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress, representing millions of organised workers, as well as the Labour party were present. The French Confederation of Labour, representing the French trade union workmen, were present. The French Socialist party, the Belgian Socialist party, the Italian parties, and consultative delegates from South Africa, Roumania, and some Slav organisations were also present.
    At this conference we were able to arrive definitely at certain principles, and were able to make a certain statement of aims. This document has been offered as the basis of discussion, not between the Governments and the Kaisers of the various lands, but between the organised workers of the different countries, to see how far they are apart and how far they can really come together in formulating a common programme and policy in regard to the future. They have no intention of abrogating to themselves the functions of government, but they do believe that they are able to make a substantial contribution to this question and to clear away a great deal of error and

    1581
    misunderstanding. I should have thought that the Government, so far from placing every possible obstacle in the way of wider communications of that kind, would have been glad to see that movement go forward. What were the principal aims put forward at this Inter-Allied Conference? First of all, in the very forefront of the programme was the question of a League of Nations. I believe that a League of Nations genuinely organised on proper lines is absolutely essential to anything in the way of a reasonable and proper peace. I believe that many of the problems with which we are faced, territorial questions and so on, will remain insoluble without such a League of Nations, and whatever difficulties there are, and nobody disputes that there are difficulties, in the way of forming a League of Nations, they are as nothing to the difficulties resulting from not forming a League of Nations. The Inter-Allied Conference also dealt with territorial questions affecting Belgium, Alsace-Lorraine, the Balkans, Austro-Hungary, the Colonies, and so on. It declared definitely that there ought to be no economic war after this War, and that economic war, in the words of Mr. Wells, is "a smouldering war where the fire is apt to leap up at any moment." It dealt with the question of restoration and compensation. It dealt with the question of international conference in the following words:
    "The opinion is expressed that an international conference of Labour and Socialist organisations, held under proper conditions, would at this stage help to remove obstacles to peace. Such a conference should be organised by an impartial committee. An essential condition to it should be that all the organisations represented had publicly declared their peace terms in conformity with the principles of 'No annexation or punitive indemnities, and the right of all peoples to self-determination,' and were working to secure the adoption of those principles by their Governments."
    This document, with which no doubt the Foreign Office is acquainted, has been sent to the various organisations and to the Labour organisations in the enemy countries as well. I believe that here is an opportunity of helping forward a movement towards a reasonable and a democratic peace. I would like to quote what was said in regard to that conference in February in two newspapers representing such different points of view on many matters as the "Manchester Guardian" and the "Times." This is what the "Manchester Guardian" says:
    1582
    "The Governments have so far failed to draw up a common programme of war aims; the Conference has done it for them. All the world can now know the policy of Allied labour, and labour among the Central Powers may usefully ponder it. What will it say? That we have yet to learn, and, nothing must stand in the way of our learning it. For, in truth, it is on the accord of the democracies far more than on that of their Governments for the time being that the future depends. Indeed, it may yet be that only through the effective accord of the peoples can peace be reached at all. It is for the peoples, therefore, to assert themselves, our own people, the French and Italian peoples, the German and Austrian peoples. What hope, will it be said, is there of that? How is a triumphant militarism, at this very moment rich with spoil, to be crushed and broken? Perhaps the triumph is pretty far from being as complete as it seems; perhaps even its leaders have something more than a suspicion that their power rests on no very stable base, and that unless they in their turn can offer their people something more than conquest, can at least assure them peace, there may be limits to the endurance of the most patient. But in order that the peoples in those countries may have some stable ground to go upon, in order that they may know what for them peace would mean, it is essential that the terms should be clearly stated, and stated collectively. That is what the Inter-Allied Conference has done so far as Labour is concerned. It is well done, and the Allied Governments would be well advised speedily to follow suit. When it is fully known to the German people that peace means not subjection but liberty, there is no saying what useful transformations may follow."
    This is the quotation from the "Times":
    "Let us, therefore, suppose again that the Allied Labour declaration of war aims is brought to the notice of the corresponding bodies in the enemy countries. The first object is to extract an answer from them which will show their real position, and if that agrees in any measure with the Allied Labour views, then to proceed further with negotiations and attempt the international meeting. The eventual object appears to be to convince the enemy Labour representation that they have been deceived by their own Government and that no intention of crushing or ruining them is cherished on this side; that what we are fighting against is German 'militarism' and the gospel of force which it represents. That is a fair and proper object which has been pursued by President Wilson and others; and not only have the Labour organisations a right to pursue it, too, but they can in some respects do so more effectively than statesmen or Governments."
    For the moment I make no comment on those two extracts, but leave them to speak for themselves. Since those meetings in February, various meetings have been held in various countries, two quite recently in France. One meeting was that of the French General Confederation of Labour, representing the organised trade unionists of France. That was held on the 18th July. By an overwhelming majority at that conference they put forward the demand that their Government

    1583
    should work toward a peace which would help to create a society of nations, and for compulsory arbitration between nations, no economic war after the War, reparation for damage done but no war indemnity, no annexations and the right of self-determination applied to every country, freedom of the seas and straits, no secret diplomacy, and no secret agreements. As leading up to that, they put forward very strongly the demand that an international conference should be held, and said that if the Governments refused, organised labour would be justified in going to almost any length to insist upon that conference taking place. There has also been a meeting of the National Council of the French Socialist party only the other week. What has hitherto been called the minority section of that party, which stands for the wider international point of view, has now become the majority section of that party. The movement has been steady towards the left. There is no doubt that the demand for a reasonable peace is growing among these workers, and also that there should be, at the earliest possible moment, a meeting of the International. In the meantime this Inter-Allied Memorandum has gone to the enemy countries, the idea being to ascertain from the workers, as distinguished from the Government and the militarists, whether there was a sufficient agreement in regard to essential War aims to make further discussion possible, and, if so, whether a conference could be organised at which at least there could be an informal talk over the whole question in order to see how far they were apart and how close they might come together. This document has led to great discussion in the various countries. It has done a great deal of good. I might quote much in proof of that, but I will only quote from one article which appeared in the German-Austrian Socialist paper, "Arbeiter Zeitung," of 7th July, which says:
    "We have to come in agreement with President Wilson. That is only possible if we are prepared to join the League of Nations, and if we refuse to submit whole peoples to domination, either on the East or the West. This will be the easier as the power of the democracy increases in our countries. President Wilson will agree more readily with a democratic Germany than with German Headquarters, more readily with an Austria composed of a federation of free States, than with an Austria where the majority treats the minority of the people as naughty children. The more we are in agreement with
    1584
    the dominant powers in our countries, the more difficult it will be to reach an agreement with Wilson."
    The question I want to ask, in regard to all this, is, whether we are prepared to make any advance towards this spirit which is undoubtedly growing in these other countries? We have it largely in our power either to strengthen it or to freeze it over by the kind of speeches which are made here and the kind of writings that appear here. Either we can help that freer movement in all the other countries or we can hold it in check by the kind of declarations that are made. To that I will refer in a moment. What has been the response to this Inter-Allied Memorandum so far as enemy countries are concerned? There are many of the parties, like the Bohemian-Austrian party, the Galician-Austrian party, the South Slav organisation, and the German Minority party, as to which there is hardly any need to ask any question, for those parties all through the War have been definitely up against their Governments. They have been fighting their Government, and have been fighting all the time for a wider measure of a democratic people's peace. The Bulgarian party has signified that it accepts the general outline of the Inter-Allied declaration, with some small reservation about Macedonia, which is trivial and unimportant. But in regard to all the bigger issues and the general principles, it has given a complete endorsement to what has been put forward. With regard to the Hungarian party, they have opposed the War from the start; they are in complete accord with the general principles of the Inter-Allied Memorandum. They ask for access to the sea both for Serbia and for Hungary. There is no doubt that in any future settlement this question of access to the sea is a very vital matter to some of the countries. Even the right of self-determination itself must not be pressed so far that the self-determination of one country should keep another country from access to the sea. These Hungarian Socialists ask that Belgium shall not only be free and independent, but that Belgium shall be reconstructed at Germany's expense, and they ask also that there should be an independent Serbia, and that there should be a great international fund established, out of which reparation may be made to the small countries which have been ravished and despoiled.

    1585
    In regard to the Austrian Socialist party, they agree to the general principles of the memorandum. They repudiate and condemn Germany's treaties with Russia and Rumania, and believe that they are Imperialist and wrong. They warn the workers of the various countries against looking too much for a Utopia at the end of the War, and against fighting on and on in the hope that to-morrow some wonderful Utopia will come out of the War. They say we ought to make a good start to find a good minimum, to build upon that minimum, and to build upon it after the War comes to an end. Last of all, what is the position in regard to Germany itself? Anyone who reads the extracts from German papers must understand that, so far as the democratic workers of Germany are concerned, the present bureaucratic forms of government in Germany are thoroughly unpopular. There is much hostile criticism in Radical papers like the "Frankfurter Zeitung." I believe it is a fact that at the last election 4,000,000 votes were cast for Socialist candidates in Germany, and the by-elections show that the movement is steadily growing. Majority and Minority German Socialists alike condemn the treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest. There is no question but that there is a real cleavage between large masses of democratic opinion in Germany and men like Ludendorff who speak for the militarists. The German Majority Socialists accept as the basis of discussion those neutral proposals put forward at Stockholm and signed by M. Branting. What were they? They included a League of Nations, open diplomacy, internatnonal disarmament, no economic war after the War, and they said that Alsace-Lorraine was a European problem, and that there ought to be a right on the part of the people to decide how they are going to be governed by means of some form of plebiscite. The German Socialists do not accept that, but it is quite clear that they are willing to discuss it.
    One of the men who has strongly condemned the German Majority Socialists for their attitude in regard to Alsace-Lorraine has been M. Troelstra, the Dutch Socialist leader. He has been able to bring them to a more reasonable frame of mind. I suppose that was one reason why he was regarded as a pro-German, and was kept out of this country. In point of fact, the great sin which
    1586
    M. Troelstra committed was that he had conversation with German Socialists prior to proposing to come here. What he really desired to do was to be able to put an authoritative statement before this country and before all who cared to hear it, as to what was the real position of the democracies in the other countries. It would have been of service, not only to labour here, but to the Foreign Office to get the opinion of a neutral like M. Troelstra as to what was really happening. Apparently quite a different point of view was taken, for in the ordinary Jingo papers a great furore was raised, and he was refused permission to come here at all. This neutral statement, which the German Majority Socialists have agreed to discuss, includes the independence of Belgium, restoration at the expense of Germany, the independence of the former Russian province of Courland, and autonomy for the whole of Poland There is at present much industrial unrest both in Germany and Austria. There have been repeated strikes in Vienna, Berlin, and all over Hungary, and the position has been very much aggravated by the food trouble. What is the argument which German and, Austrian militarists use against all this in order to keep their people in order? What do they say? First of all, that if they are Imperialist in some of their aims the Allies are also Imperialist, and that there are secret treaties and secret agreements between the Allied nations which will enable them to out up this and that piece of territory at the end of the War. They are constantly telling their people in Germany and Austria that it is the aim of the Allied Governments, and particularly of Great Britain, to retain the German Colonies, and by doing that to cut Germany off from the sources of supply of raw materials. They also say that the Allies are preparing to carry on an economic war after the War specifically against Germany. They also, say to the people, "You are going to starve in any case; you may be starving now, but you will also starve after the War is over, because they are going to do their very best to pursue an economic policy and to cut you off from the sources of supply." In regard to that I would say that various statements of extreme Jingo aims can only have one effect, namely, more and more to unite the people with their rulers, although there is no love lost between the people and their rulers. If

    1587
    it were a matter of destruction they would stand together. In this connection I should like to call attention to something which was said by a German Minority Socialist who has been fighting against German militarism from the outbreak of the War to the present moment. Speaking to certain neutral friends at Stockholm, he said:
    "Say to your English friends that Ludendorf has valuable friends in London, and that the German Government would pay sums of money to keep in existence certain extreme organs of Jingo opinion in the Allied countries."
    2.0 P.M.
    I would therefore ask whether, if this question can be brought to a point where useful, informal discussions can be reached—not official discussions necessarily—between the peoples, any further difficulties would be raised in regard to the question of passports? The present Prime Minister, as far back as May, 1917, was in favour of this international conference taking place, and if he has changed his mind one would like to know why he has changed it now. There are some people who are in favour of fighting for the sake of fighting. So it is with some savage tribes. I remember hearing a story about one of the Maori tribes in New Zealand. They were waging war, and they had a chance of cutting off the food supplies which were going to the enemy, but they let them pass. Someone expressed amazement to the Chief that he should allow the supplies to go on, and he replied, "Why, you fool, if we cut off their food and their powder, how could the fighting go on?" There is no country which would be so foolish, in regard to the material munitions of War, as not to cut them off if they got the chance, but I am not quite so sure that is happening in regard to the moral munitions of war. I think the extreme opinion in one country is helping to provide the moral munitions of war for the extreme opinion in other countries. A man who knew as much about war as Napoleon did, the greatest military genius the world has ever seen, said that the moral factor as compared with the material factor in respect of war was as two to one.
    All this raises difficult and, in some respects, delicate questions, the question, for example, of what our policy is and of whether we are going to appeal to this great democratic movement in other
    1588
    countries and how we are going about it. I understand we have actually got four different Departments dealing with the question of expounding and explaining war aims. We are to appeal to the German and Austrian Socialists to tell them what victory means, that victory does not mean smashing or crushing, but the attainment of certain high aims, which some of them also eagerly desire, and into whose hands do we put this sort of thing? Into the hands of men like Lord Northcliffe and Lord Beaverbrook. We have actually got four different Departments. Lord Beaverbrook runs one show, surrounded by business men, Stock Exchange jobbers and others, who may know all about international finance, but know nothing at all about international diplomacy. We have got Lord Northcliffe taking charge of the campaign in enemy countries; we have the War Aims Committee explaining what we mean and what we stand for; and, last of all, we have the Foreign Office. Some of these Departments apparently act independently of the Foreign Office. On the other hand, I think Lord Beaverbrook is responsible in many respects to the Foreign Office. But, whatever quarrel we may have with the Foreign Office, we certainly prefer the Foreign Secretary to-Lord Beaverbrook as the exponent of British diplomacy, and I think it is time the right hon. Gentleman should take definite charge of this Department, because there are far too many cooks stirring in this tragic hell-broth, and they are not making a very good job of it in my opinion. A great many people are quite convinced that Allied statesmanship, as well as that on the other side, has not been exactly inspired. The "Manchester Guardian" of 27th July said:
    "If there had been unity of statesmanship on our side, as there is now unity of command, and if this statesmanship had been inspired with any sense for world politics, one or more of Germany's Allies would have ceased from troubling, us long before this. But hitherto, whenever a pacific gesture has been seen at Vienna or elsewhere, it has always appeared to be the express object of diplomacy on our side to treat it as an act of aggravated disrespect. If our statesmanship had been bent on consolidating our enemies it could hardly have acted otherwise. Have we even now a clear and concerted policy?"
    I should like to quote a well-known publicist, Mr. H. G. Wells, who has certainly a very wide influence, not only in this country, but in America—probably wider-there than here. He says:

    1589
    "At least equally remarkable is the dragging inadaptability of European statecraft. Everywhere the failure of Ministers and statesmen to rise to the urgent definite necessities of the present time is glaringly conspicuous. They seem to be incapable even of thinking how the War may be brought to an end. They seem to be incapable of that plain speaking to the world audience which alone can bring about a peace. They keep on with the tricks and feints of a departed age. Both on the side of the Allies and on the side of the Germans the declarations of public policy remain, childishly vague and disingenuous, childishly 'diplomatic.' They chaffer like happy imbeciles while civilisation bleeds to death. It was perhaps to be expected. Few, if any, men of over five-and-forty completely readjust themselves to changed conditions, how-over novel and challenging the changes may be, and nearly all the leading figures in these affairs are elderly men trained in a tradition of diplomatic ineffectiveness, and now overworked and overstrained to a pitch of complete inelasticity."
    The peace question will revolve round three main groups of problems: first of all, territorial questions, and not only the question of independence and integrity, but questions of territorial readjustment, financial questions, questions of compensation, restoration, and so on, and at whose expense, and then a number of general questions will at any rate be raised—how far they may be settled no one knows—the question of the self-determination of peoples, economic relations, armaments, and so on. In my opinion, many of these questions are incapable of permanent solution without a really effective and genuine League of Nations. I believe a genuine League of Nations is the link which will hold these various questions together and make the solution of them a possibility. Count Reventlow one of the fire-eaters of Germany, said a League of Nations would represent the defeat of Germany in this War. A League of Nations will represent the defeat of militarism everywhere. It will mean the beginning of new and better things, and it will not only mean the defeat of Prussian militarism, but a genuine League of Nations would also mean the defeat of the "Morning. Posit" and of Mr. Hughes and people like that. I will quote the statement of Viscount Grey. He says:
    "The establishment and maintenance of a League of Nations, such as President Wilson has advocated, is more important and essential to a secure peace than any of the actual terms of peace which may conclude the War. It will transcend them all. The best of them will be worth little unless the future relations of States are to be on a basis that will prevent a recurrence of militarism in any State."
    If that is going to be done, there must be something very different from the old
    1590
    holy alliances we have had in the past. Those were Leagues of Kings. We want to-day leagues of peoples. I am certain the growth of democracy itself is in the end the only sure hope against war and the only-hope of a permanent and enduring peace. Do our rulers really desire a League of Nations in the best sense? President Wilson undoubtedly does. Viscount Grey does. But, whilst lip service is given to it in many quarters, it takes the form of pouring doubt upon the practicability of it, and, indeed, many of our rulers seem to speak much in the same tone as was adopted by Lord Castlereagh when he wrote to the Emperor Alexander on a similar project under very different conditions over one hundred years ago. Lord Castlereagh said:
    "The problem of a universal alliance for the peace and happiness of the world has always been one of speculation and hope, but it has never yet been reduced to practice. And if an opinion may be hazarded, from its difficulty it never can."
    Whatever the Emperor Alexander may have said, the reply from Lord Castlereagh on behalf of the British Government was certainly not of a very encouraging character. To-day, whatever differences exist on other questions, the Socialist, Labour, and trade union movements in all the countries are heartily in agreement on this question. We believe the League of Nations is inconsistent with sliding scale peace conditions. We do not shirk the fact that there are difficulties. What is the good of statesmanship if it is not to resolve some of these difficulties! How far, for instance, can the sovereign rights of any nation be modified? How far can we affirm that a nation whilst being free-to live its own life, to make its own laws, to develop completely and unfettered its own internal affairs, shall not have a right to interfere with the liberties of other nations or to ride roughshod over other nations? What form would an international tribunal take? On what basis would nations be represented? How is an international force to be organised if force, police, or otherwise, were necessary? How far could economic pressure be applied to nations? Are the European rulers who render lip service, at any rate, to the principles of President Wilson really tackling these problems and reaching solutions in regard to them? I strongly appeal that in the meantime no step should be taken by the Government that is inconsistent with this idea of a League of Nations. If you have plunges

    1591
    into Protection, and Preference, you seem to me to be getting away from the idea of a League of Nations altogether, and creating difficulties between yourselves and your Allies as well as between yourselves and neutral countries and those which at present are enemy countries.
    In so far as there are secret treaties between countries which have Imperialism in them they are utterly inconsistent with the idea of a League of Nations. In so far as we are pursuing in Ireland a policy of drift or a policy of coercion, it will be very difficult indeed for us at any peace conference to stand as the champions and the exponents of a League of Nations guaranteeing liberty and freedom to small peoples. I believe at the next election in Ireland what I regard as the most extreme element there, will have a wide measure of electoral victory and it may lead to very strange developments there. It may ultimately lead to rebellion itself. If that does happen and once more there is a bloodstained story of Ireland, it will not be a good start for a peace conference and for the discussion of these matters. I am certain that a genuine rally to this principle of a League of Nations would shorten the War itself. If other people are convinced that you are genuine on this matter, you would drive a wedge between the autocratic rulers and their peoples. Apart from that, it is also a measure of financial and economic necessity for the alternative is complete bankruptcy itself, and only by this means will you save the nations in the future from increased armaments and Conscription. No military result will in itself protect the world against another war. The knock-out blow, which has been advocated in certain quarters, has now apparently been put aside by men like General Smuts. In his remarkable speech at Glasgow sometime ago he said:
    "If you are not going to fight the War out to a smash-up, then surely it is necessary sometimes to find out how things are going, and what your opponent is thinking, and what advantage you may take of the situation as it is looked at by him. We will not have a peace secured merely by the unaided efforts of armies in this War."
    That is the opinion of General Smuts. I do not know how far it represents the opinions of the Government, but I am certain of this that if war-to-a-finish ideas were to hold the field the War might drag on to 1920 or 1925, and then what would the result be? There would be increasing unrest in all the countries, including our
    1592
    own country, and increasing danger and disturbance. If there is no League of Nations you may have possibly twenty years hence another war, because no military results will ever guard against that. Country after country has been stricken down. Prussia was stricken down by Napoleon, and Prance was stricken down by Prussia. If another war does come, in, the meantime you will have had a development of devilishly ingenious mechanism. Science will be prostituted to unworthy ends and civilisation might itself be destroyed. Under these circumstances I do say that we ought to have a policy which will draw together the best minds in all countries against the worst minds in all countries, the moderate opinion in all countries against the extreme opinion in all countries. We ought to see clearly that war is a monster to be destroyed for all time. Whether it comes now or afterwards, I am convinced that Kaiserism and autocratic rule in all countries have received their death-blow as a result of this bloodstained struggle. It may be that the full force of that reaction will come when the actual fighting ceases, and I am certain of this, that in that direction the welfare of the people lies and the wellbeing of real democracy and the real hope for the future lie.
    Major TRYON: I have listened with the greatest interest to every word that has been said, and I can assure the hon. Member solemnly and seriously that we want peace just as much as he does. If I could in a sentence say what I think we all want, it is that we want at the earliest possible moment a just and lasting peace. When I listened to the proposals that the hon. Member put forward and to the resolutions passed by certain bodies in Germany I was reminded that the road which he is urging this country to travel is a road which has quite recently been trodden by the people of Russia. There were resolutions in the Reichstag about no indemnities and no annexations, and the people of Russia being deceived by them went to treat with the German people, with the result that the people of Russia find that all this German peace talk led not to what the hon. Member described as "liberty, not subjection," but to the exact opposite. It led to subjection, not liberty. We must remember what happened to the people of Russia, who took the advice which the hon. Member for Attercliffe is giving us to-day.

    1593
    I do not think that the efforts of the small group of pacifists in this House offer us any hope of peace. I measure their activity not as a contribution to peace, for I deny that it is such, but rather by the very great effect that their policy and action may have upon this War. Throughout the whole of the hon. Member's speech there was not one word of encouragement for our troops, not one word of recognition of the danger that this country is suffering from the present War. He speaks as, if the War was to be settled by Resolutions passed in Berlin. I maintain that such speeches not only discourage our men, but do a great deal to discourage the Allies who are fighting with us, while at the same time doing a great deal to encourage the German people who are fighting against us. I protest against this, and I think it is right that protest should be made against the way in which, throughout this Session, hour after hour, our Debates have been taken up by prolonged and poisonous speeches from the pacifist Members. Those speeches do infinite harm to our cause and do harm to the cause of peace, towards which I am sure they are making honest but misguided efforts. I do not refer simply to the speech of the hon. Member, but to the general run of speeches from those benches, and I say that they are a danger to the safety of the State, and that they are ridiculous if they are supposed to represent popular opinion in this country. If the opinions which those hon. Members preach were widely held, surely they would be able to carry their views at by-elections. Where do you see any sign that the views which those hon. Members put before this House are the views of the people of this country? I also wish to protest against the idea that any class, or section of a class, or self-appointed representative to the class should go to negotiate terms in any way with those who are fighting against this country. The whole nation is at war, and the whole nation has a right to agree to terms, and I abject to any section of a class treating with the enemy behind the back of the nation as a whole.
    I noticed also that in the hon. Member's speech there was not one suggestion of any kind that the Germans were in any way guilty or that the German Army authorities were guilty. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the vast majority of the people of this country, this War is due to German military aggression. It
    1594
    is a war of conquest by Germany. The-aims of Germany all through her history are well known. We know what Prince Bismarck said of the time he was in office—
    "I advised three wars, the Bohemian, the Danish, and the French, but every time I first made myself clear whether the war, if it were successful, would bring a prize of victory worth the sacrifices which every war requires.…"
    Similarly this War was desired and intended by German leaders. The well-known writer Bernhardi says:
    "Just as in 1870 we marched to the shores of the Atlantic, so this time again we must resolve on an absolute conquest in order to capture the French naval ports and destroy the French naval depots."
    Why is it that Germany is so interested in the French naval bases? It is because, as another German writer, Treitschke, says:
    "We have reckoned with France and Austria, the reckoning with England has still to come, and it will be the longest and the hardest."
    It has been. This shows the German mind. What part have the pacifist Members of this House played in regard to the Navy? I see one hon. Member laugh—has he ever-voted for the reduction of the Navy Estimate?
    Mr. R. LAMBERT: Yes.
    Major TRYON: The hon. Member voted to cut down the Navy just before the War planned by Germany. If there had been more people like him Germany might very well have conquered, and it would have served him right, but fortunately for his constituents there have been those who have maintained the Navy. The Unionist party have taken their share in doing that. The hon. Member is safe because we did not take his advice. I Bay to the whole of that group of Members that we should not be sitting here listening to their advice if we had taken their advice in the past.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Your own Government cut down the Navy Estimate!
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are you sure that if our advice had been taken there would have been any war?
    Major TRYON: I do not agree with the-statement made by the hon. Member. If we had taken their advice about the Navy where should we have been to-day? I have never heard that we should have a Navy beyond all possible means. What we have always advocated is a Navy large enough for the safety of this country and no more,

    1595
    and it is fortunate that we have had it. They also urged the reduction of the Army, and they ridiculed the idea of German aerial development, and of any danger from Zeppelins, aeroplanes, or anything of that sort.
    Mr. LAMBERT: When did any of us ever do that?
    Major TRYON: The House has listened to speeches throughout the Session from those hon. Members with a patience which I think is marvellous in a country at war, and I suggest to the hon. Member that he should endeavour to exercise the patience which we have freely granted to him.
    Mr. LAMBERT: I have not spoken this Session.
    Major TRYON: They ridiculed aerial developments. The hon. Member for Leicester, Mr. E. Macdonald—I am thankful to say he is not the only Member for Leicester—said
    "It is people who want titles who are telling us that Germany is going to blow up London with a fleet of airships."
    That is the way in which the people of this country were deceived by the pacifists. My point is that as these hon. Members have been so wrong in the past, and as they have contributed to letting us in for one war, I think we ought to be very careful before we take their advice, and be sure that it will lead to a just and lasting peace. This nation was unquestionably lulled to sleep by a good many of the dreams in which the hon. Member for Attercliffe has been indulging. I remember the hopes that we had about The Hague and peace. There was to be all round peace. There were to be regulations providing how war was to be carried on, and we thought that by that means some of the worst horrors of war would be avoided. We know that these regulations are not binding in the slightest degree upon Germany. I think that they have let us in for dangers which we thought no nation would indulge in. I think there is a danger to-day in building up hopes, as the hon. Member does, that are not substantial. I remember quite well going over to see the Palace of Peace at The Hague and I am sure hon. Members opposite must have been delighted to feel how sure peace was, in view of the fact that the German Emperor presented a gate to the Palace of Peace.
    1596
    That shows how people's hopes are built on a false basis. The hon. Member resented criticism of the League of Nations. If, as he says the whole future of civilisation depends upon the League of Nations, then let us look at the proposal, examine it, test it. It is essential that criticism should be made of it, but the hon. Member resents criticism of the League of Nations. I think it is necessary, before we abandon the protection of our Fleet to the substitution of international law, and before we indulge in any schemes let us discuss them and examine them.
    What is the proposal of the hon. Member with regard to the League of Nations? It is that into this League of Nations there should come now a Germany unbeaten, with her Army marching back feeling that it has defied the world, with the German Fleet still intact and her submarines still under construction. This is to be the member of the new League of Nations. With what confidence can we believe that the League of Nations will enforce the principles of international law if into that League an unbeaten Germany is to come? Why, the very principle which ought to underlie a League of Nations was contested by hon. Members opposite. In 1914 the freedom of Belgium was guaranteed by a number of Great Powers who had undertaken to protect the Belgian people. But when the principle of guaranteeing the little nations came up for testing hon. Members there proposed that we should not carry out the principles, but that we should abandon Belgium, and they had a great poster in one of the newspapers showing how much money we could make by stopping out of the War and selling our goods to the countries engaged in it. Selling our goods and selling our honour! What hope is there for a League of Nations if when it came to the days of 1914 we should do nothing but leave the little nations to their fate?
    I feel strongly about this matter. I assure hon. Members that, though we disagree with them, we want peace just as much as they want it. No one knows better than we do the burdens which have to be borne and the sufferings endured by our troops, the long watches of the Navy, and the great burden on the people at home. It is a great burden, and it is not borne the more easily when they know all the time that suggestions are coming that it need not be borne at all—that we can make peace with Germany

    1597
    and enter a League of Nations into which an armed Germany is to enter. We want a just peace and a lasting peace, and I turn from the hon. Members who do not, I believe, represent either the House or the country, to happier subjects—to the way in which those great democratic communities across the seas have proved that we were right by coming to our aid. While those people have been making trouble here, nearly 100 millions, looking on a struggle in another continent, which they had been told had nothing to do with them, brought up as they were in continental isolation—and some had sympathies one one side by birth—have found Germany guilty. I never was one of those who rejoiced over the Declaration of Independence; I have always regretted the great breach which has occurred within our own race. The Pilgrim Fathers left this country to seek liberty in another land and later on they cut themselves off altogether, still in pursuit of liberty. Now they find that we have a liberty as great as theirs and they have found that liberty is not a thing of one continent without regard to what happens elsewhere; they think that this War is a war in which the whole liberty of the world and the whole future of civilisation are at stake. No one knows what is going to happen in the world if these continental contests and wars are to go on, but we hope that with the aid of this great American Republic, with the aid of our gallant Allies whom hon. Members have done little to encourage, we may get, and I think get soon, a lasting and a just peace.
    Mr. PONSONBY: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down has contributed a speech which I do not think will really help very much in a consideration of the diplomatic aspect of the war problems, because he has confined his remarks almost entirely to a spiteful and acrimonious attack on those of us who sit on this bench. I am not sorry that he has done it, because when the OFFICIAL REPORT is printed his speech will stand next to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe, so that people in the country who read it will be able to judge which of the two hon. Members is taking present events the more seriously. I would like to deal with some of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's charges which he brought against us. To begin with, he pointed to the treaty of Brest-Litovsk as an example of the sort of treaty that we
    1598
    apparently wanted to conclude with Germany. That was a very foolish proposition. Anybody who really examines the treaty of Brest-Litovsk knows perfectly well that it is not a peace treaty at all; it is a war measure. A treaty made by a Power surrounded by formidable adversaries, with one of her flanks still attacked by a great combination of Powers! When that Power makes a separate peace with a nation on one flank that peace is a war measure and not a peace measure at all. I have never been able to understand why our Government cannot treat the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in that way, as it obviously ought to be. The hon. and gallant Member thought it necessary to suggest that that was the sort of treaty we wanted to make with Germany.
    Major TRYON: The hon. Member is not right. I did not suggest that that was what they wanted, but I said that they were going on a road which might lead them to it against their own wishes.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Even so, I disagree with the hon. and gallant Member, because when peace is concluded in the world throughout, the peace treaties will be on a different basis to treaties concluded in the middle of a war as a separate peace. He complained that my hon. Friend did not cover the whole ground, and did not say anything about the sufferings of our soldiers in France. My hon. Friend, in his speech, took several particular points which he wanted to emphasise and could not cover the whole field. But if the hon. Gentleman suggests that the sufferings of our soldiers and all that they have been through do not appeal to us just as much as to any other hon. Member in the House or any individual in the whole country he is making a very great mistake. Making that sort of charge here against us is merely done in order to create prejudice and dislike of our opinions and personalities. The hon. and gallant Member asks why we do not make a better show in by-elections. Does the hon. and gallant Member know how by-elections are conducted? The War Aims Committee conducts the by-elections now.
    Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: No.
    Mr. PONSONBY: To a large extent. With an atrocity leaflet, an atrocity

    1599
    pamphlet, atrocity literature, atrocity cinematograph, it is difficult for anyone to compete against it.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Is it not true?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I feel that it is appealing to the lowest passions in public opinion to treat by-elections in this way, but no doubt it is very effective. I cannot deal with all the points of the hon. and gallant Member, but he said that we had voted on some occasions against the Navy Estimates in former years, and one of my hon. Friends admitted that he had. I repeatedly did, and spoke against them.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: To help the Germans!
    Mr. PONSONBY: My reason for doing so was perfectly clear. In the past, on several occasions I did so, as may be found in my speeches, in order to impress the necessity on the Government of bringing about a reduction in armaments by common consent among the nations of Europe, and not to encourage the competition in armaments which brought about this War. It is perfectly clear from speeches I rand other hon. Members made that what we were trying to check was that international competition in armaments, and I think we were perfectly justified in doing so. If our advice had been listened to there would have been a different course of events to what we have seen. If there had been a reduction of armaments throughout the world and the jealousies and frictions engendered by the armaments disposed of you would not have bad this War.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: You would let down France.
    Mr. PONSONBY: The hon. Member for York, I am glad to see, has the courage to repeat his incessantly insulting remarks when we are present; he usually does it when we are not here. But I do not want to be distracted from addressing my remarks to a representative of the Foreign Office who, I am glad, has done us the honour of being present here to-day, because I think it is very important, with a long Recess before us, that we should consider the diplomatic side of the War, the military side having been considered yesterday. The truth is that the military machine has gained so great a momentum that it seems almost beyond human power to stop it. I think there is a growing
    1600
    conviction in this country that international problems are not going to be solved by national massacre and that the burden of responsibility which we are placing on the Army is altogether too heavy. My hon. Friend who initiated this Debate gave a very interesting survey of the opinion of the leaders of Labour throughout Europe, and he showed how the opinion of democracy ought to be attended to and was articulate so far as was possible in many ways. But I think he forgets that Governments are, in the long run, much more frightened of democracy than they are of militarism, and if this War really were to end in the great ideal of the establishment of real democracy throughout Europe and the abolition of autocracies and aristocracies and bureaucracies, I do not know that the Governments of Europe would regard that ideal with any favour at all. When we have this long Recess before us with Parliament not sitting it is well to point out that there are some who are apt to believe that it is very important that peace when it comes—and in spite of what some hon. Members here and people outside desire, peace is going to come one of these days—should rest on the people's approval and not be like the peace treaties of the past which have only been pauses in hostilities. Some people are inclined to think that peace must be initiated by private conversations and by secret negotiations behind the scenes, and that you cannot come into the light of day, but that you must feel your way. I am very suspicious of that method for this reason. I am very much afraid that peace concluded in that way would, after all, be only a governmental, diplomatic bargain, and would not really rest upon the sound foundation of the people's approval. As the Secretary to the Treasury the other day remarked in this House, public opinion to-day has a far greater weight in the moulding of Governments and policies in the various countries than it has ever had before. That public opinion ought to be taken into account. We ought to take advantage of it in this country and not mislead it, damp it down or suppress it. We ought to take advantage of public opinion in enemy countries in so far as it is moderate and in the direction we desire.
    Our great diplomatic failure has been our failure to divide opinion in Germany. The effect of the utterances of our chief Ministers has so often been to solidify and

    1601
    unify all shades of German opinion together. We have given them the very excuse they wanted, when they have thought the Socialists restive and likely to split, in order to allow them to unify the people and damp down all desire for a reasonable settlement and have recourse once more to military force, and only to military force. The Prime Minister in his speech yesterday said that peace was impossible so long as the people who made the War are still there prosecuting the same sinister aims. He said that you cannot, have peace as long as they are predominant in the Conference of our chief enemy. But who has made them predominant? Who has placed them in such a secure position as they are supposed to be in to-day? I venture to say that no one has contributed towards it more than the Prime Minister himself by his utterances. It is the knock-out-blow speech in all its variations which is repeated times without number. That always has the effect of making the German junkers, militarists and imperialists say to the Socialists, "Look at what is intended. Our destruction is what the enemy wants. We must close our ranks and go forward together." And it is the Prime Minister more than anyone else who has succeeded in welding the German forces together and putting the militarists in power. It is perfectly clear that a military victory has now become our predominant aim. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that I express it correctly—and that therefore a lasting settlement is not an object which we care for so much. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The desire for military victory overshadows everything else, and yet military victory by itself achieves nothing unless the reason and heart and mind of the people and of the Governments are applied to the solution of the matters in dispute. If I were to say the first aim we desire, I should not say military victory; I should say the freeing and the absolute independence and sovereignty of Belgium. But according to hon. Members the chief aim is military victory.
    Let me take this case of Belgium. On the 12th of July Count Hertling said
    "We have no intention of keeping Belgium in any form whatever."
    That was a great advance on what had ever been said previously by former Chancellors or by Count Hertling himself. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary shortly afterwards, in reply to
    1602
    this speech on 21st July, instead of emphasising the advance which had been made and asking for further assurances in order that conversations might be begun, dismissed the assurance of Count Hertling, and laid a great deal of emphasis on the fact that he referred to Belgium as the pawn for future negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary scored a dialectical point, a debating point, over the German Chancellor, though I may here say incidentally that the word "pawn" as used by the German Chancellor in his speech was not the same word as used by the German Chancellor when he was quoting President Wilson's use of the word "pawn," when President Wilson said that peoples and provinces should not be bartered about as if they were chattels or pawns in the game of the balance of power. The word used by the German Chancellor in referring to President Wilson's speech was stein, denoting a pawn, a piece on the board. When referring to Belgium it was not that word which he used, but it was the word pfand, which means a pledge. I quite admit that that word also is one that we should not approve of, but I am only saying incidentally that in the making of a dialectical score off Count Hertling the Foreign Secretary was guilty of an inaccuracy. But it is quite clear that while we say that Belgium should be restored without any sort of stipulation, and the Germans desire to retain Belgium, so that in any negotiations they may use Belgium as a quid pro quo, there is a difference between us. How is that difference to be got over? Is it to be got over by always shutting down further conversations? Is it to be got over by throwing in the teeth of German statesmen everything they say, or is it to be got over by asking for further assurances from the German Chancellor, asking what he means, opening out an avenue for conversation which may lead to some sort of fruitful advance between the two countries? After all, on our part, so far as Belgium is concerned, an assurance will be necessary from this country that we mean to allow Belgium complete independence, economic independence.
    Mr. McCURDY: Why?
    Mr. PONSONBY: So long as the Paris Resolutions stand and the economic war to take place against Germany after the War is decided on, that will mean that

    1603
    Belgium is economically dependent upon ourselves and France, and, so long as that is the case, we cannot say that Belgium is to have complete sovereignty.
    Captain LLOYD: Who decided upon economic war?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I am sure that I hope it is not decided upon, but if the Paris Resolutions do stand—
    Captain LLOYD: I do not doubt the hon. Member's sincerity, but I think he is quite mistaken about the Paris Resolutions. The Paris Resolutions merely mean a course of policy by which we shall pursue an alliance in economic matters, in order that we may recoup ourselves for the War against our enemies. That seems to be reasonable in defence of our interests.
    Mr. PONSONBY: I do not dispute the hon. Member's version of the Paris Resolutions. My point is simply this, that if the Paris Resolutions stand, as they do now, it will necessitate, after the military War is over, Belgium being to a certain extent economically dependent on us and France. That was my point. I do not want to enter into a discussion about the Paris Resolutions. But, with regard to Belgium, I wish that recrimination between statesmen would cease and some means should be found by which they could meet in common. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe pointed out that there is very often a disposition on the part of the Government to say one thing at one time and another thing at another time, so that there are divided opinions and contradictory declarations. For instance, though the knock-out-blow policy and its variations are very popular, they are not, I am glad to say, universal. We have the Minister for Labour saying at some music-hall on the fourth anniversary of the outbreak of war that the Allies would make peace when the German was defeated beyond all possibility of revival; and we have the Minister of Munitions saying that the preliminary to the cessation of hostilities is that Germany must be decisively beaten in the field by the Armies of the Allies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] And hon. Members approve of that. Then on the other hand we have General Smuts saying in a sentence that is well worth quoting once more—
    "I do not think that an out and out victory is possible any more for any group of nations in
    1604
    this War, because it will mean an interminable campaign. It will mean that decimated nations will be called upon to wage war for many years to come and what will the result be? The result may be that the civilisation that you are out to save and safeguard may be jeopardised itself."
    And on the moderate side also we have the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary who said that His Majesty's Government are not going to shut their ears to anything that may be called a satisfactory suggestion, and the Leader of the House also said that the Government will always be ready to consider satisfactory proposals of peace. So if the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary could only get the upper hand and somehow prevent the knock-out-blow note from being quite so loud it would be a very great advantage from the point of view of international policy.
    3.0 P.M.
    We have a League of Nations advocated on the one side and an economic war advocated on the other. They are a complete contradiction in terms, because there can be no League of Nations with an economic war. We have a declaration that we are entirely disinterested and have no desire of annexation, and on the other side we have the secret agreements and secret treaties which show a desire to partition various parts of the world between ourselves and our Allies. We have the declaration that self-determination is the basic principle for the future of the various peoples of the world, and on the other side we have the refusal to give Home Rule to Ireland. We have these differences of opinion, and then we have the Prime Minister who from time to time really surprises me. He surprised the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary yesterday and a great many other Members of this House when he declared in the opening remarks of his speech that we had made a compact with France. There he let the cat out of the bag. Certainly I have always argued that our understanding with France did amount to a compact and did amount anyhow to an obligation of honour, but the right hon. Gentleman was correct in calling it a compact, and he was also correct in calling it an obligation of honour, I am not concerned about that particular statement, and what I want to discuss is the declaration, now repeated twice over, which occurred in the music-hall message to the nation on 4th August. In this message the passage occurs:

    1605
    "Six months ago the rulers of Germany deliberately rejected the just and reasonable settlement proposed by the Allies."
    What does that mean? It is a repetition of the statement made in the Prime Minister's speech in Edinburgh on 24th May, and I have already pointed out the error of what he said. The Prime Minister on that day said:
    "The Government of this country and President Wilson, at the beginning of the year, made simultaneous announcements with regard to the Peace aims of the Allies which were so temperate, so moderate, and so restricted in their character that even the most pronounced pacifists could not challenge them. How were those declarations received by Germany? The first reply that either the British Government or President Wilson received was the most violent offensive ever launched against the British Army, and they launched it with the avowed determination to annihilate it."
    His music-hall message is really a condensed form of that statement. What are the facts? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the speech he made on 5th January to the Trade Union Congress, and to a speech of President Wilson on 8th January, in which he elaborated a peace programme in fourteen clauses. This was followed on 23rd and 24th January by the speeches of Count Czernin and Count Hertling, who dealt with the President's proposals, several of which were accepted and none rejected. On 4th February the Allies replied by the Versailles Declaration, and on 11th February President Wilson, in spite of the Versailles Declaration, in the course of a speech, said it was not possible for the Government to go any further, and he enunciated his four cardinal principles. On 25th February Count Hertling dealt with these four principles, and gave unconditional assent to the first three, and assent in principle to the fourth. He accepted with reservation the principles of President Wilson, but required that they should also be definitely recognised by all States and all nations. On 19th March the declaration of the Conference was issued, saying that they were going to continue fighting, and it was in consequence of that the German offensive of 21st March began. These are the facts, and in making his general declaration to the nation it is worth while that the Prime Minister should try to be accurate. The music-hall atmosphere pervades so much in this War, and especially in the speeches of the Prime Minister, and I wish that we could get away from the blatancy and vulgarity which so often surrounds the War. We
    1606
    are at the present moment in a strong position, if only some advance can be made, and I feel that there is a great deal to be said for what Lord Lansdowne stated only a few days ago in a letter which he wrote. Lord Lansdowne foreshadowed in the coming months there would be opportunities for negotiations, or, if not negotiations, anyhow beginning with conversations. Lord Lansdowne said:
    "There are abundant indications that such occasions may present themselves in the near future. Let us be prepared to meet them, and in a reasonable spirit. Let us at any rate give our adversaries a chance of showing whether their overtures are sincere or not. Let us, if we can, clear our minds as to the question of preliminary conditions as distinguished from war aims, and do not let us make believe that we have defined the former when we have in reality done nothing of the kind."
    Prolongation of the War in these days must mean a great deal more than the prolongation by a few months of war in times past. The casualties are now so extensive that the prolongation of war now means the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, and all these lives represent the vital energy and latent capacity of the real wealth of the nation, and I do not believe that the sacrifice of valuable lives can be justified in any way simply for triumph, for which hon. Members look just now, through military victory. Those who want to go on until the Hun is beaten to his knees perhaps will have their way, but the National Debt will be piled up higher and higher, cemeteries will extend, and the procession of maimed and wounded men will wander back here, their lives wrecked for ever. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, if I may appeal to him, not to misunderstand the attitude we have taken up on these Benches. I am not ashamed that I have on every occasion possible intervened in the Debate on this point, and pressed forward this particular aspect of the great war problem, which is supported by a growing public opinion in the country. I say to the Foreign Secretary that I desire just as much as he does an honourable peace and a just peace, and I desire the attainments of the objects for which we entered this War just as much as he does; I desire just as much as he does the destruction of militarism in Germany and the world over; but I ask, in all reason, after having attempted by force of arms to effect those objects, during four years in which civilisation has been brought to the verge of ruin, whether it

    1607
    is not worth while to follow another road, and by deliberation, by reason, by conference, and by negotiation, to secure what the sword by itself can never give us.
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: As one who during the whole course of the War has never taken part in any one of these Debates on peace policy, except indirectly on the recent occasion of the Debate on the League of Nations, I may venture to trespass upon the patience of the House with a few observations on a matter which deeply concerns us all. I have listened with some disappointment to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs in replying to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Captain Tryon). My hon. and gallant Friend made two points, one of which was strong and valid, and the other of which was not so strong and only partially valid. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the League of Nations, and I think the argument which he used greatly weakened the position of hon. Members below the Gangway as advocates of the League of Nations. They have spoiled their advocacy by the attitude they took up in regard to our duty to Belgium in the beginning of the War. Our pledge was given, with other nations, including Germany, in regard to Belgium, and it was pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend that this was something in the nature of an undertaking by a League of Nations. The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton put the argument to my hon. Friends below the. Gangway, who, at the beginning of this War, proposed that we should leave Belgium to her fate, that they have thereby shown how very little is their faith in the League of Nations, or for our faith in its operations after the War. I think that is a very strong argument, and I feel greatly concerned that my hon. Friend below the Gangway did not answer it.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: We did not enter the War for Belgium; we declared war before Belgium was attacked.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That is a perfectly irrelevant interruption. When the War was begun notice was given of Germany's determination in regard to Belgium, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn makes things worse when he resorts to what is a very worthless quibble. I do not accuse the hon. Member for Stirling of that, but what I am going to charge
    1608
    him with is that he has given no answer to a very telling argument against him. My hon. Friends should explain their position on this point of our duty to protect Belgium, and their failure to reply on that point does not give one any ground for faith in the future efficacy of the League of Nations, after the War, to protect any nation. I say, as an earnest advocate of the League of Nations, that it was the duty of the hon. Member for Stirling to meet the argument of the hon. and gallant Member—a very strong and damaging argument. I wish to refer to another point alluded to by the hon. Member for Brighton, though it was not so strong nor so valid as the first. He referred to my hon. Friends below the Gangway as having voted against the Navy Estimates immediately before the War That is a point which is quite fairly made, but I would point out that it would be unjust to say that all who had criticised Navy Estimates were in some degree guilty of precipitating the War by trying to weaken our position.
    I think the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs could have put the case at this point more strongly than he did. He could have argued that the position of a number of those who used to speak on Navy Estimates and deprecate their extension was that their object was to-promote the peace of the world by securing some agreement for a restriction of armaments. That, I think, is quite a justifiable plea. I can recollect the present Attorney-General moving a Resolution a number of years before the War—I had the honour of seconding him—and the object of the Motion was to make an end of capture of commerce at sea during war. I am sure his object was, as mine was, by carrying a Motion of that kind, to make possible an agreement between this country and Germany for the restriction of naval armaments. There is an historical point of importance in that connection that ought to be brought out to-day. The then Government did move so far on the lines of securing agreement with Germany for the restriction of naval armaments that at least twice, and I think three times over, it indicated to the German Government that it was prepared to go the length of agreeing to abolish capture of commerce at sea in naval war if that agreement could be made the basis of a restriction of naval armaments. That was the very goal for which a number of us had been heading.

    1609
    We thought we were in sight of our goal We thought that when the British Government indicated its willingness to abandon that very old and greatly valued power, the capture of commerce at sea during war, if only the German Government would make that agreement the basis of an agreement for the restriction of armaments, we thought we were in sight of success in our great crusade.
    But what was the result? Certainly twice, and, I think thrice, the German Government announced in reply that on no condition would it consider the restriction of naval armaments. These are historical facts which it is important to bring forward, because they had been falsified by a German of such good standing as Professor Brentano, of Munich, who took some steps, I believe himself in a state of misunderstanding, to misinform American opinion on that subject. It is of the highest importance that all who pursue peace aims in this country should remember that the German Government refused to consider any proposals for the restriction of naval armaments, and I can say for myself, and I fancy a number of my Friends can say for themselves, that when once they realised that every effort which we made was met in that fashion by the German Government, we saw that we could draw only one inference, namely, that the German Government was not bent on the peace of the world, and that it was not to be trusted. And what I can further say for myself I fancy many of my hon. Friends can say for themselves, that from that moment we never discussed or criticised the Navy Estimates at all. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton unintentionally misstated the case when he said that hon. Members below the Gangway had voted for cutting down the Navy. My recollection of those old Debates simply is that they voted against an extension of the Navy Estimates. He might hold that that was equally aground for reproach to them, but he ought to make his case accurate and fair also. There may have been Motions for cutting down the Navy, but I think the Debates used to be mainly upon questions of extensions of Navy Estimates. I want my hon. and gallant Friend to realise that, perhaps, he was overstating his case.
    I will deal now with what I regard as the main line of the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs First of all, he criticises British
    1610
    diplomacy or British Governments all through the War for having failed in what he says should have been their great object—the dividing of opinion in Germany. He seemed seriously to believe that if only we had pursued a certain skilled propaganda—a rather Machiavellian line of propaganda I think it would be—or a certain line of public declaration, we should have so split German opinion that we should have won the War long ago. It is not, perhaps, a very dignified aim to put before a nation at war, to try and make their enemies, quarrel among themselves. I do not say it is a thing you should not do, because the Germans have taught us that all methods can be used in war.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: What about our foreign propaganda?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That is one thing, but this business of dividing German opinion is another. I have taken part in propaganda myself to the extent of replying to the German propaganda, but I never for an instant thought that anything I could do would divide opinion in Germany to the extent of breaking up the German defences. And I seriously urge upon my hon. Friend that he should try and take an objective view of his position in this matter, because his position is really absurd to the last depth of absurdity. It was at no moment any more possible to win this War by dividing German opinion in Germany than it was possible for Germans to win this War by dividing British opinion in this country. It was far less possible. For one thing, I challenge all pacifists of any school to dispute this, that at all times the German peace movement has been the weakest peace movement in Europe. Germany never have made a treaty of arbitration. I could cite in my support the verdict of one of my friends whose opinion on that head would far outweigh the opinion of the hon. Member for Blackburn, the opinion of a man who had worked in connection with the whole peace movement for many years, who knew it all, who worked for it wholes heartedly, who knew it in Germany, in France, in Russia, and in all countries. His considered verdict was that the German peace movement was the weakest movement in Europe, and, so far as my own knowledge goes, that is absolutely true. I can state on my own behalf this. I was one of those who took part in.

    1611
    the inter-Parliamentary Conference at Berlin, I think in 1909, and I then came into contact with some of the German pacifists. I wrote later, a preface to an English version of a book by a German professor, on the question of the capture of commerce at sea in time of war, and I hoped that that would do something to carry forward opinion on the lines desired by the Attorney-General and myself. I made special appeals to Germans, who I thought would have some influence in these matters, to try and use that influence on their Government to bring about the agreement that we wanted, and what answer did I get? "It is no use our saying anything in Germany. If we say anything we do more harm than good. We must not speak out, we must hold our tongues." I challenge any pacifist here to deny that that was the characteristic note of pacifism in Germany in those days. There is this element of fact behind the position taken up by my hon. Friend, that in Germany, as in any other nation, there have been two currents of opinion. There never was an absolutely united nation in this world unless it might be a barbarous tribe of savages. But in any country where opinion in the modern sense has been developed at all, there is always a difference of opinion on all points; and there is a body of opinion in Germany—and for some of it I have the highest respect-which is strongly opposed to this War. I dare say it might be said for this particular group of German publicists that they have made the bravest fight made by any pacifists during the War. The courage of the man who wrote the book "J'Accuse," and of men like Liebnecht, who stood up against the whole mass of their nation, in pleading against the War which they held to be iniquitous, is a thing to be remembered. It is comforting in the general interests of human nature. But the peace movement as a whole in Germany, anything in the shape of an organised resistance to the War in Germany is, I should say, not one-tenth as strong as was what used to be called the pro-Boer movement in this country. That is an analogy that my hon. Friends should consider if they want really to get a practical view of the case. I was in that pro-Boer movement in this country at that time, and some of my hon. Friends who now call themselves pacifists were not. They were able to find that our
    1612
    Boer War was perfectly justified and that this War is not—a very extraordinary attitude of mind to my thinking. But the point is this, that the pro-Boer movement so called the movement of resistance to the Boer War in this country was, I should say, twenty times stronger than the movement of resistance to the War in Germany to-day. That being so, we have only to ask, What was the comparatively strong anti-War movement in the case of the South African War in this country able to do? What could it do to stop the War? It never could do anything-although there were newspapers speaking out for it and public meetings held for it, and a great deal of propaganda going on in its support, and powerful propaganda too. If that movement in England could not do anything to cheek the Boer War, what rational ground has my hon. Friend for supposing that the little movement in Germany could have been so manipulated by anything that this Government here did as to enable us so to divide German opinion as to split up German power? The position is absurd to the last degree, and the declaration is that of men who have never understood the nature of the forces at work in this War. To come now to the final issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs deprecated what he described as a tendency on the part of some statesmen to think that any peace negotiations must first be set agoing by roundabout means. I do not clearly recollect his words, but I think he did not like the idea of roundabout methods of raising the question. He did use the term "feelers," and he did not-like peace being approached in that way.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Being settled.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not think my hon. Friend can have meant anything so meaningless as that. No peace could be settled by feelers. I decline to suspect my hon. Friend of using so utterly meaningless an expression as that. My hon. Friend, if he meant anything at all, meant that he did not like that peace should even be approached in that way.
    Mr. PONSONBYindicated dissent.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: If he did not mean that, he meant nothing at all. If all that he meant to say was that he did not want peace settled by feelers, I need not argue the question. It is a lamentable thing that he should be reduced to wasting the

    1613
    time of the House in that way. My hon. Friend assured us that he has the strongest desire for an honourable peace. There is common ground there. The Whole House wants an honourable peace, but the Whole House also wants a lasting peace. That is one of the questions between my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton and my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs. The point put by my hon. and gallant Friend—and here I think his position is absolutely unassailable—was this, that unless you get a peace that involves the overthrow of German militarism you get no peace worth having. I take it to be the same thing that was meant by the much-discussed phrase about a knock-out blow. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs demurred strongly to that phrase, once used, I believe, by the Prime Minister. One might dispute the taste of such an expression, but that point need hardly detain us. The meaning of the expression was, "until Germany is put in such a position that you can dictate disarmament to her." "The knock-out blow" does not mean, as my hon. Friend seems to think, the annihilation of a nation. I have no technical knowledge in these matters, but there is no dispute that it is a term in pugilism which means reducing one's opponent to a condition that he cannot return to the attack, and then he has lost the battle. The knock-out, blow did not mean that the Germans were to be destroyed, but that the German fighting force was to be brought to the point at which it had to sue for peace, and the reason it must be brought to this point is that, unless this War ends in the dictation of disarmament to Germany, the future is going to be worse than the past. Of course, I mean disarmament all round, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. Samuel) reminds me. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn seems to suppose that I mean the disarmament of Germany without the disarmament of the rest of the world, and he thought my right hon. Friend thought that.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Certainly!
    Mr. ROBERTSON: No; my right hon. Friend thought my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn might draw a perversive inference. Only a few days ago, from this box, I was strongly urging that disarmament all round must be the sequel of the War. If my hon. Friend the Member
    1614
    for Blackburn will carry his recollection back a few days he will find that that was the case. We cannot have disarmament all round unless we first secure the disarmament of Germany, and the peace that has been urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs, the kind of peace that is being urged by Lord Lansdowne, gives us merely the status quo ante bellum, with all the Powers in possession of their old armaments, with Germany able to rebuild her military system—nay, to continue her military system—and, therefore, with the obligation of Conscription hung round the neck of every nation in Europe It is precisely because I have been a pacifist all my life, because I consider that in this War the whole interests of civilisation are at stake, because I am satisfied that if the War does not end in a disarmament peace, the hope for civilisation is very small indeed—it is precisely for that that I denounce the whole policy of my hon. Friend below the Gangway. The policy he recommends promises nothing whatever. The policy that Lord Lansdowne recommends promises nothing whatever. They ask for peace by negotiation, as if peace were ever got in any other way. Peace is always by negotiation, at whatever stage of the War it is undertaken. The question is shall we get by any negotiation with Germany a disarmament agreement until Germany feels her military power is broken? And surely, if we survey the position taken up by Germany, her repeated feelers in regard to peace terms; if we take a pronouncement such as the book by Baron Freytag von Loringhoven—if we consider these things, can there be the slightest doubt that Germany will never agree to disarmament until she feels she must?
    I do not suggest that this can only be brought about by Napoleonic conquest. I quite agree with General Smuts—I do not think he used the expression, but it describes the idea—that a Napoleonic conquest of Germany would undoubtedly mean the War protracted for years. I am not so bloodthirsty as to desire that even so guilty a nation as Germany should be made to suffer even a modicum of the horrors she has inflicted. I am not so bloodthirsty as to consider that a necessary preliminary for peace, but it seems to me, on the face of the case, perfectly possible that if the Allies maintain the War as they are doing they may, at

    1615
    a certain stage, get the consent of Germany to a disarmament peace without having Achieved a Napoleonic conquest of Germany. There are great possibilities in the way of an aeroplane offensive that remain to be developed, but it is hardly our business to discuss that to-day. The question is whether the line of policy urged by the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs would give this nation a peace worth having. If the hon. Member's advice were taken by us to-day we should probably find Germany very willing to discuss terms of peace, willing to haggle about the terms in which they would clear out of Belgium, willing to haggle about the kind of compensation they would make for the wrong they have done, and determined to haggle over Russia. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs said that the treaty of Brest-Litovsk is only a war measure, the meaning of which seemed to be that you must not be too severe on it. Of course, he admits it is monstrous, but he argues that war measures of that kind are not to be regarded as serious treaties. I do not think he took the same attitude towards the secret treaties of the Allies. They were war measures. We entered into them as war measures, and they would probably never have been entered into, except as war measures; but he never modified his condemnation on that score. It is only in regard to an abominable treaty made by Germany that my hon. Friend finds these extenuating circumstances, and objects to our getting angry because she tries to trample Russia underfoot. However that may be, I admit I believe that Germany would be willing to enter into interminable negotiations on all these points at the present moment But does he believe that Germany would be willing to agree to disarmament all round?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the British Government?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I will leave the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary to say, but that is no answer to me from my hon. Friends below the Gangway. They are addressing oracular allocutions to this House. For the moment it is an argument between us and them. My hon. Friend has been lecturing me and my fellow citizens for years, and now I ask him to listen to me, and I decline to let him ride off
    1616
    by asking what the British Government will do. I challenge him to face the fact that the civilisation he professes to believe in, that the future of democracy he professes to champion, are involved in the kind of peace we shall get from Germany; and that the kind of peace by negotiation that will enable Germany to withdraw with her military system intact, and to rebuild it, as her military authorities declare they are going to do, holds out to civilisation a new and far greater menace, because we know an undefeated Germany, rebuilding her military machine, will do it with far deadlier determination than ever before, to attain all she has failed to attain now. I challenge my hon. Friend to realise that any peace such as he has urged would strangle the very cause he professes to have at heart.
    This is an issue of the most vital importance. In all the Debates on the subject in this House during the War I have never heard a single one of my hon. Friends who are ranked as pacifists face that question of the absolute necessity of disarmament. Lord Lansdowne never seems to recognise that there is any such issue involved. I think the nation in its heart recognises it. At all events, it is all involved in the declaration of war aims made by the then Prime Minister when the War began. To that war aim I subscribed in its fullest sense. A great many people seemed to subscribe at the time and afterwards not to understand what it meant. I say it meant the destruction of German militarism or the overthrow of German militarism—I am not quite sure of the exact phrase—but that phrase meant all it said, and all attempts to whittle it away, as my hon. Friends have been trying to do this afternoon, are attempts really subversive of the safety of this nation. The whole drift of my hon. Friend's argument was to the effect that we are not to be too anxious for victory. He seemed to be afraid we should get a victory over Germany. He says that the desire for victory swallows up everything else. I admit it does, and if it does not in his case it is because he does not realise the mortal danger this nation will be in if such a victory is not achieved as will secure disarmament at the end of this War.
    I am willing, for the purpose of this Debate, to call myself a pacifist, as I have been all my life. It is for the attainment

    1617
    of perpetual peace that I am for fighting now. My hon. Friends below the Gangway would throw away every hope of peace, and leave this nation saddled with a thing I have resisted all my life, namely, Conscription, and Conscription hung round the nation's neck precisely at the time when it needs to be free for all the purposes of reconstruction. A future after this War with military burdens laid on all the nations of Europe will be a future even more dreadful than the War itself, and as dreadful in a moral as in a material sense, for the state of mind to which nations will be reduced—a state of desperate determination to destroy each other—will be the most awful picture conceivable. Every device of science for the destruction of life on the largest possible scale will be the order of the day. There will be no question, then, about Hague Conventions as to the bombing of hospitals or the destroying of non-combatants. Those methods of war which Germany has forced on the world will be the recognised methods of war if a war follows on this as the result of a state of things created by a non-conclusive peace. If my hon. Friends will take these things into account they will perhaps realise that the repeated allocutions they have bestowed upon us have failed to impress us because they do not convince us for one moment that my hon. Friends understand the case.
    Mr. R. LAMBERT: We have listened with very great interest to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered, in which he has told us that the only hope for the peace of the world in the future is that we should be in a position to dictate disarmament to Germany, and, he added, afterwards to the world. I am afraid that I am not very convinced that, even if we were in a position to dictate disarmament to Germany, or to the world, that would necessarily lead to a permanent and lasting peace. I remember that Napoleon dictated disarmament to Prussia, and I remember, also, that seven years afterwards Prussia entered Paris in triumph. I do not believe that if we are to rely on a peace by which disarmament is dictated to Europe that peace can be, or will be, lasting. I could not help noticing the difference between the two speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyneside (Mr. J. M. Robertson) and the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton. The hon. and gallant Member appears to think that those of us on this
    1618
    bench who have spoken—so far as I am concerned, as I have very rarely had the opportunity of addressing the House, I do not suppose I come in that category—but he seems to think that we who speak from this bench always make poisonous speeches, and that the result of our speeches is extremely harmful to the cause of the Allies. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyneside holds the view that our speeches have not the slightest effect, and that, therefore, they can do neither good nor harm. There seems to be some slight discrepancy between the two. I think really hon. Members misunderstand the motives which actuate us in speaking as we do from these benches.
    We are called pacifists. Speaking for myself, I do not resent, nor do I object, to be called a pacifist—one who is striving for peace—but if to be that is meant that I, or any of my Friends, are desirous that this country should engage in a peace at any price, that we should make an abject surrender, or throw away any hope—if there be hope—for the future, then I say that that utterly, from first to last, misrepresents our attitude, and other hon. Members who have, as I have, near and dear relatives fighting in the trenches, are just as anxious as anyone that a really lasting peace should be obtained as a result of the War, and that the world should be spared in the future the horrible curse which has come upon us in the last four years. But what we think, and the reason why we are so convinced that the attitude taken up by so many hon. Members of this House is erroneous, is this: that if you are going to get a permanent peace in the world you must look at the causes of war and tackle those causes before you can hope to achieve that result. The real cause of war, as I believe, is an economic one. If you make an examination of practically all the wars of modern times you will find that economic considerations lie at the very root of the outbreak of war. Take the wars that we fought against the Spaniards and Dutch in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They were fought purely in order to prevent the commercial exclusion of our ships from the Spanish and the Dutch colonies. They were fought for trade purposes.
    When you come to consider even the wars of Frederick the Great you will find that economics were really at the basis

    1619
    of the whole matter. You will find that Prussia of those days, broken up into small and insignificant States, with gaps between, unable to feed their population properly, struggling each hard against its neighbour, was forced to expand, and in those days it was, an economic question which forced the Silesian War, with the after result of the Seven Years' War. If you go further, and examine the revolutionary wars in France, you will, I believe, even there find that it was an economic cause which lay at the bottom of the whole thing. There was no other! That was surely the great trouble which was caused by the French Revolution, the upsetting of the old system, and the doing away with the great land monopoly—the fear in the other nations of Europe that their own subjects would copy the example which the French had set them. Come down to 1802. We find the Peace of Amiens broken and the war with Napoleon again entered upon. There, again, the breaking out of the war was due to economic causes. It was mainly, or almost mainly, due to the quarrel which we had with France. France at this time refused to enter into a commercial treaty with this country.
    Passing on, take next the Crimean War of 1852. There we had the quarrel between France and Russia as to which should be the protector of the Holy Places in Palestine. You had Russia desirous of obtaining Constantinople, in the hope that when the Turk, who was then confidently expected to die, did die, she would obtain the predominant commercial influence of the East. The result of all these economic quarrels and troubles was the great Crimean War, which most of us now recognise to have been a gigantic blunder from first to last. Pass on to 1859, the year when we nearly—very nearly—had a serious outbreak with France which was the direct consequence of the economic policy of Napoleon the Third. That threatened outbreak was only averted by the sagacity of Cobden and the Cobden treaty with France. Let us proceed and take some of our own wars. Take the China War of 1856. Everybody knows that the Chinese wars were economic wars waged largely on account of the opium. When you come down to wars, even like the Danish-Prussian War of 1864, here again, I think, nobody will deny that, though many other causes entered into the matter, you had
    1620
    the economic cause of the quarrel. You find there the Danes blockading the German coast, the affair resulting in the Treaty of Malmo. This caused such a lasting feeling of anger amongst the Prussian people that they were stirred up and ready to be persuaded by their Governments that any war against the Danes would be justified. I do not, of course, deny that in that war, as in most of Germany's or Prussia's wars, there have been large aggressive causes. Take the Austro-Prussian War of 1866: Here again the quarrel was as to which of the two countries, the King or the Emperor, should obtain commercial supremacy in Europe.
    The Franco-Prussian War also had a commercial foundation, inasmuch as one of the causes was the natural fear that the Prussian King of Spain might altogether alter the commercial balance of power. So you go on. If you take the Zulu War: if you take the first Boer War—a commercial war if ever there was a commercial war, due in my judgment, very largely, to the discovery of the diamond fields in 1869–70—if you go on to the China-Japanese War in 1894, which was fought in order to decide which of the two-countries should dominate Korea: if you take the second Boer War—the great Boer War of 1899–1903—will anybody at this time say that financial and commercial considerations were not largely at the bottom of that war? If you take the Russo-Japanese War of 1903–4 there again Russian aggression in Manchuria was the main contributory cause. I am not saying that these wars were entirely caused by economic considerations. My point is simply this, that one of the most fertile causes of war, and the cause which above all other causes has contributed more than any other to warfare among mankind is to be found in the economic resolutions, the trade barriers, the tariffs, the customhouses, concessions, syndicates, chartered companies—all this kind of thing, which has separated nation from nation, and which has raised up obstacles to peace. Until you have overcome these obstacles, and removed these causes of war, you can never hope to have a lasting peace in the world.
    Far be it from me to say—I do not say it for a moment—that this German War has been entirely, or mainly, due to commercial causes. But I will say this: That the commercial differences, the commercial rivalries which have set nation

    1621
    against nation, the differences as to whether Russia or Austria should dominate in the Balkans, the differences between Austria and Serbia, over the import of pigs—and I remember that when I was in the Balkans in the "Nineties," whenever there was a little trouble between Austria and Serbia, we used to hear it described as an outbreak of diplomatic swine fever—all these things undoubtedly help and contribute to the outbreak of war. I venture to say that that aspect of the case will have to be dealt with, and dealt with drastically, if peace is to be secured. The position really may be put in this way: Suppose a man has a house by the side of a railway; he stores in that house an immense amount of combustible matter and explosives; a railway train passes along and a spark from the engine gets into the powder and there is a vast explosion. It is true that the explosion is caused by the spark from the engine; but if the powder had not been there no spark would have been able to have any effect. I therefore feel that this economic question, this difficult economic question, is the real crux of the whole matter. I am convinced that no League of Nations—of which everybody approves—the other day we had a most interesting Debate, and I do not think there was a single speech, although some were critical, which was definitely opposed to the idea of the League of Nations—but no League of Nations stands a dog's chance in this world unless you can do something to get rid of economic causes of war.
    Suppose you crush Germany so far as to be able to make her disgorge—I use the word advisedly because it is the word which some hon. Members prefer to hear—disgorge Alsace-Lorraine, do you think you are going to secure a permanent peace in that way? Do you realise that Germany's total output of iron ore is 28,000,000 metric tons per year, of which 21,000,000 metric tons comes from Lorraine, and that if you take away Lorraine from Germany you will leave Germany with something like 7,000,000 metric tons, which is not sufficient.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: May I point out that not very long ago the hon. Gentleman urged upon this House that Alsace-Lorraine was an unimportant place, because of its smallness, and was not worth making a fuss about?
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. LAMBERT: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I do not know whether he was present and heard what I said; on the contrary, the whole point of my speech then was to urge the importance of this question, of Alsace-Lorraine. If he will read my speech again, I think he will see that I am right in saying that. What I was pointing out was that it is impossible for Germany to contemplate with equanimity and willingness a proposal to deprive her of her great sources of iron. If you do succeed in taking Alsace-Lorraine from Germany and in restoring it to France, the result will be merely that you breed a spirit of revenge and a determination to get back what Germany thinks is so essential for her needs, and which she will believe has been unjustly taken from her. There is one way and only one way in which we can hope to achieve a permanent peace, and that is if we should approach as nearly as we can and work towards the adoption of universal Free Trade as near as we can get it. I believe that is the real anchor of peace for the future, and it is because I am so certain that unless something in that way can be done that I dread very much the Imperial Preference with which we have been threatened, and I dislike very much, the Paris Resolutions, which I am glad to hear, on the authority of an hon. Member of this House, are not worth the paper they are written upon, because they are not going to have effect.
    I think every economic barrier you have set up is so much more a cause of war for the future, and every economic barrier you can break down is so much a guarantee against war for the future. I really think it is rather hard lines on some of us who are taking a perfectly reasonable-view with regard to this question of war—and some of us have done our best in recruiting—to say that we are not quite in agreement about Belgium. Speaking for myself and for my colleagues, I do not think there is one of us who would favour a peace which did not mean the absolute independence and freedom of Belgium, and I do not think there is one of us who would view such a peace with equanimity or even consent to it. Certainly I would not. I may remind hon. Members that even so recently as yesterday we were told by the Prime Minister that
    "There are people in every country who regard, any effort to make peace as in itself dishonourable and treasonable to their country. That attitude must be steadfastly discouraged."

    1623
    I only wish that the Prime Minister had followed out that excellent precept a little more energetically in the past. It is rather difficult in face of the insults that are thrown at us to be moderate, and I think it is rather hard that we should be insulted and have these accusations thrown at us when we try to put forward our views reasonably and with moderation. I have no time to pursue the matter any further, but I do most earnestly urge the Government to lose no opportunity of trying, if they can, to get into touch with the German Government, and even to ascertain whether it is true that the German Government is so unreasonable, as I do not deny they have given good reason for making us think they are.
    There are only three ways in which this War can be brought to an end. In the first place, you may crush Germany, but that would not mean a permanent peace. Secondly, you may have a peace by exhaustion, when all are so exhausted, as to be unable to continue the struggle, but that is a peace which will not be lasting. Thirdly, you can have a peace by negotiation—I do not like the expression—but before all parties are exhausted when neither side has a lasting sense of grievance and when there is some hope, as a result of the War, that you may be able to get a lasting peace. Do not think for a moment that I or any of my hon. Friends underrate or attempt to minimise the abominations that have been committed in this War by some of our enemies. I do not want to minimise for a moment such atrocities as the sinking of hospital ships and many other things. I think they are abominable and ought to be spoken against and recriminated strongly, but for all that this War has to come to an end some time, and we should not forget that we have got to live with the German people in the future. They have to be inhabitants of Europe. We must remember, however, that we cannot hope to overthrow German militarism by force, and we must leave it to the German people to do that. When the German people understand what German militarism is—I think many of them do now—I believe that they will of themselves overthrow it.
    Let me conclude by reading the following extract from an old letter written in 1853 to my own grandfather, which expresses, I think, as clearly as any words
    1624
    that I can use, my own feelings, and what I believe to be the feelings of every hon. Member in this House, with regard to peace:
    "There is no greater delusion than in the supposition that war is favourable to the growth of freedom, or those sterner virtues which you seem to think are in danger of being extinguished by our long peace. If there is one secular notion which more strongly than another attaches me to peace, it is because I believe it to be favourable to the freedom, elevation and progress of the great mass of the people for whom I feel the greatest sympathy because they are the greatest number."
    Those words were written in 1853 to my own grandfather by Richard Cobden, and I repeat them now, because they seem to me to embody what we all feel that this War is one of the most horrible atrocities that has ever visited this earth, that it should be brought to an end at the earliest possible moment, and we ought not to stand upon our dignity or hold aloof from any approaches that may be made by the Germans or anybody else to avail ourselves of the first opportunity that comes to endeavour to put a final end to what, I hope, will be the last war that will ever curse humanity.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The Debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Anderson), and I think it is perhaps right that the Session should not conclude without some discussion not merely upon the progress of the War, such as was given by the Prime Minister yesterday in his masterly survey of the situation, but by some observations, if there are any to be made, on the subject of peace. I therefore came down to the House hoping to be illuminated upon this great theme by the wisdom of hon. Gentlemen sitting on the bench opposite, who devote so much attention to the subject of negotiations with Germany. I listened with great attention to the Member for Sheffield, and I confess I did not receive from his speech all the illumination for which I had hoped. That may partly be due, and very likely is entirely due, to the fact that I have far passed that age after which the Member for Sheffield explained to us no statesman can be expected to understand new ideas. He adorned his speech with a large number of extracts, but no extract seemed to be more worthy of attention than the one he made from the writings of Mr. Wells, who laid down the proposition to which the hon. Member

    1625
    for Sheffield assented—that Europe was unhappily governed by old men instead of young men.
    I think there may be very great force in that observation, but perhaps the hon. Member will forgive me for saying that though, happily for himself, he has not reached the magic age of forty-five, and is still in that period of comparative youth when new ideas can be assimilated and produced, I am sorry he sat down without giving, so far as I can make out, one single new idea on the subject of the European situation. I listened with the deepest attention to all he said. I recognised all the familiar commonplaces of the subject, and I think I also recognise some quotations from my own speeches, but, so far as suggesting any new ideas and new methods of judging the situation, new estimates of the German war aims and of our own war aims, nothing whatever fell from the hon. Gentleman's lips that added in the smallest degree to the knowledge already possessed by the House. The hon. Member who has just sat down began by giving us an essay upon universal history as shown in its wars. I began to think I might be illuminated by some novel ray of light upon this dark and difficult subject, and he laid it down that all wars were economic wars.
    Mr. LAMBERT: In modern times!
    Mr. BALFOUR: Broadly speaking, he laid it down that the basis of all wars was trade. I had myself thought that the personal ambition of rulers like Frederick the Great or Napoleon may have had something to do with war. I remember that the word "religion" has been whispered as one of the causes that produced war, and that territorial and racial feelings were one of the most fertile sources of internecine conflict between neighbouring nationalities. The hon. Gentleman says all war reduces itself to a war for commercial purposes, and therefore he argues, with great logical force, that the proper way to stop all wans—I do not think he meant that the proper way to stop all war was to stop all commerce, which would, perhaps, be the most logical conclusion—was to have Free Trade between all nations, and he-thought that would bring all wars to an end. He gave as an illustration—a very singular illustration I thought it—the question of the coalfields of Alsace.
    Mr. LAMBERT: The iron mines of Lorraine.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Oh; yes! The hon. Member pointed out with perfect truth that a great deal of the supply of iron Germany has at present is derived from the provinces which she wrested from France in 1871, and he told us, "If you gave these back to France, you would perpetuate the sources of war, and the idea of a general European peace would for ever be dissipated." What has that to-do with Free Trade? The iron mines must belong, presumably, to somebody. If they belong to one nation, and a neighbouring nation desires to have them, and if that is to be recognised as a cause of war, how does the hon. Gentleman's talk about Free Trade get over that difficulty?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. What I meant to imply was that if we had no trade barriers, the difficulties as to whom the different territories belonged would be very much diminished.
    Mr. BALFOUR: As to whom the iron mines of Alsace belong, how does the question of trade barriers deal with them? I shall be very glad to know from hon. Gentlemen on that bench—preferably from those under forty-five years of age—how is this universal panacea for the abolition of war—which is not the League of Nations, but universal Free Trader—how is it going to deal with the question of the iron mines in Lorraine? The real fact of the matter, as pointed out in the most powerful speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyneside (Mr. J. M. Robertson), and in the able speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Captain Tryon)—the real question is how does all this talk about bringing your ideas home to the democracy of Germany, and getting peace by inducing the German Majority Socialists to change their opinions—I presume that is what it comes to—how does it really brush aside the true obstacles to any peace?
    The true obstacle to any legitimate peace is what has been concisely described as "German militarism." German militarism is based not on the ambition of a few soldiers; it is based, unfortunately, on the fact that German writers and professors—men of theory, men of action, those engaged in commerce, those engaged in historical speculation—are all united in the view that the true policy of any nation which wishes to be great is a policy of universal domination. That is the difficulty. You may call it—I think it

    1627
    is a very good phrase—militarism. It precisely expresses the instrument by which that policy is carried out. But the difficulty is that this gross and immoral heresy has spread its roots right through the most educated classes in Germany, and until those roots are eradicated, there is very small hope that Germany will willingly become a peaceful member of a peaceful society of nations. How is that eradication to be produced? The evil originally came into being by the facile successes which Germany has attained in war, and the only way to eradicate is to show that war does not always lead to facile success, or to success at all.
    If you can once make it clear to German minds that in modern civilisation the moral view of a majority of nations is sufficient to coerce recalcitrant members of the human society, then, and not until then, will there be some prospect of that peace which the hon. Gentleman, as well as everyone on this side of the House, so earnestly desires. The German theory and the German practice in this matter harmonise much more closely than, I am sorry to say, human theory and human practice usually do. There is absolute congruity between what they preach and what they practise, and we need not trouble to ask whether the abominable doctrines which I have just mentioned are the crotchets of a few independent thinkers, or whether they really represent the views of the German people, for the answer is obvious. First read your Treitschke and Bernhardi, and then go and see how the German Government, when it gets the chance, carries out the doctrines which have been preached from university chairs, professed by patriotic associations, and disseminated by all the machinery of internal propaganda which has been going on in Germany for twenty-five years and more.
    We have an opportunity of knowing exactly what it is that the German Government wish to do, and what the German people are ready to approve, because we can see them at work. Of Belgium I will say nothing now except to remind the House that never yet, even when the way in which the War was going gave the greatest impulse to the pacifist element in Germany, never even at that moment could a German statesman bring himself to say plainly, clearly, definitely, and without ambiguity, "We took Belgium without excuse; we mean to give
    1628
    it back without condition, and, so far as in us lies, to restore it as it was before it fell into the hands of the spoiler." Never once have they thus spoken. But they have talked round the subject. They have introduced qualifications. They have invented history. They have spread calumnies about Belgian policy. They have made mendacious statements about British intrigues with Belgium. But never yet have they clearly stated the only policy which even the extremest pacifist on that bench is resolved that they shall carry out before the War is brought to an end.
    There is an even more striking example of German methods of carrying out German theories to be found on the Eastern frontier of Germany. Her action in the East is an even more instructive subject of study than her action in the West, and it will repay the closest study. Consider her present position from the North of Finland right down to the Black Sea! She has gained it by the collapse of Russia. She has used it according to her own ideas. How has she used it? You have here displayed an admirable illustration of the way in which she pursues a single aim in different manner accordingly as the situation happens to direct her policy. The pose which she most affects is that of a liberator; and I may incidentally observe that, next to being enslaved by Germany, there is no worse fate than that of being liberated by her. Finland, for example, is now being told that she owes her freedom to Germany! But Germany is plundering her, garrisoning her, choosing her form of government, and endeavouring to force her into the War!
    So it is further south. There you find a whole group of nationalities—Esthonians, Letts, Lithuanians, Poles, and Ukrainians. Go through the whole list, and you will find Germany proclaiming herself anxious that they shall be free from Russian domination. She pursues her one end steadily, remorselessly, without wavering, without pity; she endeavours by every means in her power, by force, by treaty, by treaty extorted by force to bring these peoples under German economic and military domination, so that they shall be merely her handmaids in matters of commerce, and supply her with troops in times of war. That is the policy. It takes different forms, but it is universal. It goes throughout the whole of that great area which I have described on Germany's Eastern frontier, and so determined is she

    1629
    to keep these nations under her heel, that having it absolutely in her power to rearrange the map of this part of Europe as she pleases, she has been careful not to arrange it according to national or ethnic limitations.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: She only imitates yourself in that.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have not had to arrange these places. She does this, so anxious has she been always to be the Power to whom the Government of the particular country must look for its preservation, because without German support the fabric she creates must fall to pieces. I do not believe it is possible to exaggerate the cynical audacity with which she has pursued, and is pursuing, this measure. She does not want to absorb these countries into the German State, because if she absorbs them as German States, she will have to give them German institutions, and they will have representation, for what it is worth, in the German Reichstag, and they would have their place in the German Empire. She wants them to be united under a personal tie to the Prussian monarchy, coerced therefore whenever occasion requires by Prussian soldiers, with no voice in the Prussian Parliament, and no power of directing Prussian policy. That is what she deliberately aims at, and I cannot conceive any peace being tolerated, any peace being assented to, by the Powers of the Entente which leaves that stale of things unremedied. If it were unremedied, future wars would be an absolute certainty, and Germany's power of waging those wars would be, as she herself openly admits, enormously increased. Towards these provinces she professes, as I have said, to act the part of the liberator, a liberator who insists upon forced contributions—for instance, of corn from the Ukraine—and who at this moment is endeavouring to compel the Ukraine, I fear, to contribute to her armies as she is endeavouring to make Poland contribute to her armies.
    If you go to Roumania, you see her methods written in even larger characters, in even more unmistakable characters. She has not merely forced Roumania to give immense contributions, indirectly perhaps, but not the less effectually to her war expenditure, but she has got control of all Roumania's industries, all Roumania's railways, all
    1630
    Roumania's dockyards. She holds Roumania at this moment not merely in the sense of military domination, but she holds her in economic domination, absolute and complete, a domination which shows no mercy, which will destroy the independence of the Roumanian people if it be allowed to stand for generations, and which demonstrates, if anything be required to demonstrate, that when a German talks of peace, he means, and he means only, a domination compared with which some of the worst dominations of the world seem to me to be merciful, because they are less successful, less effective, carried out with less systematic method, and with less absolute indifference to the feelings of the subject population. I do not believe anyone can study these treaties which Germany has made, or is in the act of making, without understanding, and perhaps understanding for the first time, what German domination means, and what a German peace for the world really signifies.
    In the course of this War Germany has overrun fair districts both on the East and on the West. We also have had our measure of territorial conquest. We have occupied the southern part of Palestine, we have occupied large portions of Mesopotamia, and we have taken German Colonies. If you want to know the difference between British methods and German methods, consider the fate of these districts, compare the fate of the districts we have occupied with the fate of the districts occupied by the Germans. Wherever we have gone in the course of the War, security has been assured, trade has grown, wealth has increased almost before your eyes. Mesopotamia, at this moment I believe, is growing more corn than she has grown for centuries. Palestine—that part of it at any rate in British occupation—is more prosperous than it has ever been, and, if you come to the German Colonies, I do not think that anybody who has really studied German methods of colonisation will be surprised to know that the improvement is great there also.
    Turn your eyes from Palestine and Mesopotamia, and look at Poland and Belgium. Germany is not content with the inevitable sufferings which are produced by an army of occupation, or by an army passing through any territory. Those sufferings need not be great if the army be disciplined. They may be almost insignificant. German soldiers, wherever

    1631
    they have been, have produced a desert, and left a desert. They have stripped of their machinery and of every means of production all the great Belgian towns. From the great manufacturing towns of Poland the machinery has again been taken, and Germany, according to some of those who write on her behalf, has done it in order that Lodz may never again be a competitor with German manufacturers. Poland, Belgium, the Ukraine, all these districts where the Germans have been, show even from the very beginning of the German occupation what a German peace means. It means that Germany is to flourish, and that everybody else is to serve the ends and purposes of Germany. It means that, and it means nothing less. Some of their officials in Roumania, when the Roumanians bitterly complained of the way in which they were treated by the framers of the Roumanian Peace Treaty, said, "Why do you complain? We are treating you as friends. You should see the treaty which we mean to impose upon France and England when the proper time comes." I have no doubt that sentiment, however bad it may be in point of prophecy, absolutely and accurately represents the mentality of the man who spoke that phrase and the mentality of the people who sent him to carry out his work.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Who was it?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not remember his name. He was one of the German officials engaged in carrying out the work in Roumania. Does what I say sound like a paradox?
    Mr. KING: Was he a man of any special authority, leading in the negotiations?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am not aware that he was of any great authority. The whole point is that he spoke as his people think, and as the actions of his people wherever they have been during this War show that they think. I hope that comes home to the hon. Gentleman, and that he grasps the point of my argument.
    Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I did not deny for a moment what he said? I only thought that it would have much greater weight if it were some person of authority—as, for instance, the man who was negotiating the treaty.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his assistance, and I am
    1632
    sorry that for the moment I mistook his generous purpose. The real difficulty in the way of peace is not what hon. Gentlemen sitting on that bench suppose. They think, in their innocence, that all that is required is to bring two or three trade union leaders together from Germany and the Allied countries, and something satisfactory would be settled. We are most anxious—the Government are most anxious, as I have said, as the Prime Minister has said, and as I think others of my colleagues have said—of course, to take any opportunity of arriving at an honourable, a safe, and durable peace; but negotiation is perfectly useless unless the negotiators are approaching one another before the negotiations take place. If the differences which divide them are obviously much greater than can be got over by conversation and friendly discussion and argument, then discussion and friendly argument are in vain. I do not think that there is anybody who seriously denies that. I believe that to be common ground among hon. Gentlemen and those who differ most from them, although I do not think that the pacifist party in this House fully realise the gravity of a principle which I believe in theory they would be ready to accept. I do not at this moment, study as I will, see either in the actions of the German Government—some of which I have endeavoured to describe to the House, or in the statements of German politicians which are available—or in the writings of German publicists which meet with the greatest favour in their country, the slightest sign or symptom that they have as yet come sufficiently close to us to make discussion likely to be fruitful. If they give any sign that I am wrong, well and good. As I have said before, anything they wish to say we shall be glad to consider.
    They say a great deal to their own people in their own newspapers, and they do a great deal of the kind that I have described to the House From those at present we must judge them. Judged by that standard, the abyss that separates the Associated Powers on the one side and the Central Powers on the other is profound. It is almost immeasurable. It is so deep as hardly to be plumbed, and so wide as hardly to be bridged. The hon. Gentlemen whose whole business is to show that negotiation ought to be easy have had the opportunity in countless Debates of showing that Germany is

    1633
    closer to us than I fear she is. They have never shown it. They have never given any argument, which indicates it at all, and I cannot conceive under these circumstances what they expect to gain by Debates of this character. Do they wish, for instance, to hand back to Germany, as Germany is now, the African colonies? Do they wish it? They know quite well what it means. They know that it means, in the first place, giving Germany submarine bases on all the great trade routes of the world, and putting, therefore, the world's commerce at Germany's disposal. They know, in the second place, that it means the tyrannical government of the native Africans, of which the House knows much, and which, when a Blue Book which is being prepared on one aspect of this question be published it will know more. It means, in the first place, that Germany will deliberately set to work and create a great black army in Central Africa, which will make the peaceable development—
    Mr. SNOWDEN: As France has done already.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Certainly, France has done it; but has France menaced the peace of all her neighbours? That is the whole point. The hon. Gentleman never has discovered yet that nations have a soul, that nations have a character, that the German soul, and the German character, as Germany is now, are going to use those powers—they make very little secret of it—for the purpose not merely of defence, but of aggression. It is not the abstract wickedness of having a disciplined army of black men to which I object. That maybe necessary or unnecessary. If unnecessary, it ought not to be done. If it is necessary, by all means do it. What I object to is giving back to Germany at the end of the War an instrument so powerful for universal evil as a great colonial empire would, Germany being as she is at present, undoubtedly put into her bands. No greater instrument for disturbing the peace of the world or increasing the miseries of humanity could be conceived, in my opinion, than giving Germany a great Central African dominion, to be used as Germany would know how to use it—for offence within the continent of Africa and, offence, perhaps even more perilous, to all the great arteries of trade that join civilised nations together.
    Then do the hon. Gentlemen think that Germany is ready to abandon her Russian
    1634
    policy? Germany's Russian policy has been the most astute and, at first sight, the most successful—indeed, the only really successful—thing she has done during the War, and she is proportionately proud of it. But what does it mean for a very large fraction of the human race? Does this House contemplate with equanimity this row of States—subordinate States under German domination—feeding German trade though starved themselves, sup plying Germany with armies in quarrels with which they have no concern, stretching from the Baltic right down to the Black Sea? Further, do they contemplate with equanimity one of the inevitable results of that, which is that Russia will be cut off from all commerce—I do not mean commerce in the common sense; I mean all direct intercourse with her Western neighbours—and that the task of the self-rehabilitation and self-reconstitution, which we all earnestly desire that Russia should carry through—do they contemplate with equanimity that that task would become almost impossible? Germany rejoices at Russian disintegration. Germany rejoices that Russia is going to be little more than the hinterland of her own dominating influence. I think it a calamity to mankind. Unless Germany's methods change and Germany's heart changes, or unless a victory, a complete victory, on the part of the Associated Powers convinces everybody in Germany that whether they will it or no, their policy is a failure—unless one of those two things happen, I fail utterly to see how this great rehabilitation of Russia is ever to take place.
    The hon. Gentlemen opposite, who I believe quite sincerely and earnestly desire the peaceful progress of the human race, seem to me to be quite incapable of appreciating the magnitude of the obstacle which Germany presents to the realisation of their own ideals. They desire peace, as we all desire peace, but they desire peace on terms which would not merely—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyneside (Mr. J. M. Robertson) and my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Major Tryon) have said so powerfully earlier in the Debate—make a future war practically inevitable, but they desire it on terms which would leave an immense fraction of civilised mankind absolutely under the German heel, absolutely incapable, therefore, of carrying out their own development in

    1635
    their own fashion and in their own way, and which would put back the whole progress of civilisation, which, as I represent it to myself, consists in the growing friendly intercourse between nation and nation, of such a kind that, while each influences the other, each may nevertheless, in conformity with its own character, its own history, its own national aspirations, give to the common task that work which they are best fitted to carry out. That ideal will never and cannot be carried out so long as your treaties of Brest-Litovsk remain untouched. If you contemplate giving back to Germany her possessions in Africa, or if you mean to give back to Turkey the Arab districts which are now happily relieved from Turkish rule, these ideals cannot be carried out. It is because I do not for a moment think that German negotiators are prepared to take that view or anything like that view—
    Mr. D. MASON: How do you know?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Because I am gifted with some common sense, and have read some of the documents and observed some of the actions upon which we must form a judgment on this subject. For that reason, I venture to say that the policy of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, animated as they are, I firmly believe, by patriotism and honourable motives—I am quite ready to believe that—but whatever their motives, I also believe that they are doing the very worst service they possibly can to the cause they have at heart by taking the course, in this House and out of it, to which we have now become unhappily too familiar.
    Mr. DILLON: This House is now asked to adjourn—
    Mr. SNOWDEN: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you a question on a point of procedure? Is it usual in this House when a speech has been made attacking what has been said from a certain part of the House that no opportunity should be given for replying to it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Debate on this matter has been equally divided. There have been three speakers from the hon. Member's bench and three opposed to them. The three speakers who spoke from the hon. Member's bench have
    1636
    occupied 115 minutes, while the three speakers from other benches have occupied about eighty minutes, so that on that point I thought the Debate had been very fairly divided. When I was first asked about it, I said that I thought about three hours to three and a half hours would be a suitable time to occupy. We have just reached the three and a half hours. There are no fewer than five other subjects all waiting for discussion. Hon. Members have been waiting here patiently with a view to raising those questions, and I think the time has now come when the House is anxious to hear the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon).
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I did not wish to imply that I had any doubt about the fairness with which you have allocated the time. Of course, we understood there were a great many other subjects which hon. Members desired to raise, and this question is to be limited to a certain time, but we understood also that one speech would be permitted in reply to the Foreign Secretary, and that was the reason I raised the point.

    IRELAND.
    Mr. DILLON: I have no desire in the least to intervene and deprive the hon. Member of his right to reply, but these Debates upon the Motion for the Adjournment are always of a very unsatisfactory character, and cannot be concluded in the same satisfactory way or with the same procedure as ordinary Debates. We are now asked to adjourn for a period of two months, at a time when the situation in Ireland is more unsatisfactory and more uncertain than I ever remember it in my life. The truth is that in Ireland there is really no Government in the true sense of the word. There is, of course, a military dictator who carries out his own will, and there is really no law except the will of this Noble Lord who has been sent over as a dictator. There is no Government in Ireland which has the confidence of any section or any party in that country, and that is a very terrible condition of things, and one which, if it were necessary, I should be prepared to prove. The country is at present drifting, and as I fear, drifting towards disaster. In face of that condition of affairs there is no party, and there is no man in Ireland who knows what is the policy of what

    1637
    passes for a Government. We are left absolutely in the dark. Two months ago a policy was announced with every form of repeated pledge—since the new Government was sent over to Ireland—and when we questioned the representatives of the Government, we were assured that by that policy, of which in many details we did not approve, the Government would stand or fall. Minister after Minister declared that if they did not succeed in carrying that policy into effect they would resign office. That policy was thrown overboard in all its details after about five or six weeks, and now the people of Ireland are left in a state of blank ignorance as to what the policy of the Government is. When I listen to the speeches of Ministers in this House, and those which have been made in Ireland, it sometimes occurs to me that they have totally forgotten the fact that Home Rule, an Irish Parliament and an Irish Executive, is the law of this land and that, if nothing is done, automatically on the conclusion of the War an Irish Parliament will come into existence—it requires no further legislation—and an Irish Executive Government will take over the control of the country. In spite of that fact the Government is allowing the country to drift into such a condition as will make that great change by no means easy.
    5.0 P.M.
    I said no man and no party in Ireland knows what is the policy of the Government. A voluntary recruiting campaign has been starated, and in respect of that the Government has repeated all the blunders and all those transactions, with what has been described by the Prime Minister on a famous occasion as malignity, which destroyed the recruiting campaign under the late Mr. Redmond in 1914. They have launched the campaign under circumstances which foredoomed it to failure, and they have launched it under a threat of Conscription which has produced all the results which we prophesied and has not done anything to extend the military power of this country. The Government last April introduced and persisted in driving through this House a Clause taking power to conscript the Irish people against their will. I and my colleagues warned them that that power would create a situation which would make it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for them to carry out their pledge to set up a Home Rule Government and settle the Irish question; and
    1638
    furthermore, that under the Conscription proposal they would gain no military strength, but, on the contrary, would seriously injure not only the military strength but the moral position of England. That is exactly what has happened. It is not very much to be surprised at that what we said, knowing the country as we do, should turn out to be true. I desire to say nothing against the Chief Secretary, but he underwent a kind of sea change. He was always supposed to be a friend to Ireland, a Home Ruler, an anti-Conscriptionist, and a sound Liberal. He goes to Ireland, spends a week there, and without consulting anyone of those who know the country, comes back here absolutely positive that he knows all about the situation, and treats with contempt and even insult any advice he gets from these benches.
    I wish to say a few words on this question of Conscription. You have destroyed at its very outset all possibilities of the success of the voluntary recruiting campaign. Any man who knew Ireland could have told you that was so. You were warned that it was so. You are now leaving Ireland under the threat of Conscription, and I want to warn the Chief Secretary. You can make no step of progress towards the settlement of the Irish question until you abandon that idea. You will never be able to enforce Conscription in Ireland, and if you attempt to do it, so far from adding to your military strength, you will embark on a sea of trouble of which you have apparently very little conception. You will embroil yourself with America and American opinion, you will destroy the moral traditions of this country, you will madden Ireland and embark on a long vista of hate between the two peoples which will spread from Ireland to America, to Australia, to New Zealand, and to Canada, and you will find that that struggle which will result in Ireland will have consequences which will make any Minister who is responsible for it bitterly repentant for the rest of his mortal life. The Conscription of people against their will is, in my deliberate judgment, one of the greatest crimes any body of statesmen could be guilty of. It is the worst form of slavery, and when hon. Members argue in a sophistical way that because we are coerced to come to this Parliament, and because this is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, therefore the Irish people are not a separate people and must obey the orders of this Parliament even in such a

    1639
    matter as Conscription, that is a foolish, futile and preposterous argument. If ever there was a community of people in the history of the world who bear, as they have been acknowledged by British statesmen to bear, all the characteristics of a nationality, It is the Irish people. When you are, particularly under the aggravating circumstances which exist in connection with this matter, seeking to coerce the Irish people to submit to Conscription, is, in my deliberate opinion, as great an act of tyranny as has ever been perpetrated by Germany in Belgium. We were told to-day that she has attempted to perpetrate it in Poland, but I do not know about that. She may have induced the Poles to fight for her, but I have not seen that she has attempted to impose Conscription upon the Polish people.
    I heard the other day, and I was amazed at it, the Leader of the House, and. I think, the Foreign Secretary talking with great approval and satisfaction because the Czecho-Slovaks, the Bohemians and the Jugo-Slavs had deserted in tens of thousands from the Austrian flag and gone over to the enemy. I want to know by what tie of allegiance we in Ireland are bound more to the British flag than the Czecho-Slovaks or the Jugo-Slavs are bound to the Austrian flag. I have not heard any generous word of recognition spoken of our soldiers who have fought with the most superb valour throughout all the years of this War in the very forefront of your battles, and who were described by Colonel Reppington as the best Infantry troops the British Army ever had, and who when they were taken prisoners and brought to the prison camps in Germany and subjected to all forms of temptation, out of the thousands of Irish soldiers only about thirty were seduced to desert the British flag. Yet we have British Ministers getting up here and holding up as examples to the world these Czechoslovaks and others who deserted their flag and went over to the enemy. I think it is an unwise thing under the circumstances that prevail in Ireland for Ministers to use such language as that and to hold up this action as a fine example. I say that not by any way of condemnation of the Czecho-Slovaks or the Jugo-slavs. I sympathise with them. I am in favour of all nationalities who are struggling for freedom. I am in favour of the Czecho-Slovaks. I have deep
    1640
    sympathy with the Bohemians, because the Bohemians are precisely on all fours with us. If you read their history you might imagine that you were reading the history of the Irish. They have gone through the same experiences. They have an Ulster question precisely like ours, a German minority in Bohemia, who claim to be a more highly cultured race and who cannot tolerate the Bohemian Government. You might imagine you were reading the history of Ireland, the circumstances are so similar. Yet Ministers pledge the faith of England for the emancipation of this nation from the domination of Austria and, as the Foreign Secretary said the other day, from the domination of a privileged minority in Bohemia. They forget how closely these observations apply to the case of Ireland.
    If the Chief Secretary for Ireland is a wise man, I hardly imagine that he will allow the House to adjourn without making some statement on the situation in Ireland and giving us some enlightenment, or attempting to do so, as to his policy and his intentions in regard to the Irish question, on which we have had, up to the present, since the great refusal and the throwing over of the Government policy, not a single word of enlightenment. I beg to warn him with all the solemnity that I can command, that until he abandons the threat of Conscription he can do nothing, and can take no step in the direction of a settlement of the Irish question. I think it is disastrous, inconceivably foolish, and I might almost call it an insane policy, to maintain the threat of Conscription if you do not intend to put it into effect. Nobody in Ireland believes that you do intend to put it into effect, but the threat which is constantly used, both by the Lord Lieutenant and by others in Ireland, keeps up a state of excitement and of bitter feeling, and has a most terrible influence towards throwing the whole population into the hands of the revolutionary party. It has already had a tremendous effect in that direction, and so long as it is kept hanging over the heads of the people that effect will continue.
    There are three points which I wish to bring under the notice of the Chief Secretary, and on which I would ask him for a definite and clear statement. The first is the question of permits. I will dismiss that in a few words, because the Chief Secretary said that the methods of deal-

    1641
    ing with the difficulty about permits to enable us to come here to our Parliamentary duties could be improved, and that if we went to Downing Street we would get a permit authorising us to travel without further application to the police or anybody else. We were told that we should get that permit as a matter of course, and that it would have no limit of time. Some of my colleagues were there to-day, and their permits are only dated for three months. That is not carrying out the promise. The permits ought to be permits which would definitely get over the difficulty of leaving it in the power of the Executive Government to interfere with the attendance of Members of this House. I understood from the Chief Secretary that that is what was intended, and that if we called at the office in Downing Street we should get these permits as a matter of course and not as a matter of grace, and that there would be no limit of time. Another question is the prohibition of meetings. A Proclamation has been issued recently under the Defence of the Realm Act, prohibiting all meetings in Ireland unless a police permit has been obtained. A most extraordinary thing has arisen under that prohibition. It was interpreted by the police for the first three weeks as applying to all social gatherings and games as well as political meetings Not only was it interpreted so, but it was put into force, greatly to the annoyance of the people of Ireland, where the feeling is extremely bitter and exasperated. Football matches, Gaelic gatherings, dances, and concerts were interfered with and broken up, and in some cases the military were called in with fixed bayonets and threats were used. The question was raised in this House, and the Chief Secretary gave us an evasive and uncertain answer. Then the Gaelic League announced that last Sunday they would hold 1,500 meetings, one in every parish in Ireland, simultaneously. Thereupon Dublin Castle, after considering the situation for some time, announced that the prohibition so far as sports and concerts were concerned was due to a telephonic mistake, and the police were ordered not to interfere. It was a curious telephonic mistake, and it was only discovered when the question was raised in this House and the Gaelic League had decided to hold these simultaneous meetings last Sunday throughout Ireland. I want a clear statement upon that question.
    1642
    I desire also a clear statement upon another branch of the subject, winch is of even greater importance. The Chief Secretary, in answer to a question the other day, affirmed his determination and the determination of the Government to maintain the prohibition on all political meetings in Ireland unless a police permit was obtained. I told him at once that we could not consent to apply for a police permit. We regard this prohibition as a deliberate attempt—there is no other explanation of it—on the part of the Government to throw the whole of Ireland into the hands of the revolutionary party and to kill the constitutional movement. What other motive could there be? The revolutionary party do not depend upon public meetings; they have their organisations which do not meet in public, and when they are attacked they fall back on private proceedings. To a constitutional movement such as ours the very breath of life is public meetings, but if we are to be told that we can only hold meetings as licensees of the Irish police we can hold no such meetings, because, by asking for the permit of the police and then holding the meetings, we would be defeating the whole purpose of the meetings and playing the game of the extreme party in Ireland, increasing its power and influence. Therefore there is no excuse for this proceeding, unless it be the deliberate policy of the Irish Executive—and many of their proceedings point to that as their policy—to throw the whole country into the influence and under the control of the revolutionary party.
    I want to tell the Chief Secretary quite plainly that we cannot have this prohibition. It is possible that whenever a meeting which is held to be dangerous to the public peace or of a treasonable character is being organised to have it prohibited, and that is the rule which has been followed in regard to all public disturbances in the past, such as in connection with the Land League and previous agitations in Ireland. And when my right hon. Friend, in reply to me the other day—he sometimes makes these replies very quickly and without thought—said we were not at war in those days, I would ask the Chief Secretary, Was the country at war in 1916, when we had a rebellion in Ireland? This Proclamation, except for a short period after the revolution, was never put in force. Even then, when the country had been in rebellion, the Executive stopped meetings which were

    1643
    of a rebellious or seditious character, but they never dreamed if issuing a general order that no meetings of any sort or kind should be held, and I say that this Government, without anything like the excuse which existed in previous days, has gone to an extent of coercion wholly unparalleled in the course of the history of Ireland, and has embarked upon a policy and a method which can only have one explanation: that it is their deliberate purpose to put down and crush as far as they can all constitutional movement in Ireland, and leave the field perfectly clear for the unconstitutional, extreme, and revolutionary party in Ireland. I, therefore, demand from the Chief Secretary that he should modify or withdraw this Order so that we should be at liberty to address our constituents in Ireland, and so as to enable all meetings in Ireland of a political character, which are neither disorderly nor seditious, to be as freely held there as in this country. I do not think that is an unreasonable request to make. This country is at war, and you have not applied the present prohibition to it. I go further, and warn the Chief Secretary that, instead of promoting the peace of the country and increasing the chances of Ireland moving towards a rational settlement of the question, this policy will hinder it. Sometime or other you will have to settle the Irish question; you cannot wipe the question off the slate as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College proposed the other day. It will not be wiped off; you will be bound to settle it, and this policy, so far from promoting the progress and direction of a rational settlement is going right in the opposite way. Every day and every week that this Regulation is in force you will find that the Irish question will become more and more unmanageable, and, to use the words of the Prime Minister himself, more tangled.
    Now I come to my third point, and that is the question of the Ulster arms, which is a burning and vital matter. It is now over four weeks since it was declared that there could be no law and no respect for the Government in Ireland so long as this gross inequality existed. In the south and west of Ireland, and in all the Nationalist districts, the most stringent measures were and are being taken to disarm the population; seizures are going on, widespread military activities, breaking into houses, digging up gardens, and
    1644
    so on, in the search for arms. As I say, it has been going on all over the South-West and Midlands of Ireland, and a great many arms have been seized, and not only that, but I have had letters in the last two or three days of bitter complaint from farmers whose arms have been taken away from them and whose crops in consequence are being totally destroyed because they are even refused sporting cartridges. It is a great hardship, and I recommend the matter to the urgent and immediate consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. I only mention it in this connection to indicate something of the extreme rigour with which disarmament is going on all over Nationalist Ireland. Bodies of soldiers are sent out, houses broken into, and searches made of so exhaustive a character that they even go to the extent of looking under beds and searching in every hole and corner for arms. The Chief Secretary declared himself that to his knowledge and to the knowledge of the authorities there were 50,000 rifles in Ulster and twelve machine-guns. I do not know, because he did not say, how many rounds of ammunition there may be in Ulster, but I believe there are upwards of 1,000,000—certainly there is ample ammunition. What must be recognised is that those guns are there for the purpose of rebellion—you must not forget that. Those guns were brought in for the purpose, and not only that, but on the 24th September, 1914, six weeks after the War broke out, the present Leader of the House and the present Member for Trinity College went over to Belfast and they then and there declared that the moment the War was over they would call out the Ulster troops and use those rifles—to do what? To tear up an Act of Parliament and repeal it, not to repeal it through this House, but to repeal it on the plains of Ulster, by an act of rebellion actually announced openly amidst thundering cheers when they were surrounded, let me remind the House, by all the heads of the Presbyterian Church in Ulster.
    Yet I heard attacks made on the heads of my Church because they intervened at the request of my people—and in my deliberate opinion intervened to save bloodshed and disorder in Ireland—and the Prime Minister comes up to that Box and sheds crocodile tears over what he describes as the horrible mistake of the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland, but never says a word in condemnation of the

    1645
    bishop of the Anglican Church or of the head of the Presbyterian assembly who stood beside the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College when he announced, while the War was going on, that the first act after the War would be to lead a rebellion against the King and Parliament or this country. But of course we know that these loyal Ulster-men can rebel whenever they like. In their case it is not treason at all, and I say it is a mockery for the Chief Secretary to come down and talk about his determination to get all these arms when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College defies him, as he defied him openly in the House of Commons the other day, when he told him he had never been approached on the subject. And the right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, I did not know until now that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College controls the rifles." Did the right hon. Gentleman never read the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College 2 Did he read that speech an Belfast when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, at a time when every rifle was worth lives to this country in this War, declared:
    "Some men have said, I have allowed some of the Ulster rifles to leave Ulster. It is a lie, and as long as am the Leader of the Ulster party I will allow all the rifles I can get to come in, but no rifle will leave Ulster."
    Yet the right hon. Gentleman, our new ruler from Newcastle-on-Tyne, informs us that he does not know, and that it never occurred to him, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College had any control over the Ulster rifles. I tell him that he has, and if he will speak to him to-morrow and to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Down, they can get him every single rifle and machine gun in Ulster if they choose to do so, but I do not believe that he will ever get one, and if we come back in October we shall have some foolish excuse put up. Is it any wonder that people in Ireland when they see such games as that being played do not trust the Government? I would ask hon. Members who are now listening to me to take a note of the matter, and see whether the law is in that one respect fairly and equally administered as between the Orangemen of Ulster and the Nationalists of Ulster and the rest of Ireland. We hear a lot of talk about Ulster, and we must not forget that Ulster is very nearly half Nationalist. But the people in the North-
    1646
    East portion of Ulster are to be a privileged class, like the Germans of Bohemia. They are to be a superior race. They will not give up their arms, and the right hon. Gentleman and Lord French dare not take their arms, and night after night during the last three weeks the right hon. Gentleman has been obliged to get up at that Table and say that he can make no further statement on that question, but that he intends to get the arms. I wish him joy of the task, but he must pardon me for remaining incurably sceptical until I see the 50,000 rifles, the machine guns, and the ammunition collected in Dublin Castle.
    Is it unreasonable on these points before we break up that we should get some statement from the Chief Secretary, and that we should also have some statement as to the general policy in Ireland? Do they still maintain the pretence of having any intention of settling the Irish question, or have they the courage to say frankly that they have abandoned that intention? Do they intend to let the law take its course, which would mean that, when the War comes to an end, an Irish Government under an Irish Parliament would come automatically into existence, or do they intend to act on the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, which I have already quoted—"The first thing we shall do after the War is closed, and we have beaten the Germans, is to tear up your scrap of paper"? Does the Government propose to tear up the scrap of paper and violate the word of the King and of Parliament under the open threat of rebellion, not pretending that they have discovered any new merits of the question or that they are going to undo it because they think they were wrong, but because they have been threatened with rebellion if they do not instantly repeal the Home Rule Act? They have no more moral right to coerce or govern Ireland, and they have no more moral right to condemn Sinn Fein in Ireland as long as they maintain the position which they now maintain, that they are now denying, and intend in future to deny, to Ireland the right which this Parliament gave and to which the King put a signature, and that they are doing so, and will do so, under the threat of rebellion from a minority of the Irish people.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I will deal first with

    1647
    the two points raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo before I come to the general question. I deal first with the question of permits to travel backwards and forwards between their constituencies and Parliament. Those permits are absolutely necessary for the protection of the good government of Ireland. It is absolutely necessary that there should be some control over those who are able to get in and out of Ireland, and that necessity involves a second necessity, namely, that there should be at Holyhead an officer whose duty it is to see that no person without a permit is allowed to go on board ship. It might be said that there was at Holyhead a Home Office official who did not know the hon. Member, and that the result might be very considerable inconvenience to the hon. Member. In discussing this point, when we first arranged the permits, we came to the conclusion—and I assure the House that we were considering nothing but the convenience of hon. Members—[Laughter]—no doubt they laugh at me, but I am quite certain that they know that we had nothing but the convenience of hon. Members in our minds—and we came to the conclusion that it was better that they should have what was in real effect an identification card to enable it to be known at once that they were Members of Parliament who could go on board. I hope that that matter is now settled, and that hon. Members will appreciate it.
    Mr. DILLON: Do I understand that without going to Downing Street we will get that permit?
    Mr. SHORTT: I can only say that I arranged with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that that was to be done, that Members of Parliament will be entitled as a right to a permit; but for their own convenience and for better security it was resolved to ask them to carry a permit of that sort, and that it will be available for all time as long as permits are necessary, and that they shall not be required to get their photographs taken.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Why should I have to get one for three months to-day?
    Mr. SHORTT: If the officials are not carrying out what my right hon. Friend and I agreed to, I will put pressure on them that they should carry it out. I can only tell what was arranged between my
    1648
    right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself. So far as I am concerned, I will see that it is carried out as far as I possibly can. With regard to the prohibition of meetings, I am bound to say that hon. Members below the Gangway have an extraordinarily difficult standard as to what is an insult. A perfectly innocent statement made by me is resented as a grave insult, but about as gross a charge as could possibly be made when made against me is mere courteous persiflage.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Who started it?
    Mr. SHORTT: The hon. Member suggested that it is the deliberate policy of the Irish Government to ensure that the constitutional party and the constitutional movement shall be destroyed, and that we should deliberately try to set up in Ireland a rule, a party, which goes for unrest, which goes for rebellion, and which plays absolutely and entirely into the hands of Germany in this War. To accuse me of that is no insult, but to accuse them of not doing all they might do to help the Government is an insult which calls for denunciation, and they have denounced me in every possible way, and have accused me of the most dishonourable conduct of which a Minister can be guilty. All that is perfectly fair and perfectly right, and there is no insult contained in it at all. That shows how true it is that the Hibernian character is sometimes inclined to exaggeration, and it shows how true it is that hon. Members say many things which they do not mean. I do not believe that there is a single Member in this House who believes that either Lord French or myself would be guilty of any such deliberate treason to this country.
    What is the position? The most dangerous and seditious propaganda was carried on by Sinn Feiners—who had been captured by the advocates of physical force—at their meetings and publicly preached sedition. We are asked whether we could not have taken other steps, but the very first thing that would have happened, after proclaiming Sinn Fein, would have been that the physical force party would have turned their attention to the Gaelic Society, or to some other equally innocent association. We are bound to close every possible avenue that may be open to the advocates of physical force. The means employed is to stop public meetings at which sedition is preached, and the only possible way is to use a

    1649
    system of permits, and to ask the assistance of all reasonable, people. We know that for ordinary meetings which are known to be innocent, permits are obtained as a mere formality. What happens? If a Member wants to address his constituency where is the great insult in issuing a permit? What is the intolerable inconvenience to which he is submitted? All that it means is that the gentlemen who organise the meeting for the Member have to send a postcard to the police, to say where they are holding the meeting at which the Member is to address his constituents, and a permit will be sent by return of post.
    Mr. DILLON: The right hon. Gentlemen has misinterpreted what I said. It was not inconvenience that I complained. What I complained of was the fact that this system of permits gave a political advantage to our opponents, and we cannot consent to give them that advantage.
    Mr. SHORTT: I would ask the hon. Members who are the opponents to whom the advantage would be given?
    Mr. DILLON: I mean the Sinn Feiners.
    Mr. SHORTT: I am told that I have favoured the Sinn Feiners, and frequently the papers have attacked me for fostering Ulster opponents. What is the fact? All parties alike get permits. There is no favouritism, no differentiation, and if there be a meeting where it is known perfectly well that sedition is intended that meeting can be stopped. But where we know perfectly well that no sedition is intended, as, of course, is the case in any meetings at which hon. Members desire to address their constituents, and where there would be no sedition talked, there would not be any trouble whatever. But it is essential and necessary to control political meetings where it is known that there is intention of seditious speech making, and I myself know of no more convenient method of controlling such meetings than that method which has been established. It only involves a little reasonable acquiescence and assistance on the part of hon. Members in this House. If they would only appreciate the amount of sedition that has been talked in Ireland they would be quite ready to acquiesce and see that we are justified in asking loyal Members of this House to appreciate the circumstances in Ireland.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know—he is a learned
    1650
    and distinguished lawyer—that the right of holding public meetings is a common law right, and why should we hold our meetings under the permission of some policeman?
    Mr. SHORTT: My hon. and learned Friend is really a little unreasonable. Hero we are in the middle of a great war.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Let the War alone.
    Mr. SHORTT: It is all very well to ask us to forget the War, but the Government of Ireland are not going to forget the fact that we are in the middle of a great war and we are bound to take steps to prevent sedition in that country, and they are taken under legislation which has been passed for War purposes only. I know what the common law is perfectly well, but we are living under extreme and abnormal circumstances, in which we cannot help these things being done. I have tried to explain to the House, and I hope I have succeeded, that this is a reasonable and absolutely necessary regulation. It asks very little of hon. Members in this House.
    Mr. DEVLIN: You are always on the side of the rebels!
    Mr. SHORTT: Is not that an insult? All we ask hon. Members is that they should acquiesce in this Regulation, so as to prevent really seditious meetings from taking place. With regard to the question of Ulster arms, I am not going into that, except to this extent: I am taunted, apparently, with having left the control of arms to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College. I have not, in fact, asked anyone to take control of the arms, and when I say that I mean personal and physical control. I do not acknowledge the right hon. Member for Trinity College or the Member for East Clare, who is now described as the leader of the Sinn Fein party—I do not recognise either Gentlemen as having control over anybody else in Ireland, and I shall only deal with those who have physical control of arms, So long as I am connected with the Administration, I shall acknowledge nobody outside the Government. I have already explained my position in regard to arms, and it is that we mean to get them without trouble if I can, as I am sure everybody in the House would prefer should be done. If we cannot get them without trouble, we will get them.

    1651
    Let me deal with the general policy of the Government. The policy of the Government is exactly what it was before I joined the Government, namely, the policy which was declared by the Prime Minister in March. It is true that circumstances have to a certain extent altered, but I hope and believe they have not altered to any such extent as will affect that portion of the dual policy which we talk of as Home Rule. What is the position in regard to that? I should like to give what I conceive to be the position in Ireland to-day. Ireland—I think I am justified in saying this—is being restored to a peaceful state in which law and order are being observed. Remember, I have said peaceful only. Ireland is to-day extremely prosperous. There is no material grievance, no grievance financial, no grievance like that which resulted from famine, none of the grievances which one could call material grievances, which commonly give rise to trouble amongst peoples. But, and I admit this absolutely frankly, while you have a peaceful people in Ireland, while you have a prosperous people in Ireland, you have all over the South, middle, and West of Ireland deep and bitter resentment and discontent. I know that perfectly well, and I know as well as any hon. Member in this House what the reason is, and really the problem of Ireland to-day is how to bring about a set of circumstances in which the ground for that discontent is removed. I know it is sentimental; I know the one thing that will remove it as well as any hon. Member below the Gangway, but there are only two ways in which you can get Home Rule. One is by physical force—that is out of the question—and the other is by passing what is necessary through this House. That is the problem with which we are faced. How is that going to be done, and what steps are necessary? Because, although it is true, as the hon. Member for East Mayo has said, that a Home Rule measure is upon the Statute Book, it is suspended for the period of the War, and I am not at all sure that he is quite right when he says that it comes automatically into operation at the end of the War unless something is done.
    Mr. DILLON: I am sure!
    Mr. SHORTT: Then the hon. Member is in conflict—and I regret to say it—with
    1652
    some very distinguished lawyers. I am not at all sure about that, but for the purposes of argument—
    An HON. MEMBER: Mr. Redmond thought so!
    Mr. SHORTT: So did I until yesterday, but a great lawyer has put to me a proposition with regard to it which I do not pretend to have considered, but which certainly has a very serious difficulty in it. However, let us take it for the purposes of argument to-day that it will come automatically into force at the end of the War. The Suspensory Act was passed because it was felt by the Government of that day, 1914, that something must be done to meet the Ulster party and the Ulster objections. From that time onward every attempt has been made to bring Irishmen together—the Buckingham Palace Conference, the suggestions that were made by the present Prime Minister, the Convention—every time that Irishmen have come together to consider the point the question has been: What is to be done to meet the difficulty of Ulster? That question faces us to-day, and hon. Members talk as though the Government had abandoned Home Rule, as though Home Rule was a thing dead and gone. It is absolutely nothing of the sort. There is a Committee which has been labouring at various schemes dealing with this Ulster question, and I have arranged myself to come back again in the Recess, instead of giving my whole time in Ireland, in order to meet a Sub-committee to go into certain other points. We are doing our best to get a measure into a form which will ensure it passing through this House, and that is the one thing which is absolutely essential before you can take the necessary steps to remove discontent in Ireland. Now I am justified in saying this, and even at the risk of being called insulting I shall say it. We have been accused of the bankruptcy of British statesmanship What sign is there of any Irish constructive statesmanship to-day? What help are we getting? We are getting any amount of destructive criticism, aye, and not only destructive criticism, but there is great denunciation and great abuse of what we are trying to do. What hon. Member has ever made a suggestion, since the Convention failed, of some way in which the labours of the Convention might be brought to fruition and to success? I have been twitted in some of the Irish newspapers, and,

    1653
    indeed, in some of the English newspapers, with being out of touch with feeling in Ireland and out of touch with the Irish people. How can it be otherwise when every single representative of Ireland refuses to see me in public or to be known to have ever come near me, with the exception of, perhaps, half a dozen?
    Mr. DILLON: That is on account of Conscription. As long as you are going to conscript our people I am afraid that will be the case.
    Mr. SHORTT: If I am not to get any help, I must do my best to work without it, but is that a reasonable position to take up? Do hon. Members below the Gangway really think they are forwarding the solution of this great question by standing aloof, by refusing to be seen discussing anything with a member of the Government?
    Mr. DEVLIN: We know how we were treated when we did discuss things with Ministers.
    Mr. SHORTT: I have not found that the hon. Member has discussed much with me, but perhaps he would rather not. Hon. Members come to me when they have got any trouble with their constituents, like anybody else, and I am sure they will do me the justice of saying that I have invariably done the very best I could to meet that which they desired. I am only too anxious to meet Irish Members, to get Irish opinion. I have done my best, failing the help of Irish Members of Parliament, to get those in Ireland who will meet me and give me their opinions. When I offer an opinion in this House it is not my own—it is the best which I can gather from the best advisers I can find in Ireland. I have done my best to get it, but if hon. Members who are the mouthpieces of Irish constituencies, who represent, or ought to represent, the feeling of Ireland, do not come and help me, if they will not come and say, "Let us see the draft of your Bill and see if we can help you with it," I am helpless to meet their wishes and desires. But I can assure them that I am only too anxious for their help, only too anxious for their assistance and their opinions, only too anxious to get what help they can give me. That is the position, so far as I am concerned, with regard to general policy. It remains unchanged.
    An HON. MEMBER: Are you in favour of Conscription still?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am not in a position to say anything more about Conscription than has been said by the spokesman of the Government on the subject. I have explained my position as well as I can, and I can say no more on that, but I do ask during this Recess that those who represent Ireland should at least give me some assistance in my attempts to solve this terrible problem.
    Mr. DILLON: You have never asked us before. This is the first time it ever was asked.
    Mr. SHORTT: Do I understand from that—I welcome the interruption with the greatest pleasure—that if I do ask, the hon. Member will come and help me?
    Mr. DILLON: I only said you never asked it before.
    Mr. SHORTT: Do I understand from that complaint that the hon. Member will come and help me? Because if so, I ask him here and now, before I sit down.
    Mr. DILLON: I make no pledge of that character at all, but undoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman left the House under the impression that he had been asking for assistance and advice from Irish Members. He never did to this hour. This is the first time on which he has approached me or made a hint to me that any advice or assistance would be acceptable.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I desire to intervene only for two or three moments, but the speech of the Chief Secretary has contained two statements of very great importance, and it has also been marked by one omission. The omission was to say anything to the House with respect to the intentions of the Government between now and the middle of October with regard to Conscription.
    Mr. SHORTT: It cannot be enforced before the House reassembles. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Act, he will find that an Order in Council cannot be made unless the House is sitting.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I know it must come before the House to be discussed, but it is the fact that this threat of Conscription while self-government is still denied to the Irishmen—and that is the essential

    1655
    point—has thrown Ireland into a state of turmoil and has created most of the difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman and his Administration have to cope. And it is that false modesty, as many of us think it, which is responsible for many of the troubles now in Ireland, while at the same time it has not produced, and appears to me unlikely ever to produce, a single additional soldier to help to fight our battles in this War. The two positive statements that my right hon. Friend's speech contained were such as I think all of us in this House were very glad indeed to note. The first relates to the arms which are stored in Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman said definitely and specifically that, either with trouble or without trouble, the present Irish Administration is determined to secure possession of those arms.
    Mr. PRINGLE: He did not tell us when he would take trouble.
    Mr. SAMUEL: That, I think, is a most wise policy, for there will be no real peace in Ireland, there will be no real sanction to the policy of administration, so long as it can be said, and said with truth, that while one party, which is willing to use physical force to secure its ends, is suppressed by all the power of the Executive, and its weapons taken away from it, another party, which is willing to use physical force for other ends, but equally against the law, is allowed to retain full possession of whatever arms it has been able to accumulate. The other statement is that the Government are still engaged in the endeavour to find a legislative solution of the Home Rule problem, and that he himself during the Recess intends to take part in the deliberations of the Government Committee, with a view to framing a legislative measure. What does that mean? I am quite sure my right hon. Friend would not say that to the House unless the Government intended that those efforts should have some substantial result. He would not make a declaration of that character merely in order to mark time, to keep the attention of the Irish people engaged upon those deliberations, to hold the matter in suspense, while at the end he knew very well that nothing would come of it. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend is not capable of a policy of that kind. If he tells the House of Commons on the eve of the Adjournment that during the Recess
    1656
    he and his colleagues are to be engaged in endeavouring once more to frame an acceptable Home Rule measure which can pass into law, he means that it is the-intention of the Government to produce such a measure to Parliament. That is why, I take it, his speech is of great importance. He could not wish us to draw any other conclusion. I welcome both those declarations—the declaration with regard to arms, and the declaration with regard to a Home Rull Bill. While I welcome them, I do ask my right hon. Friend to beware of such a course of policy as once more will only raise hopes to destroy them, which will only give assurances which are afterwards to be broken. If he tells the Irish people that he means on the one hand to secure complete disarmament of the rebel forces in Ireland, of whatever character they may be, and, further, that it is the intention of the Government to proceed effectively to frame a legislative measure to grant self-government to Ireland, we take note of those undertakings, and let him beware he does not lay himself open to the reproach, so many British statesmen in Ireland have had to bear, of raising hopes only to destroy them afterwards.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I would like, if he would permit me to do so, to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the tone and temper of his speech. It has been no pleasure to Members on these benches to engage in controversy with him, and though, to judge from his appearance, he seems to think that is not a sincere statement, I can assure him that it is absolutely sincere. He has, he says, diagnosed the Hibernian character. I hope he has learned this lesson, that one of the chief characteristics of a Hibernian is this, that when he is hit on one cheek he does not turn the other. There is one diagnosis I have also made of the English character, and it is this, that neither by military operations can you suppress the freedom of a country nor by insulting the representatives of the people in this House can you get further along the line you desire to go. I have stated that I have noticed gleams of comfort in the speech the right hon. and learned Gentleman has delivered. In the first place, I disagree with my colleagues altogether that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not mean what he says when he states that he is determined to get the Ulster rifles. I accept that declaration.

    1657
    I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman will procure these rifles, and I am one of those who quite agree with him that if he is to secure these rifles it ought to be by the most peaceful methods. We have never sought, and we do not seek now, to have any tactless or provocative conflict in securing these rifles, but we want in this matter—it is all we have ever asked for—that if you seize rifles of Southern volunteers, because you believe an army of civilians is a danger to the State, then you have to take precisely the same action against the same spirit manifested in Ulster. That is our position. We are in this fortunate position, too, that we can congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that he knows the number of rifles in existence, and he knows where he can find them. That is half the work done, because Lord French and the right hon. Gentleman have not manifested any great intensity in carrying out their methods by half measures. He knows where they are, he knows how many there are, he knows where to find them, and I have no doubt, with the force at his back, he will get all these rifles, and in that matter, at all events, he will satisfy what is not only the feeling of Ireland in this matter, but the intense feeling of the masses of the people in this country, because, so far as I can gather from Members of this House from different parts of England and Scotland, they could not for the life of them understand why these raids for rifles were made on the premises of the Irish Nationalist volunteers, why private houses, and even the presbyteries of clergymen, were raided where there were no rifles at all in order to secure them, and yet these rifles are in vast armouries in the North of Ireland. I know one lordly castle in Ulster in which there are over 7,000 rifles. I am not in the secrets of the Ulster Unionist party, but I know what is an obvious and a common fact known to anyone, that you have only to go to one of these lordly castles in order to get 7,000 rifles. In this matter we want equality; that is all we have asked for, and I am very glad, at all events, that in relation to this matter we are going to secure equality from the right hon. Gentleman.
    The right hon. Gentleman gave a lecture this afternoon on the evils of sedition. I think sedition is a very elastic expression. I am no worshipper of words. I regard disloyalty as the highest form of virtue if you are disloyal to a thing that is
    1658
    inconsistent with public liberty. I go not to Mr. de Valera or the right hon. Gentleman the Member of Trinity College. I can go to the right hon. Gentleman's leader for some lessons as to the best form in which you can be seditious within the law. Sedition is the revolt of a weak people against what they think is a public wrong. Sedition, on the other hand, becomes a virtue if it is preached by the leaders of political parties in this country, backed up by wealth and power in a powerful and wealthy country! I confess that if I were a Unionist statesman and a member of the Coalition Government every time the word "sedition" was mentioned I should slyly slink out of the House and wait behind the Speaker's Chair until the discussion had terminated. I myself during the past four years have been applying myself to the study of seditious literature, and I confess I have found no more inspiring vindication of sedition than the speeches which were delivered, not by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College alone, but by many of the eminent constitutional statesmen who sometimes adorn the Ministerial Bench opposite.
    I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman is steadily pursuing his Hibernian studies. He will learn this in Ireland—as, indeed, one can learn it in any country in the world—that what is crime in people in a modest position cannot be other than a crime in castles and cannot be a virtue in people in big position who happen to have great wealth and power behind them. Whatever you do in this House let us not hear these lectures on sedition. You talk sedition! There was no seditious spirit in Ireland until the Ulster movement started, remember that! It took a long time in Ireland for the constitutional party to eradicate that intense spirit of disloyalty that seethed in the minds and the hearts of Irishmen because of the sufferings and persecutions of seventy years. But this party succeeded in doing it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. He is a lawyer: Supposing you find the vast body of the population who believe that this country will never hearten to the cry of justice, liberty, or peace, and that the only method by which they can break the shackles that bind them, or even can win ordinary legitimate public reforms, is by physical force, and you tell them you will not consent to physical force, and they then are taught to walk along the lines of

    1659
    constitutional thought, and they take you at your word and follow you, as the Irish party have followed this party for forty years? Suppose you tell them to trust to the power of reason and not to the abitrament of the sword? You tell them to appeal to the spirit of justice of the British people instead of organising rebellion against them. Supposing that, believing you—as they believed us—and supposing that policy so far as the vast masses of the British people is concerned, that that principle was established—as it was, because I have never in Ireland, and never will, stand on a platform and allow the English people to be attacked—I have stood before the most extreme audiences and have resented attacks upon the English people. They are not responsible for all this. All I know about the English people is that for ten years they were loyal to. Home Rule, and at General Elections they sanctioned the policy of Home Rule, and this House, which was empowered to express the views of the people of England, registered its faith in Home Rule and passed it on to the Statute Book. This Home Rule Bill, after going through all the vicissitudes of the Parliament Act, reached the Upper House, was forced upon it, and these English people remain faithful.
    What the Irish people say—and this is the ground, this has been the reproach upon your own hypocrisy, although you carried it through this House with the consent of England, Scotland, and Wales, though it stands upon the Statute Book, a great English lawyer, backed up by a great British party, a great constitutional party, the Imperial party, the party that stands for the stability of the State and the upholding of law and order, that that party organised the forces of rebellion against that Act, and, what is worse still, those forces succeeded!
    How can you expect, from circumstances of that character, that the people can have any faith in moral suasion or even in Parliamentary enactments? You attack the people first for sedition, and then turn round and find out that they have some reason for it. The Unionist Members in this House, in their difficulties and in an attempt to use Irish troubles for the purpose of promoting party purposes in Ireland, go over there and create a physical force and stir up rebellion against an Act of Parliament. Is it any wonder that those who have got that Act of Parlia-
    1660
    ment want to keep it there by physical force? Therefore, I say, if you get down to it the real custodians of constitutional liberty are the Nationalist party, and the great enemies of constitutional liberty are the rebels who rebel against an Act of Parliament. I do not know whether or not that is an Hibernianism, which the right hon. Gentleman can understand? At all events, the ordinary plain man, who can understand ordinary plain things, I think, without asking me to defend everything that has occurred in Ireland, will find it difficult to understand how you can enshrine yourselves in the glass case of Constitutional perfection, while you denounce every one whom you call rebels and whose rebellion is against the rebels that rebel against the Constitutional action of this Parliament.
    It is not a very difficult task for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to fashion out his measure against our advice. If you had taken our advice over the three of four years which preceded the rebellion there would have been no rebellion. We have been taunted here with giving advice. It is quite true on many occasions prior to the rebellion we were asked for advice; but it is equally true that all the blunders made were made because those concerned did not take our advice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman need not be in such a tremendous difficulty as he says he is for lack of our advice, because he ought to know—I do not know whether or not he does—whether he has been sufficiently long in his position to know—but he ought to know as a Member of this House that we have had dealings before with British Ministers. We have had negotiations time after time. It was not because we felt there was anything to compromise about. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to pay attention to this. These conferences were not because we had anything to compromise about, because we have made it known unmistakably where we stand in regard to the claim we make for the freedom of our country. He does not know-the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House knows—and I put to him this question: Has there ever been a single occasion, so far as he knows, when British Ministers have entered into consultation with us upon matters vitally affecting our country and found that Irish Members broke their word? The right hon. Gentleman has had no dealings with us, or even conversations with us, but the right hon.

    1661
    Gentleman the Leader of the House can contradict me if what I say is untrue. We are the victims of broken promises. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that we are to go and consult with him and discuss and decide with him, and then to be told that what has been decided cannot be carried out. Is it any wonder that we do not want conferences with British Ministers, and frankly I say that I do not think any good purpose is served by that course. You know what we want perfectly well, and you know whether you can give it or not. If you are prepared to concede what Ireland wants, Ireland's representatives will be prepared to carry that out in Ireland, No doubt the right hon. Gentleman opposite has studied the whole question in all its fullness, and when he introduces a large and generous measure of Home Rule which will satisfy the aspirations of the Irish people, he will not need any consultation with Ireland's representatives here, because their position is clear and unmistakable.
    The Chief Secretary stated that we contributed nothing to constructive statesmanship, and that our criticism was always destructive. I say that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to make allegations about things he knows nothing about. We had not only attended to our own business and our public duties in Ireland, but we have attended almost every day for nine months at the great Convention in Ireland, and I do wish Englishmen would not be so constantly throwing in our teeth that Irishmen can never apply themselves to the task of Ireland's future. What happened in that connection? The position is entirely misunderstood. We set out to create a Constitution for our country, and we succeeded in agreeing upon everything except customs, and the Ulster Members never intended to agree to that. If the right hon. Gentleman had turned to them and said they never contributed one solitary ounce of wisdom or statesmanship to the deliberations of that Convention, he would have been right. That Convention consisted of Nationalists and Members representing Ulster, the moderate Unionists from the North, Labour men and others, and upon every question, except Customs, every? Member of the Convention, except the small group of Members from Ulster, were in perfect agreement. How, under these
    1662
    circumstances can the Chief Secretary say that Ireland will not contribute anything to a solution of this problem.
    I wish the Convention had been open to the public. It was so eminently a respectable body that it was as orderly as the House of Lords compared with the House of Commons. During the whole nine months we sat on that Convention I do not believe the Chairman was called upon in one single instance to intervene between what the right hon. Gentleman has called the excited Hibernians on one side or the other, and it was an assembly that would have been a credit not only to Ireland, but to any part of the world. With regard to the Chairman of the Convention I desire to say on this occasion that although I have never been a political associate of his and I differ from him profoundly in politics, I say that Ireland and the Empire and all who are anxious for a solution of this question owe a great deal to the tact and judgment and patriotism of Sir Horace Plunkett. Is it right to say that Ireland makes no contribution to the solution of this question when you find Southern unionists, Western unionists, landlords, and men who have come into bitter conflict with the general population, agreeing upon everything except customs? If we did not absolutely agree, can the House not understand how it was that a gathering of that character could not secure complete agreement upon a matter that had so passionately divided Irishmen for centuries when the whole wisdom of the British Empire cannot solve this question? At any rate we came nearer to agreement in that Convention than you were ever able to do in England, and having made our contribution to a wise solution of this problem, it is for those who have the power to see that Ireland shall have the material fruits of the labours of that Convention and the patriotism and statesmanship which was displayed in coming as near to a solution as it was humanly possible to do. I did not intend to touch upon this question, and I apologise to hon. Members and to Mr. Speaker for having occupied the House so long with this aspect of the question.
    I come now to a very serious and important matter, and I am glad that the Leader of the House is present. I sincerely appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to-night to drop Conscription in Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has pointed

    1663
    out that there was not a single prophecy we made in the course of the Debate upon the question of the application of Conscription to Ireland that has not been fulfilled. We warned you, and I think we stated the case most moderately, as to what would be the consequence of imposing Conscription on Ireland. If Conscription could even secure you material military assistance there might be some justification for it, but it will not secure you the slightest military aid or help. On the contrary, I understand that before Conscription was introduced by this House you were getting 1,200 recruits a month, and since Conscription has been introduced practically you are not getting one-third of that amount. That shows that Conscription is not frightening the people, but it has irritated them, it has spread bad temper and bad feeling, and it has created the idea in the minds of the Irish people that you want to exterminate them, because you want to force them along a path which is unrecognised under any constitutional Government in the world by imposing upon them a military law that would not be imposed upon any other country in the world without its consent. So long as you were honest, so long as you intended to do justice to Ireland, the chivalry and loyalty of Ireland, in her devotion to the cause of small nationalities and human freedom contributed her share magnificently. I challenge anyone to deny the statement that for the first two years of the War, under voluntary recruiting Ireland's contribution was greater than the contribution even of this country or of Scotland, outside the large industrial centres. What, in heaven s name, can be the good of forcing this question or keeping it alive? I believe you will never impose Conscription. In the first place, if you attempt to impose it you will create such a condition of things as will arouse a spirit of revolt, anger and irritation, not only in Ireland, but in America, in Australia, in Canada, and in every country where the Irish race have found a home. In addition to that, there are still many Irish soldiers fighting with the superb valour of their race, whose hearts are weary and whose feelings are harrowed at the condition their country is in to-day. If you want to kill their moral, pursue this policy. Those splendid Irish-American troops whom I saw coming from great ships last Satur-
    1664
    day in Liverpool, one-third at least of whom are sons of men of Irish birth, they love their country, too. They love their country as deeply, and I would say more profoundly, than the Irish at home. They are going out to fight your battles in France. Are they to be sickened, dispirited and disheartened in the task they are undertaking by the memory that Ireland is a welter of discontent and dissatisfaction and revolt against one of the Allied Powers on whose behalf they are fighting? I say you can get nothing valuable, no military strength, by keeping this wound open. Why do you not frankly get up and say: "We will drop Conscription. We will tell the Irish people we will drop it, and we will settle ourselves down to try once again to utilise the best efforts of our statesmanship and apply the highest sagacity we possess to solving this problem." I quite agree it is almost idle to talk about settling the Irish question when you create such a pandemonium in the country. You should soften asperity. You want to win the people back to believe in your principles. You should say to them: "We are now going to put one of our chief war aims into operation; we are going to have a Government in Ireland sustained by the will of the people." Why not drop Conscription and give the people an earnest of your sincerity? Why not show them that you are really willing to try and solve this problem? If you will do that, then, in my judgment, the question will be solved. Do not let us stop until the War is over before we start again to attempt to solve the problem of this racial war between two great nations. You do not want Ireland angry, irritated, indignant and passionate. You do not want England angry with Ireland. But, by your policy, you are creating and fostering mutual hatred between two peoples who ought to live together in friendship and goodwill for all time. The best thing you can have as a foundation for peace in this War will be peace between Ireland and England, and I am confident if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is bold enough and statesmanlike enough to make this declaration, that Conscription has disappeared and that something will be done to move along the path of conciliation and goodwill, every blessing will come, not only to the man who does it, but it will come mutually to the two nations, who will rejoice at what he has done.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not intend to continue the Debate which has been engaging the attention of the House, but there is one question I would like to put, either to the Chief Secretary or to the Leader of the House. There was a sentence in the Chief Secretary's speech which appears to have escaped the attention both of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Samuel) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin). The Chief Secretary, in dealing with the Irish policy of the Government, said that policy now was the policy of the Government when he took office. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he adheres to that statement?
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Then I wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman what the policy of the Government was when he took office. That policy was declared by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) on the 16th April last, when he was dealing with the Conscription Clause, in this sentence. He was answering a question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, among others—a plain, clear, straightforward question, "What are you going to do in the interval before this Conscription Clause comes into force?" The answer was equally plain, clear, and straightforward, "We are going to bring in a Home Rule Bill and pass it through this House, if it is possible to do so." Do the Government still intend to pass the Home Rule Bill before they put Conscription into operation in Ireland? That is a wholly relevant question to put to-day, and I think my hon. Friends from Ireland, having got a declaration from the Chief Secretary, should insist on a plain, clear, straightforward answer to it, either from the Chief Secretary or from the Leader of the House, before we separate for the holidays. I hope the Chief Secretary will state now whether the Government policy to-day is the Government policy as defined by the right hon. Member for Blackfriars on the 16th April. Will he do so? I get no answer to that question, either from the Chief Secretary or from the Leader of the House. What, then, is the use of appealing to hon. Gentlemen from Ireland to help? The object of the statement of the right hon. Member for Blackfriars was to get the Clause and the Bill through Parliament. It succeeded in doing it. Is it
    1666
    now to go forth to the people of this country and the people of Ireland that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was a fraud on the country and a fraud on this House? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question, it means that it is.

    SERVICE MEN'S VOTES.
    I will put one or two other questions to the Leader of the House. The first is a practical question in relation to the next General Election, which may be upon us very soon after the Recess, and we may have very few opportunities in this House of discussing either the procedure of that election or the Government policy in relation to it before we go to the constituencies. The first question I have to ask is one which concerns the President of the Local Government Board. It relates to the arrangements which the Government have in contemplation for the purpose of securing to soldiers their votes in that election. In the days before the Representation of the People Bill was before Parliament, and in the course of the Debate, when the Bill was under discussion, there was a great deal of enthusiasm shown in various quarters in this House for the cause of the soldier's vote. Many hon. Members were anxious that the right of the soldier to vote should be secured in that Act, but what we are now face to face with is the much more immediate and practical question whether the right which was conferred upon the soldier by Statute is going to be exercised by him when the election comes There are many formidable difficulties, and it is well that the House should face them. At the same time the House should insist that the Government take measures to deal with these difficulties. We have to remember that between 2,500,000 and 3,000,000 of the new electors are men in the fighting forces of the Crown, and every hon. Member in this House will agree that an electorate in which these men were not consulted or were inadequately consulted would give a misleading representation of the will of the people of this country.
    The first thing which must be taken into consideration in obtaining the soldiers' vote, so far as the Western Front is concerned, because on the other fronts it will be done by proxy, is that the period of the election should be so chosen as to coincide with a quiet period of fighting activity. We know that until the end of November there will be active

    1667
    fighting conditions on the Western Front, but after that period there is a strong probability, wherever the lines may be drawn, that warfare will have settled down for a period of two months at least to something in the nature of the trench warfare with which we have been familiar for the last two years. If the Government desire to have the votes of the soldiers it would be advisable to choose a time for the election when such conditions of warfare as I have described prevail. But that is merely a matter of time. There are certain other considerations. There is, first of all, the problem of seeing that every individual soldier gets his ballot paper. It is a formidable problem from the point of view of the War Office. They will have to localise every individual voter at the time of the election. I hope that measures are being taken to consider this and that arrangements are being made to deal with it. It is a question of having a kind of register so that the soldier can be found at the time that the election is taking place. There is, secondly, the point as to what measures are being taken for the purpose of seeing that the ballot-papers are duly transmitted to the soldier and are duly collected and brought back for the purposes of counting. Everybody is aware that is a formidable problem in transport. I do not think that the great majority of the Members of the House quite realised how great that problem was at the time that the Representation of the People Act was passed, but it will undoubtedly mean for the time being a very considerable modification of the normal conditions of communication between the people in this country and the soldiers at the front. I hope that the Government have not only that in view, but that they have also in view the question whether the transmission of the ballot-papers to the voters and the collection of them and their return to this country can be carried out within the time fixed in the Representation of the People Act.
    There is a further question which rather concerns candidates than the machinery of the election, but it is a matter of essential importance. The candidates who are soliciting the suffrages of these men should have an opportunity of placing their views before the voters to whom they appeal. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to get an intelligent vote from the electorate. The ballot-papers will go
    1668
    forth with, it may be, 2, 3, or 4 names, without any indication whatever what those various names represent. You may, indeed, with so many new constituencies, have particular constituencies with new candidates unknown to the electorate, and whose views are a complete mystery, especially to the soldiers who have been away from the localities for two or three years. It is, therefore, essential, if the soldier is going to give a vote such as he would desire to give, one based upon policy and to some extent upon the personal views of the candidate, that he should have an opportunity of at least seeing the views of the candidates in their election addresses. I think that is a fair claim to make. I hope that the President of the Local Government Board will be able to state whether any arrangements can be made for that purpose, and, if so, what the arrangements are, and whether there is going to be any assurance at all that the election addresses will reach the voters, because if there is none there is a very serious risk that you may have a complete falsification of the views of the soldiers. I know, for example, that in Canada, as a result of the recent election, there has been a good deal of recrimination regarding the methods whereby the soldiers' votes were obtained. Nobody in this country desires anything like that to occur. Everybody is agreed in the desire that the election, when it does come, should be an honest and clean election in which, so far as it is humanly possible, the views on public policy of the electors of all classes and of all callings will have an opportunity of being expressed. These are practical questions on the procedure of the election with special reference to the soldiers' vote to which I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give an answer.
    I had hoped to put a question to the Leader of the House on a larger matter, but he has apparently departed. I am, however, going to mention the matter all the same. I think it extremely important that we should at the earliest possible moment have a clear and definite statement on economic policy from His Majesty's Government. It is true that some statement has been promised when the Exports and Imports Bill is reintroduced, but that Bill may be reintroduced only a week before the election when there is really no opportunity of discussing and arguing these questions with the electors. This is a question upon which, above all

    1669
    others, clear and early notice should be given to the country. We want to know definitely these things: First of all, is His Majesty's Government committed to a policy of industrial protection for our industries in this country? Is it committed to a general protective tariff? There are some indications in the Prime Minister's speech to the manufacturers that that is in their minds, because he said that he was in sympathy with the speeches of the manufacturers. We want to know from the Government whether that is so, whether, for example, their view of the policy is that of the Minister of Pensions who says that not a ton of steel is going to be imported if it will throw a single blast furnace worker out of work. That is an intelligent policy, but it is not a policy with which I would agree, because I believe it would be fatal to many of our industries. I believe, for example, that it would be absolutely fatal to the shipbuilding industry of this country. Mark you, your shipbuilding industry after the War will have to fight for its life against American competition. If you are going to handicap it, by a policy of this kind, in a way in which it was never handicapped before—namely, by a policy of industrial protection, you may make dyes in this country sufficient to incarnadine the whole ocean, but if the British flag is driven from the seven seas it would be a poor consolation to the British Islands and the British Empire.
    The second question I desire to put is, If we are going to have a policy of Preference, what is to be the basis of that Preference? When Mr. Chamberlain proposed Preference he stated honestly and candidly what the basis of it was to be—a tax on food. He said that if you are going to give a preference to the Colonies, you must tax food. That was an honest thing to say. Is the present Government going to be honest and tell us the basis of their policy? The third question I desire to put is, Are you going to have, in addition to your home protective tariff and your preferential tariff for the Colonies, another tariff for the benefit of the Allies, as is indicated by some speeches that have been made on the possible policy contained in the vague things known as the Paris Resolutions? What is even more important than that is, are the Government going to have an economic conference in which America is represented before this policy is adopted and before the country is committed to this
    1670
    policy at a General Election? We are entitled to an answer to that question also. Making one's way through this maze of tariffs, we want to know if there is to be another set of tariffs for neutrals—one set for the neutrals that have been friendly during the War, a still higher tariff for those who have not been friendly? Finally, are we to have the highest tariff of all against enemy countries?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Prohibition!
    Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, or prohibition. All these questions are not dimcult to answer if the Government is going to be honest with the country. That is the point. We want to know whether they are going to be honest. We had a very interesting controversy yesterday, in which two members of the Government that was in power when War broke out rather differed about the situation at the outbreak of war. The Prime Minister said there was a pact with France. He subsequently withdrew the word, but there was some difference of opinion between my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) and the Prime Minister at the end as to the substance of the transaction. That would have been a very serious matter for the people of this country had it not been for the action of the Germans in going through Belgium. I think it would have turned out to be one of the gravest disasters for this country that there was in existence an undertaking so loose in its terminology, and so vague in its effect, that there was a possibility of two constructions being placed upon it by the people of this country at the very moment when the legions of Germany were on the march. That was a situation which might have been positively disastrous but for the action of our enemies. It was due to the vagueness of the policy of the Government at that time. Having in the past had to confront a possibility of that kind owing to vagueness in view of the outbreak of the War, the people of this country will be very well advised, when looking ahead to the years of peace, in seeing that their Government are committed, as far as the peace policy is concerned, first of all to nothing of which they are not aware, and, secondly, that they are only committed to a policy which is clear and definite in its character, and whose effects can be fairly judged and appreciated by people both here and elsewhere.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: May I interrupt my hon. Friend to say that there was no

    1671
    undertaking of any sort except such as was presented to Parliament in the White Paper published at the beginning of the War. There was no secret undertaking or agreement reached that was not published in the White Paper.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not wish to enter into that controversy, because it is somewhat academic, and it never came to a practical issue, but I think it is safe to say that on the question of carrying out that undertaking the division of opinion was so great in the late Liberal Government that it was threatened with serious resignations up to the morning of Sunday, 2nd August, and that one of the people among the possible resigning Ministers was the present Prime Minister himself. I am not going into the question of what was the exact effect of the understanding, agreement, or undertaking, or whatever you choose to call it. The effects proved that it was vague, and the situation which we had to confront has shown that that vagueness was fraught with disaster. In the face of the outbreak of war we have been narrowly saved from a disaster. Let us not, in relation to peaceful policy, risk a disaster which might be equally serious, because if anything is done without the knowledge of the people of this country, if, for example, a blank cheque is given, you may have this country committed to a policy which will settle the whole lines of international relations not only for this generation, but for much longer. It will depend on their decision whether you are going to have a permanent grouping of the Powers of Europe supported during years of peace by these economic barriers, or whether you are to have this chance of a peaceful and progressive development, which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs so well and eloquently described in his speech this afternoon, in which you will have the freest communication between nations and in which each nation, while preserving its own traditions and its own individuality, will in common make its contribution to the common stock of the civilisation and welfare of mankind.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The question that has been addressed to me as President of the Local Government Board is what arrangements have been made by the Local Government Board for
    1672
    securing the votes of soldiers and sailors. My hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) undoubtedly stated what was manifest to us all, that however much we might have differed during the passage through this House of the Representation of the People Act as regards votes for women, or proportional representation or the alternative vote, or anything of that kind, there was a unanimous expression of opinion by this House that every soldier and sailor, if possible, should be placed upon the register, and not only that, but that every facility should be given to him to record his vote. The Local Government Board has fallen in with the spirit which was prevalent in the House of Commons at that time, and we have done every single thing we could possibly devise to secure that the soldiers and sailors shall find themselves, wherever qualified, upon the register, and we are now busily devising plans and methods by which they will be enabled to give their votes should an election take place.
    Have we been successful in securing that the great bulk of our soldiers and sailors at the age of nineteen have found their way on the register? That is a matter on which it is impossible to express more than an opinion, but I believe, from all I know about the registers as they at present exist, it will be found that the vast majority of our soldiers and sailors will have found their way upon the register. What are the methods? First of all, a pink paper has been left at almost every house. There was a house-to-house delivery, and the householder was asked to fill up on the pink paper the name and qualifications of every soldier or sailor so far as known to him. Secondly, post-cards were sent out both by the Army, Navy, and Air Authorities to every soldier and sailor whose address was known to them, and those soldiers and sailors were asked to fill up the postcard and say what was their qualification and for what place, and return the postcard direct to the registration officer. Where the soldiers and sailors were at a long distance, not in France or Belgium, but in Mesopotamia or Fast Africa, the War Office and the Admiralty have done their best through the Record Office to supply registration officers direct with the name and qualification of the soldier and sailor. Just at the very time when these millions of post-cards were to go out, a very big push took place, and all electioneering matter had to be put aside for

    1673
    the greater purpose of fighting. Then it was suggested to me in my office that the post-cards should be regarded as claims for the registration officer, and in thousands of these cases the vote has been saved to the soldier and sailor by the registration officer taking the post-card, although it arrived too late for the actual publication of the list, as a claim, and acting upon it and putting the soldier or sailor on. From all the information that reaches me, I have every reason to believe that the vast majority of our soldiers and sailors will find their way on to the register.
    7.0 P.M.
    Will they be able to vote? That is a much more difficult question. It will depend very much on the time that is chosen for the General Election. I know no more than any other Member of the House as to when a General Election will take place. It must depend on a variety of circumstances, but if we do not have a General Election before the end of January the House of Commons must consent once more to prolong its life. Whether or not these millions of soldiers will be able to vote depends very much on the time that is chosen for a General Election and whether there is a lull in the fighting. If you ask any commanding officer, he will say he will have nothing to do with an election. "Do not trouble our men with an election just at the time when either the Germans are making a big push, or, as I think is more likely, when we may be making a very big push to push them back again from territory which they ought never to have occupied." Therefore, it is very important, from the point of view whether soldiers are able to vote, that the time should be chosen when there is a lull in the fighting, and it is possible for the Post Office to deliver the ballot papers and return them to the registration officer. On that point of view, I am now in communication with the Post Office, and asking it to frame its regulations now in order that we may have an early opportunity of seeing them. I have gone into the matter as accurately as I can, taking the possible dates of elections and looking at it in all its stages from the date of the Proclamation to the date of the nomination, which is eight days, and then to the date of the election, which is another nine days; and adding another eight days as a possible time for the extension of the period in which the votes can be counted,
    1674
    because we had in mind some of these difficulties at the time the Bill was being passed through the House, and it provided for the possibility that the time between the nomination and the election might not afford a sufficient opportunity for the ballot papers and election addresses to go out to the soldiers in France and Belgium and return, and having that in mind as a possibility, it put into the Act of Parliament the power by Order in Council to fix the date for the counting of the votes as many as eight days after the closing of the poll in older that the ballot papers of the soldiers and sailors might be returned and be counted amongst the votes. I am talking now entirely of those who vote as absent voters and not those who vote by proxy. An Order in Council has already been issued enabling all sailors afloat and all soldiers who are serving or will be serving at the time otherwise than in France and Belgium to vote by proxy. All soldiers serving in Mesopotamia, or East Africa, or Salonika, or India, will be able to vote by proxy. Soldiers serving in France or Belgium will vote as absent voters. It is to them that I am alluding when I say it is necessary to keep the counting of the votes open another eight days in order that their ballot papers may come back and be counted in the ordinary way. I agree there are many formidable difficulties. If the Post Office is to make itself responsible for carrying these millions of ballot papers it will inevitably hold up the normal correspondence of the Army for some considerable time. However, I have asked the Postmaster-General to produce a set of model Regulations. I have had the advice of a representative of each of the large parties in the House in framing these Regulations. The envelope containing the ballot paper will contain only the ballot paper and the identification paper. I am asked, "How are you going to ensure that the candidates will be able to make known their general views to the electors?" I believe it is quite impossible for the Post Office to undertake to carry more than one election address by each candidate. It will be impossible, so far as I can see, that more can be done than that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will they do that?
    Mr. FISHER: That is a matter which is now being carefully studied by the Post Office from the point of view of what the number of election addresses is likely to

    1675
    be, what is likely to be their weight, and how far the Post Office can frame Regulations for the purpose. Numerous difficulties have to be faced. We all want the same thing, fair play for everybody who is going into this election. So far as I am concerned, I shall endeavour in every possible way to see that no party has an advantage over any other party so far as the Regulations are concerned. It will be a fair, clean, and honest contest so far as it can be managed. Hon. Members will find that they will have to post their election addresses before the day of nomination if they are to secure that the Post Office will be able to convey those addresses in time for them to be of any practical effect, in influencing the voters.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Will it be possible to take advantage of the free post before the nomination day?
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member is a student of these matters as I know from old times. If he looks at the Act, Clause 33, Sub-section (2), he will see that it says:
    "Any candidate at a Parliamentary election shall, subject to regulations of the Postmaster-General, be entitled to send, free of any charge for postage, to each registered elector for the constituency, one postal communication.… Provided that a candidate shall not be entitled to exercise the right of free postage conferred by this provision before he is duly nominated, unless he has given such security as may be required by the Postmaster-General for the payment of the postage in case he does not eventually become nominated."
    I should advise everybody who wants to make certain or to make as nearly certain as possible that his election address will reach the men at the front to see to it that he posts his election address before the nomination if he wants to secure free postage, and that he will give that security which the Post Office under the Act are properly entitled to require, and that he will forfeit that deposit in case he does not go to nomination.
    Mr. GULLAND: Will the Post Office guarantee that the addresses will be delivered?
    Mr. FISHER: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a war on. I do not say that in any insulting way. The Post Office cannot absolutely guarantee delivery. There may be very bad weather, there may be air raids and all sorts of things, but the Post Office will guarantee in normal circumstances that, if
    1676
    addresses are posted by a certain date, they will be delivered, so far as they are concerned, to the individual soldier. That guarantee is, of course, subject to the various accidents that might take place. There will be great difficulties as to the addresses of the soldiers. The soldier is constantly on the move. There, again, the War Office will have to assist us as well as they can through their record offices. What we have to hope for is that the War Office will see that there are other fights besides the fight in which they are engaged, and although their fight must come first, after all our fight must have proper consideration given to it, and the War Office will, I hope, through its record offices, be able, directly an election is coming, to revise its lists of addresses, and to send as perfect a list as possible to each registration officer so that the registration officer may have the most up-to-date list of those who are entitled to vote at the election.
    This is all we could have done up to the present at the Local Government Board. The matter is still engaging our most earnest attention, and the next move lies with the Post Office. It is for the Post Office to frame their Regulations and to submit them. I have asked them to submit their Regulations to me as President of the Local Government Board, and I shall take an opportunity of consulting Friends of mine on all sides of the House who are conversant with election matters. With regard to soldiers who are in the proxy areas, outside France and Belgium, they will be able to obtain proxy forms, and I have not the slightest doubt that even if an election comes soon that most of these soldiers will be able to obtain their proxy in ample time to enable their proxy to vote for them. Already before the lists are completed where we have any reason to anticipate that a soldier in Palestine, Mesopotamia, East Africa, or Salonika is likely to qualify for any place, we have sent out a shoal of proxy papers to these remote areas, and have asked the commanding officer to distribute them amongst the soldiers, so that they may have the very earliest opportunity of making application for proxies. They may make application through their wives, their brothers, or some friend, or make an application direct to the registration officer himself. I want to help hon. Members as much as possible, and I propose to issue a circular or White Paper as soon as possible, informing them, not

    1677
    in the language of the Statute, but in more popular language, what methods ought to be adopted by the soldiers and sailors, or by their friends in order to secure their votes. Of course, if they are not on the register now it is too late to take any steps to get them on the register, but we shall do everything we possibly can to see that these absent soldiers, by proxy or otherwise, may record their votes.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has obtained from the Post Office an arrangement which will permit the separation in date of posting those circulars which have to go to soldiers and sailors abroad, so that the free postage accorded to candidates under guarantee against possible loss to the Post Office in the event of a prospective candidate not passing on to nomination may be secured, but will be a smaller amount than if it applied to the total flight of circulars to those at home as well as abroad?
    Mr. FISHER: I will consider that.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The more we hear and see of this approaching election, the less I like it. We have an awful prospect of the men at the front just before Christmas, when there is a lull in the fighting, having all their parcels and letters stopped in order that our literature may be carried to them. I hardly think our literature will be popular under these circumstances, or that it will be put to the best use. Add to that the probability that the lull in the fighting over there will be accompanied by a lull in the firing there, that things will be cold from every point of view, and that when people are cold they are more annoyed than when they are hungry, and they have a way of being annoyed with the Government. All this will be accompanied by the dangerous probability that the lull in the fighting out there will mean that the soldiers in the field will get our literature and lose their Christmas parcels.
    A short time ago, at the time of the crisis, we passed legislation which, to my mind, was a real blow at our financial stability and at the moral of the whole people of the country. There was an urgent demand for more men for France, and, therefore, they raised the age from forty-two to fifty-one. At the time it looked as though everything would have to be sacrificed to our chance of carrying on the War—our financial position must be prejudiced, and even the sense of gross in-
    1678
    justice must be planted in the minds of the people in order to find the one way necessary, men—to stop the gap. Had I been at home at the time I should have voted for it, clearly as I see the result, as one must, upon the foreign trade of the country, upon our financial position, and our moral.
    But the crisis of March is no longer with us, and those men who were over forty-two are still being taken into the Army, and when in the Army are still being employed on jobs which would be much better carried out by other people, while the work which they were doing for the country was of more importance for the national welfare. If we are to have a long War we should see that our financial position is the best possible. Hitherto it has been better than that of Germany, not because we are more economical than Germany, because we are not, but because we have been able to carry on our foreign trade and to keep up our exchange, not by financial jugglery, but in sending out from this country in exchange for foodstuffs and munitions the goods manufactured by our people. We have sent out coal, cotton goods, hardware, all manner of products, and have thus kept the exchange right and our finances sound. More than that, by being able to carry on our export trade we have enabled our trade to get in where Germany was before. It has put us in a position to beat that German trade after the War. In considering our financial position, we must not merely regard it during the War, but we have to think of it after the War. Germany knows that very well. But that is only one side. It is enormously important, as I say, that our financial position should be maintained, but even more important is it that a sense of injustice should not be roused among the people of the country. There is no doubt that this raising of the age from forty-two to fifty-one has hit the people of the country more than Conscription has hitherto. These people between forty and fifty are the men who have made little businesses; they are the men with small shops, with jobs as clerks, and who were considering the possibility of retiring from work. These people, whose whole life had been spent in making a home, find suddenly their whole work and prospects are swept away, that they have no compensation with the exception of the 1s. 3d. a day, and that their whole chances for the future are

    1679
    ruined. When you see one man taken and another left behind to draw his £300 a year, although the other man has just as much claim on society but has to be swept into the net, it cannot fail to rouse an enormous sense of injustice throughout the country.
    Since March last the position has been saved by America and by German mistakes. We are no longer in danger of being pushed off the coast of France. Moreover, we are beginning to realise—I do not know why we did not realise it before—that these men between forty-four and fifty-one are not good material for any Army. They may be all right for garrison duty, but for actual fighting at the front they are all more or less useless. I want to appeal to the Prime Minister and to the tribunals of this country, knowing that the crisis is past, knowing at the same time the importance of keeping up our export trade, and of creating as little injustice as possible, to slacken down in their efforts to rope in these men over forty-four years of age. It can only be done if the Minister of National Service or the Prime Minister will see that the tribunals are informed that the position is no longer so desperate and that they may deal easier with these men. If that were done it would even now save the situation. Once these homes are broken up it will not be easy after the War to start them afresh; once the manufacturing trades are destroyed it will not be easy to start them afresh. We have heard of the possibility of restoring non-essential industries on preferential terms after the War, but if this system goes on, it will be an end of our chance of recovering after the War and that would be a very serious position.

    COAL SUPPLIES.
    Now I come to the particular class of men who are being swept into the Army, and the absorption of whom by the Army is causing a most serious loss at the present time. Take the case of the colliers. The 75,000 colliers whom the Government demanded from the coal mining industry in order to take part in the War at the crisis have proved probably better soldiers than most others who were acquired in the combing out. That I am ready to admit. A great many of them are in the Guards. And I think a collier, after his training at the face and his training with the Guards, will form
    1680
    the kind of troops no one would care to meet—at any rate, twice. But these colliers, when they are taken into the Army, are really the life-blood of the people of the country, because without coal we are worse off than if we were without food. Without coal you will find the people next winter one and all saying they would rather have fire than food. Suffering from cold is far worse than suffering from hunger. It is not only the fire question—that is domestic—but the prospect of the manufacturing industry and of the transport trade being unemployed, and all this unemployment spreading indefinitely, because as one trade gets unemployed other trades get unemployed too. This is going to cause far more disastrous consequences to the moral of the people of the country than is realised at the present time. The question is, what is the President of the Board of Trade going to do? He realises that coal production is going steadily down and that the plans of distribution which he made, allowing a certain amount to each industry and to each household are already being falsified, because the coal is not being produced. I want to know before the House rises what serious steps the President of the Board of Trade and the Coal Controller are going to take to increase the coal production of this country.
    It does not seem to me—I speak with great deference—that he has formed any serious plan as to how he can increase production. He has got worse days in front of him. All the miners have not gone yet. There are 7,000 more to go. When they have gone production will be lower than it is to-day. We are getting 25,000 men back, B2 and B3 men. I do not know what sort of men they will be for working in the pits, but I should imagine that they will not be very efficient. I have got an example here of a man who was sent not for mining, but for gas stoking. I suppose that if there is one harder trade than a hewer in a pit it is that of a gas stoker. It certainly requires men who are in fit condition. Here is a letter put into my hands from a gentleman in Galashiels, Scotland, who knows all about it:
    "Just as I write I have had brought under my notice another of the many glaring cases how not to do things. The gas company here had applied for two men to have as gas stokers. Me names of men with their qualifications were submitted, but they suddenly received a wire that two men were being sent to them from Sutton in Surrey to act as gas stokers. One man pre-

    1681
    sented a thoroughly pitiful appearance. He was an undersized man looking as if at his best he would never have tackled gas stoking. He said he belonged to Newcastle and was a hawker by trade before the War. The poor man was wearing four wound stripes and said that he was only six weeks out of hospital. This is the man they sent down to me for gas stoking. He appeared to be still suffering from the effects of gas and shell shock, and he could hardly make any use of his left arm and shoulder. Probably he should not have been working at all, but if at all only at very light work. He seemed anxious to get a start at anything he could do. How any man in his senses could for a moment have thought that that poor wreck of a man would be capable of doing the physical exercises required for gas stoking is quite incomprehensible to me."
    Then they were asked not to send him back to Button, where he came from, but to send him to Barrow for a job, but ultimately he was sent back. These are not the kind of men who are to be sent to the mines—men with four wound stripes, suffering from shell shock and gas. Nothing much can be expected from the efforts made by the Coal Controller to get back out of the Army capable men who have been miners in their time and who are B2 men and B3 men. They have got back over 7,000. They promised to get back 25,000. I do not think that it will make very much difference in the producing power of the industry. I do think that the time has come, if he cannot get back B1 men from the Army in France, for the nation to say this, "You cannot have both the men and the coal."
    I understand, subject to correction, that the reason why the Army do not like letting off the B men who are in France or the men who went into the field in 1914, colliers, the best of the bunch, and who have been there ever since, even though it is realised that the need for coal is most urgent and far more urgent than the need of men for agriculture, is that they have an understanding with the French Government that they would maintain a certain number of divisions in France, and if these men come back these divisions will not be fully maintained. I do not know whether that is so or not. It seems to me to be very reasonable and likely. But I think that it is about time in that case that we put before the French Government the two alternatives, "Either we can send you coal or men. If you do not let us have the men back, then we shall have to reduce the amount of coal which we send to France." I am quite certain that, if they really understood in France the crippling effect which this taking away
    1682
    of our men from useful productive labour is having upon not only this country but France and Italy as well, they would at once relax the pressure and let more of them come back and take their places in the industries of the country. For be it remembered that in addition to maintaining our Army we are keeping a Navy going which is nearly one-third of the size of our Army in man-power. We are also keeping the whole of our Allies going in coal and in merchant shipping, and we are bearing our full share of the financial burden of the War. That being so, I think that we might reasonably bring pressure to bear on the War Office, so that the War Office might bring pressure to bear elsewhere to secure the return to this country of a sufficient number of men to enable the industries of this country to be carried on, and to prevent the profound dissatisfaction and demoralisation which may come from a hard winter coupled with a short supply of coal.
    I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman believes that his ration of coal for a small house is really enough, but he is faced with the danger that we may have a very hard winter, in which case it will not be enough, or he may find himself six months hence producing much less coal than he expects, because, after all, there are a very few people coming into the mining industry and everybody gets old as time goes on; the best men are taken out of the mines and only the others are left, and the position may be extremely serious somewhere about January next. Could we not bring pressure to bear on the War Office to release B1 men from France, and alternatively, or in addition, say, to the Ministry of National Service with a view to getting the enlistment of miners at present working in the pits relaxed in order that they might remain where the work is much more useful to the country than it would be if they were sent elsewhere? Nothing makes people more sick and angry at present than the misuse of man-power in this country, and seeing men taken away from where they are useful and put to doing useless jobs, washing dishes, acting as officers' servants, or as clerks where they are not wanted and doing work which a woman could do perfectly well. They see this waste of money, this waste of common sense, this brutality which destroys men's homes going on among their neighbours all over the country. That is more likely to destroy the moral of the country than any-

    1683
    thing else. Anything that the President of the Board of Trade can do to increase the amount of coal that may be used and at the same time decrease the taking of good men from where they are doing good work and putting them to do stupid work, would be of enormous benefit not only to the whole of the trade of the country, but to the moral of the people, whose faith can only be cemented by feeling that they are being treated justly.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down has raised a number of points of very great and grave importance. So far as the Board of Trade is concerned, we are extremely obliged to him for raising the question of the production of coal in this country. Many subjects over which he ranged, of course, do not come within the purview of the Board of Trade and are necessarily matters upon which the War Office and the Ministry of National Service have to give an opinion and exercise a judgment. I will, therefore, not attempt to deal with those parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech which are obviously for the War Office and the Ministry of National Service, as they affect the whole question of man-power, which, going beyond these Departments, has been for some time past a matter to be settled by the War Cabinet. With regard to the reduction of the output of coal, it is certainly correct to say that it is a matter of very grave and very great importance, not only to this country, but to the Allies as a whole, and the burden put upon this country in the production of coal is one of the serious problems of the War, and one which I can assure the hon. Gentleman has the constant and close attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have you any plan?
    Mr. WARDLE: We have a plan. There was an insistent demand, after the offensive in March, for men to be taken out of the mines in order to meet the grave national emergency which then arose. In order to meet that demand and the demand of our Allies, we have necessarily to restrict the use of coal in this country, and the result has undoubtedly been a fall in the output. We have been and are taking steps, so far as lies in our
    1684
    power, to get the managers, owners, and miners, who are still working in the mines, to increase the output which they are making at present. With this co-operation we hope that something will be done, and we have the promise of the Miners' Federation that they will do all they can in their various districts to-prevail upon the miners to put their best service possible into the production of coal. I have pointed out already that we have the promise of 25,000 men to be released from the Army. Of that number we have got 7,000, and we are expecting to get others very shortly. If it should turn out, after we have got the 25,000 men, that we are still short of men, we will not fail to impress upon the Army authorities and on the Ministry of National Service the necessity of keeping the production of coal up to the limit which at any rate will avoid the evils to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can you state on what date it will not be possible to keep the coal production up to that limit, and at what date you will begin to apply for B1 men?
    Mr. WARDLE: The hon. and gallant Member is asking for a definite statement of date, but all I can tell him is that the closest possible attention day by day is being given to this problem, and that when we see that a failure of the output is becoming evident, or when the danger point is being reached, then a representation will be made at once, in order to secure sufficient men to keep up the output.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask if the ration scheme will at present supply sufficient coal to keep industries going, as during the past year, or has the position arisen now that there is not a sufficient supply of coal?
    Mr. WARDLE: My reply to that question is, "No." The rations put into operation will not keep industries going at its present level, but it is expected to keep the output at such a level as will keep off any of the contingencies to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. The production of coal is a very vital factor in this War, and we realise to the full that we cannot keep industries going unless the output of coal is kept up to the necessary level. Another factor is the question of shipping. It is a vital factor which necessarily must be dealt with.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The fewer ships, the less coal will be wanted.
    Mr. WARDLE: If fewer ships take coal, fewer ships take goods, and therefore it is necessary to produce coal for industries.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: We can always export to America, and there will be no difficulty about shipping.
    Mr. WARDLE: I am afraid I must disagree with the hon. and gallant Member when he says there is no difficulty about shipping. But he raised the question of production of coal, and I am trying my best to answer it. We are constantly doing our best to see that the output of coal is raised to the highest possible point of production, having regard to the men at our disposal, and we take such steps as we think will meet the urgent needs of the country, and will obtain and retain such men as are necessary in order that the vital industries of the country may be kept at such a level as is possible under the circumstances.
    Sir W. ESSEX: One question that I should like to ask, and it struck me when I was spending some time in Italy. We were in bad odour amongst the Italians last winter, because it was thought we were profiteering on coal, but since then the Government may have taken steps to put the matter on proper lines. I would suggest that you might say to the Italian Government, "If you send us a certain number of our men to help us in coal production, we will give you what appears to us to be your ration of coal in the coming winter, and so much more as would be accounted for by your sending us such an extra number of our men on your front." I believe if you approached the Italian Government with such a proposal they would be willing to release a larger number of men than they do at present, at any rate for the winter, if not longer, and that would help to bring to our Italian friends a larger supply of coal, while it would quicken and increase the output of coal in this country.
    Mr. WARDLE: This is largely a matter of transport, and I can assure my hon. Friend that every effort is being made to bring the Allies together to exchange manpower for coal, or goods, or whatever it may be, so far as it is possible to do so by arrangement. Committees are constantly sitting considering all these problems, and everything is being done, which the
    1686
    ingenuity of those Committes can devise and transport arrangements can secure, to bring about the desired results.
    Mr. FINNEY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if his statement just made will include an effort on the pact of the Board of Trade to obtain the return of miners from the Army for work in the mines to increase the output of coal?
    Mr. WARDLE: I have already said that that is what we are doing. B2 and B3 men we are attempting to get back straight away, up to the number of 25,000. If that 25,000 should not prove to be sufficient for keeping up the minimum needs of the country, we shall endeavour to take further steps.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.
    Sir R. COOPER: I desire to raise the question of food supplies, with special reference to that of pig production, and if I may seem in this matter to be a little bit critical, I hope the Minister of Food will believe that I am second to none in this country in my appreciation and admiration of the very excellent manner in which he has served the country in time of war in one of the most difficult problems that has come before us, and it is because I know how keenly he desires to have hopeful criticisms and suggestions that I shall venture to put before him a matter about which I feel very much concerned. In the earlier days of the War circumstances did not compel us to take as early a consideration of the means of food production in this country as we know to-day would have been desirable, but, as time went on, and the question of food supplies of all kinds, together with that of the increasing difficult of shipping, became urgent, very serious attention was then given to it, and I think I shall be saying what is quite correct if I say that of all the considerations for improving our home production of food for the people, and at the same time of cutting down the supplies of imported food from abroad, on account of the shipping difficulties, an increased pig production in this country was one of the most promising and the most fruitful. That was true for two reasons: First, because these animals mature so very much earlier than other animals do; and, secondly, this particular animal supplies what the people were beginning to be short of, namely, fats for consumption. At that time, certain plans were put into opera-

    1687
    tion by His Majesty's Government, and an official was appointed as Pig Controller to the Board of Agriculture. I happened to be one who was appointed on a Committee to advise the Pig Controller, and, therefore, I feel a personal responsibility in what I am bound to regard as an unhappy failure in the maturing of the plans which were laid down at that time. My right hon. Friend knows, I am sure, that the number of pigs on holdings of one acre and upwards has gone down very considerably during the last twelve months. I believe there is some increase on holdings of less than one acre, but it is true to say, on the one hand, that pig production generally has not increased as it was expected to do, and, on the other hand, it is equally true to say that, under fair conditions, there is a great deal more which we can do at the present in this very important direction.
    On account of the responsibility which I have held in this matter, I took the trouble recently to communicate with some fifteen people in this country whom I have reason to regard as being authorities on pig production, and thirteen of them in their replies emphasised, in very strong words in most cases, that the difficulties of to-day lie principally with the problem of feeding-stuffs, which are part of the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food. Some months ago a definite promise was made to the Pig Controller that a certain quantity of feeding-stuffs would be available to the administrators of the Board of Agriculture for the feeding of live stock, and this was to be apportioned, to the best of the ability of the President of the Board of Agriculture and his officials, between the various grades of cattle in this country, and from that quantity a certain amount was definitely promised to the Pig Controller. That quantity has never been forthcoming, not by a very long way, of the amount that has been promised. I am not in a position to say absolutely that peculiar circumstances of war may not have arisen to upset the calculations of the officials of the Ministry of Food, but I do say that if that is the case there has been some mistake, in so far as that the officials who work under him have not conveyed that information at the earliest possible moment to the Board of Agriculture, and thereby enabled that Department to reframe its
    1688
    plans for producing the maximum amount of food. In addition to that, there is a much more serious aspect of this matter, which is the principal point that I desire to impress upon my right hon. Friend. At the present moment there is absolute duplication of pig production between the Board of Agriculture on the one hand and the Food Controller on the other. Only this last week there was a meeting held by some of the right hon. Gentleman's officials at the Ministry of Food, at which one of the items on the agenda was to appoint an advisory committee on pig production. Now, I am a member of the Advisory Committee on Pig Production at the Board of Agriculture, and, therefore, these two Departments are absolutely duplicating machinery for the production of pigs. That point, I venture to think, only required to be brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend to lead him without any delay to look into the statement that I have made, and to ascertain what is the reason for his Department creating machinery which obviously must be wrong or, if it is right, it ought to take over the whole problem and let one Department alone administer it. I beg him not to overlook my suggestion, and I am quite sure he will make what inquiries are necessary in connection with it.
    There is another serious matter affecting his Department with regard to feeding-stuffs which I ought to have mentioned earlier. In regard to the feeding-stuffs that have been available for the last four weeks for the feeding of pigs in particular, the administration has been so badly carried out that one manufacturer, who had produced 1,200 tons of pig food per week, has in three weeks only received permits for the giving out of 5½ tons. That is to say, 3,600 tons were available, and permits were received for the giving out of 5½ tons only, and he has received from the Department of Food Control strict instructions that if he sends out any feeding-stuffs for pigs without the permits action will be against against him. Now surely I am right in suggesting that there is something very radically wrong in the administration of feeding-stuffs in a case like this, and that is a second point which I am quite sure my right hon. Friend will look into. It is no use offering these criticisms, unless one attempts at the same time to do one's best to give advice as to what should be done by the Government to avoid duplication of

    1689
    machinery, to get the maximum out of material which we have available in this difficult period, when material is everything for purposes of war as well as for feeding the people. From the information which I gathered from those with whom I communicated, together with the other members of this advisory committee, who sat for two hours yesterday on this particular matter, I want to make this suggestion to my right hon. Friend, that he should very seriously consider whether he ought or ought not himself to agree to recognise that the Board of Agriculture, with its machinery throughout the country, is the only Department that can deal adequately with the production of pigs. It is for his Department, when the pigs are produced, to take charge of them, to allocate them, and to deal with them, and if my suggestion is the right one, it means that the control of feeding-stuffs available for cattle must be handed over to the Board of Agriculture.
    We know quite well that no Minister likes voluntarily giving up any section of work he has undertaken, and is responsible for, but I believe there is no Minister in the present Government who has a broader mind and greater determination to do whatever is best for the interest of the country as a whole, quite irrespective or whether it will affect for the moment the Department over which he so excellently presides. I hope, therefore, he will give very careful consideration to this matter, because if he will agree to it, it will be done with very few days' delay. It is a very difficult matter, I believe, for the President of the Board of Agriculture to make representations to the Government on this matter, but it would come so gracefully and nicely from the Minister of Food Control, if he would, after looking into this matter, come to the conclusion, which I believe he will, that in the country's interest it is necessary for the control of feeding-stuffs, after he has done with them in his Department, to be handed over entirely to the Board of Agriculture to administer.
    8.0 P.M.
    There is another point in connection with food production to which it was not my intention to refer to-night, but which my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) intended to be here to raise this afternoon, and who has been called away from the House. He has asked me to submit it to the best of my ability to my right hon. Friend. It deals with the Sheep Sales Order of
    1690
    January, 1918, under which machinery was set up for the estimating of the weight of sheep, and upon which the price was to be paid to the farmer. Under Sections 3 and 4, excellent machinery was set up by which prices were estimated by a committee of three, composed of a butcher, a farmer, and an auctioneer. I think I am right in saying that, having regard to the country as a whole, that system has worked admirably. I believe my right hon. Friend will say later, with a good deal of truth, that in some parts of the country there have been complaints, and that it has not worked as well as it should have done, and on that account I understand my right hon. Friend appointed additional inspectors. Probably his intentions were the very best under the circumstances, and if these officials did their work properly, as he would wish them to do, there might be no particular complaint. But in certain parts of the country the very opposite result has taken place, and I think, on the 17th of this month my right hon. Friend's attention was drawn by question to what had been happening at Haywards Heath market, where this committee of three had, as they had done for some months past, estimated the prices at which farmers were to be paid for the sheep they sold, and I believe I am right in saying at Haywards Heath market the work of this committee has generally, given satisfaction to the farmers in the district, as well as to the butchers. But one of the Sub-Commissioners appointed by the right hon. Gentleman to go round and supervise the estimating of these weights, and, where necessary, to take such action as he thought right, to see that the right thing was done, in this particular case had gone round after the committee has done its work satisfactorily to all parties concerned, ascertained what prices they had fixed, and had automatically cut them down by a considerable amount. Of course, if it can be shown by my right hon. Friend that this committee was acting unfairly in the interest of the farmer, he would be perfectly justified in supporting the work of this particular Sub-Commissioner, but there is a very great deal of feeling in that district because in this particular case the Sub-Commissioner happens to be a butcher, and one can only point to the coincidence that a man whose interest is in buying sheep as cheaply as he possibly can

    1691
    should go round and alter the prices which have been fixed satisfactorily in that district for some months past, and in every case alter them very considerably below those previously fixed by a committee of three. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more on this matter. My right hon. Friend undoubtedly knows the facts. All I ask him to do is to see that careful and proper consideration is given to the points that have been raised by question, and which were answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. J. Parker) on behalf of the Food Controller. I ask him to look into the representations and to see in this particular case whether there is not injustice being done to the farmers in that particular district.
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): The hon. Baronet has raised two subjects in terms which recall the helpful criticism which the Ministry of Food has received from him since the time of its first establishment. I welcome his intervention and would like to deal very briefly with the two cases which he has brought before the House. As to the first one, which related to pig production, the hon. Baronet will recollect that when the foods available for animals became for the Food Minister a most acute and anxious subject, we had to consider the whole matter in terms of food values, and take, as it were, from animals food fit for human beings. That had its immediate effect upon the pig population, and the hon. Baronet has correctly described the situation which has resulted. I can only say that we are doing our best to overcome the obstacle of the shortage of feeding-stuffs, not merely for pigs, but for the other animals on which we depend, and I have very great hope of the situation improving so as correspondingly to improve the prospects of pig production in this country. As to the last complaint he produced of conflict or overlapping between the two State Departments, I can scarcely admit that, although I will take into very earnest consideration the definite suggestion the hon. Baronet has made, in order to see whether, on this matter as on others, the functions of the Board of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food can be in any sense improved or readjusted, in order to obtain the objects which the hon. Baronet has in view.
    There are at present three Committees dealing with pigs. There is the Com-
    1692
    mittee of the Board of Agriculture, presided over by the hon. Member for East Grinstead. That Committee seeks to popularise the pig industry. It makes demands upon the Feeding-stuffs Department of the Ministry of Food. There is the Committee of the Feeding-stuffs Department of the Ministry of Food, whose duty it is to provide for the pigs a fair allocation of the available feeding-stuffs. There is also the third Committee, under the Livestock Commissioners, which deals with pigs as regards their sale for slaughter, so that the three Committees have different functions and special services in this matter of pig production. There would thus seem to be no ground for conflict or real overlapping, because the feeding-stuffs must come from the Ministry of Food; though, as I say, I shall consider seriously what can be done to effect improvement. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture said in this House the other day, the Board of Agriculture is not a United Kingdom body. It has no power to control manufacturers. We are, and I hope we always shall be, in the closest touch with the three Departments of agriculture, and will further, to the utmost of our power, any suggestions put forward for the improved distribution of concentrated foods. But the trouble is that there is not enough concentrated food to meet the requirements. This trouble, as I have indicated, we are doing our best to remedy. I fully agree that if we can considerably increase the pig population of the country we do much to ease the situation in other quarters. We do much to improve the man-power of the country by allowing it to be devoted to other purposes. For every ton of food we have to carry from abroad into this country means the expenditure of great effort, and the taking away of actual productive labour from other and neighbouring services in which men are now employed.
    I will inquire further into the particular instance which has been discussed of the grading of sheep, in view of the further information given in the speech of my hon. Friend. On the general question there is, I think, a quite satisfactory answer to the criticism which has been passed. We arranged a grading system, a system wholly satisfactory to the farmers and to sellers of cattle. There are 725 livestock markets in Great Britain. The grading committees consist of a farmer, a butcher, and the Government agent, who

    1693
    is usually a livestock auctioneer. If an animal is wrongly graded some loss inevitably ensues. At the outset animals were wrongly graded more often than not. For the months of January and February the grading losses were very considerable, and it became necessary to institute some supervision, to provide some kind of check, to obviate the complaints of wrong grading which in some cases had taken place. It was, therefore, determined to attach to each livestock commission office an experienced person of the cattle-dealer class who would inspect the records in the different markets and intervene whenever intervention was deemed necessary.
    Intervention might properly take place even when the whole of the three parties were agreed upon what they themselves had done. The sub-commissioners are Government servants. They are authorised, and required, to intervene whenever grading in their judgment appears to be incorrect. They are empowered to fix the actual grades in case of disagreement. My hon. Friend appears to think that there are too many supervisors, and that that interfered unfairly at Hayward's Heath. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras last week asked if I would consider the advisability of increasing the number of these supervisors with a view to reducing the losses which had been incurred through inefficient grading of livestock. I can only repeat the answer then given, namely, that these men have done very useful work. They are a safeguard for preventing mistakes. Their supervision tends to produce more perfect grading and judgment on the part of the grading committees. Now, it is proposed in view of the demand, to add to their number. My Department, of course, will continue to do its best to reconcile what are, or seem to be, conflicting interests and claims. The important point is that grading losses have by the steps which we have been recently taking very materially decreased.
    I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to make an announcement on a subject not so far touched upon—potatoes. The matter is of sufficient importance, because the Government in the previous year thought it necessary so to stimulate the production of potatoes as actually to guarantee a considerable subsidy to those who would undertake that task. The 1919 crop
    1694
    is to be taken over by the Food Controller as from 1st November of this year. We have framed a scheme, the main objects of which are to carry out the guarantee given to the grower of potatoes that the Government would purchase this crop at prices not lower than a certain minimum sum. We aim at economising transport by utilising the trade, and those engaged in potato production, as Government agents for the purchase and the sale of potatoes, and to provide consumers all over the country with potatoes at the same price for the same quality, irrespective of the price which may have to be paid to the grower. To that end we have created what may be termed a travelling Commission, to be presided over by a Member of this House as chairman. This hon. Gentleman has been appointed by the Minister of Food and by the Board of Agriculture. He will visit each one of the districts in England and Wales—that is to say, each one of the large areas which are to be visited for this purpose. The prices will be fixed by this Commission of Inquiry, after hearing the whole of the evidence, and the Commission will, it is hoped, begin to sit not later than 3rd September, and should complete its work very early in October. The prices to be fixed by the Commission will depend primarily upon the cost of production, but will not be taken in relation to any price which potatoes may command, say, in a free market, and if we were not living under war conditions. It will not be possible to allow dealers to buy direct from the growers at the price assessed by the Commission, and to base their selling price upon this grower's price. Some financial adjustment must obviously be necessary in order that potatoes may flow evenly from the various producing areas.
    We propose to create under this scheme twenty potato zones. That will have the effect of considerably economising transport facilities, labour power, and it will also have the effect of considerable saving. In some eight of the zones there will be sufficient potatoes not only for the populations in those zones but also for considerable export to other zones, so that twelve out of the twenty will require to be sent in to them quantities of potatoes to meet the needs of the population in those particular areas. The Potato Control Committee will include representative dealers and growers, together with a transport officer and an inspector ap-

    1695
    pointed by the Ministry of Food, and the Chairman of the Committee will be the divisional Food Commissioner or his representative. The Committee will exercise a general control on the loading of potatoes in the area, and will deal with any complaints which may come from any quarter or any disputes between the growers and the dealers.
    It is intended to grade the potatoes into two classes, and having seen the particulars on this point from experts I have reached the conclusion that they can be properly graded into Grade 1 and 2 according to quantities quite familiar to those who buy them. The price of Grade 1 potatoes to the consumer will be fixed at 1¾d. per lb., and the other grade at 1d. per lb., so that the net effect of the scheme will be a saving in many directions, and at the same time it will continue that stimulus to the growing of potatoes that has been shown in this country during the last eighteen months. The acreage under potatoes at the present time is about 25 per cent. greater than last year, but the yield per acre will probably not be so large, but I do not anticipate that the total weight of the crop will exceed last year's crop by 10 per cent. That will leave a further margin for safety with regard to that important article of food. We had apparently a large surplus at the beginning of 1917–18 season, but to-day consumption is greater than in pre-war days, and we cleared up the whole of the crop without much difficulty.
    I anticipate that we shall be able to stimulate the consumption of potatoes next year to a greater degree than last year, and the whole of the crop will be absorbed without loss. Apart from any question of the manufacture of potato flour and allied products, we shall be able to use larger quantities of potatoes in bread-making, whilst the American troops in this country and in France will also be able to receive larger quantities of potatoes grown in this country. I cannot leave this aspect of the question without repeating the need for continued economy in our food consumption, not because, so to speak, there is not enough to go round if we maintain consumption at the present level, but because economy in consumption is so helpful as a contribution to all the national energy that must be consumed during the War, and because it is
    1696
    such an immense relief to what is, perhaps, the greatest concern to the Government in regard to the prosecution of the War, and that is ship construction. These things all come back to the term "ships," and the more, therefore, we can economise the more we can facilitate the landing of a larger number of American troops for the purpose of aiding the great cause upon which they are now engaged on the Western Front. To lay stress upon the fact that the limiting factor is shipping, I would point out that 5,000 tons of freight supports 1,000 American soldiers at the front. We can, therefore, bring 1,000 American soldiers for every 5,000 tons of shipping.
    I have been asked what hope there is of a Minister of Food being able to reduce the cost of certain articles of food which from one cause or the other are now very high. There are great, and I fear in respect of some articles of food quite insuperable difficulties in regard to lowering the price, and so long as the shipping situation compels us to concentrate our food demand upon the North American continent, where the cost of production is daily increasing, particularly in the United States, I feel that there is not much prospect in regard to the price of bacon and pig products being reduced. Our new plan, together with the Food Controller's representative in America, is to effect more complete co-operation in a manner to enable Mr. Hoover, the American Food Controller, to carry into effect his plans to prevent the present tendency of prices from rising still higher, and to enable him, as I hope, ultimately to effect a reduction in the price of some of these conditions. But, although we are anxious to effect a reduction in the price of articles of food, we must not push that anxiety to the point of depressing production or producing any condition of shortage of food in this country or elsewhere. I am not yet able to give the complete story of the arrangements which at present are in the hands of the Food Controllers of the Allied nations, but those arrangements are far advanced, and, when complete, I think it will be found that we shall have abolished all competition; we shall also have prevented any kind of jealousy, or any rivalry of claim between one Ally and another; and we shall not only do this, but I think we shall steady the price and also improve food production in Allied countries.

  ALLIED ATTACK (WESTERN FRONT).
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): In the first place I wish to say that the three Gentlemen whom I invited to form the Court of Inquiry in regard to the British Cellulose Company have accepted my invitation. They are Lord Sumner, Lord Inchcape, and Lord Colwyn.
  I am sure the House will be interested to learn the latest information with regard to the attack which took place this morning. The attack was launched at dawn by the 4th British Army, comprising British, Australian, and Canadian troops, and by the 1st French Army, both of which are under the command of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. The attack was on a front of something like 20 kilometres, from Merlancourt to Montdidier.
  We have just been in communication by telephone with headquarters, and the result, I am sure, will give satisfaction to every Member of the House. They had attained by three o'clock all the points which they had set out to gain as their objectives. At that hour we had already captured upwards of 100 guns, and 7,000 prisoners were already in the cages. The front, as I have already said, is about twenty kilometres. As far as I can judge from examining the map and the places we have reached, this represents an advance, on the average, of some four or five miles, and in one case it is an advance of seven miles. This ground is immediately in front of Amiens, and therefore its strategic importance will be obvious to everyone. I do not desire in any way to exaggerate the importance of this achievement. It is quite possible, and, indeed, it is regarded as probable, that the Germans, on account of previous attacks, had intended to retire, but this attack has come upon them as a complete surprise, and has upset whatever plans they may have formed. It affords me, as I am sure it will every Member of the House, the greatest satisfaction that, at this stage of the Session, a result should have been attained which, without exaggeration, is an indication of the complete change in the military position that has taken place in the last few weeks.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: We have all heard with very great joy and delight the news which the right hon. Gentleman has given us. But many of us have those who
  1698
  are very near and dear to us who are in the fighting, and the joy which this great victory gives us must also carry with it anxiety and suspense and wonder how it goes with those whom we love. It seems strange to pass from that to the discussion of the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. But before I go any further let me say that every member of my family of military age is in khaki to-day. We all have the same human feeling for this great victory, and it makes me for one feel that we in this. House should be more united and see more squarely eye to eye, and sometimes merge our minor difficulties in the great cause of humanity which now bestirs the heart of every man with Christian sentiment brought up in a Christian way of life. Let me relieve my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland of any anxiety as to what I am going to say. It will not refer to him; I shall make no reference to him. This is the only time perhaps in which one can speak on general subjects and can draw the attention of the House of Commons to the things which are passing before our eyes, and yet—and this is not in the slightest degree contradictory—are too obvious to be noticed. We have been talking of victories. Of course, victories give us an idea of the destruction involved in those victories and of the horrors of war. I think I am not guilty of exaggeration when I say that the British Constitution has been during the rule of the present Government quite as dismantled as many of the tenements in France and Belgium. What kind of Parliament are we? We are a very remarkable Parliament. There has been nothing completely like this Parliament in the long history of Parliaments. Take, for instance, the self-stultification. Having passed the Parliament Act in 1911, which curtailed its existence from seven years to five years it has stultified itself by bringing in Bills to prolong its existence on no fewer than five occasions for no fewer than five terms. There is no parallel to that. The only approach to it is the Long Parliament which passed the Triennial Act, and a few months afterwards passed an Act to perpetuate its own existence. But the Long Parliament has some satisfaction in contradicting itself. It passed an Act to perpetuate its own existence, and only allowed itself to be dissolved by itself. This Parliament, however, can be dissolved by the King on advice given by the Prime Minister.

  1699
  I pass from that topic to a still stranger phenomenon in constitutional history. In former times our practice was that the House of Commons should control the Executive; now, on the contrary, the Executive controls the House of Commons. We have not a Prime Minister; we have a kind of dictatorship placed in commission. Perhaps, before I go further, I ought to say likewise that the Prime Minister, from the time he entered office on the 2nd December, 1916, have revolutionised the Constitution in a way it has never been revolutionised since the time of the Tudors. In the first place, he destroyed Cabinet government as we know it. At the present moment there is no Cabinet—no proper Cabinet government for us. If we look at the War Cabinet we do not find three conditions which ought to obtain, that its members should be members of the House of Commons, members of the Cabinet, and likewise heads of Departments. Mr. Gladstone said that the absence of these conditions would be utterly fatal to constitutional methods. Who are the Ministers without portfolios? One of them never had Cabinet experience at all in his life. In former days it was held that seats in the Cabinet should not be held by Ministers without portfolios. But this has been a year of transition. What about Cabinet rank? There is no such thing as Cabinet rank now. In the past all these positions have been held by Cabinet Ministers, of whom the Lord Chancellor was the most important. Then, again, a Secretary of State is the constitutional medium for communications between the Sovereign and the House, and he should hold high office in the counsels of the Sovereign. But this War Cabinet is a kind of gerrymandered construction. There was never anything approaching it in constitutional history or practice. There has been no parallel of such an administration in any Government. You cannot come into this House without rubbing shoulders with Ministers of the Crown—some placemen and others pensioners. There was a Parliament known as the Pension Parliament in the time of Charles II., but it was a respectable institution as compared with the present Parliament, because in it there were only a moderate number of placemen and pensioners. But in this present Parliament, out of 670 members, there are no fewer than 288 who come under
  1700
  those categories, and I believe there are no fewer than seventy Ministers. The Prime Minister when he appeared for the first time in December, 1916, said that you could not run a war with a Sanhedrim. Why, he has got a Sanhedrim in the House of Commons alone, all ready to vote according to order. There is an old Statute, which they embodied in the constitution of the United States, which did not allow any placeman to sit in the House of Commons.
  Mr. McCURDY: Would the hon. Member mind defining a "placeman"?
  Mr. MacNEILL: A placeman is one-well, really I am sure that I am not enlightening my hon. and learned Friend—who holds any office of place or pension under the Crown. Of these Gentlemen, whom we usually call the Ministry or the Administration, there are at least sixty-seven in the House of Commons at the present moment. Under the ordinary Place Act not one of them could be in it at all. There was an Amendment to the Place Act whereby certain holders of certain offices could be Members of the House of Commons if they submitted themselves again to their constituencies. Then there were several Acts passed by obsequious Houses of Commons enabling them to sit in the House without facing their constituencies or the music. The Administration as a whole consists of ninety-seven. I believe it is now about 102, but the last tot I made was ninety-seven. Lord Salisbury's Administration was the nearest thing possible to a Noah's Ark of relatives. He provided for his own family in a way which was a perfect realisation of the ideal of the scriptural command, but in that Cabinet composed of Cecils and relatives of Cecils there were only forty-one, whereas we now have ninety-seven. We are able, with our placemen and pensioners alone, to constitute a quorum of the House of Commons on any subject whatever. It is only in the nature of things that they are there to support the Government, and the Government itself is the master of the House of Commons because it can dissolve it when it will.
  Everything one sees in the House of Commons bristles with what were formerly illegalities and unconstitutional acts. One does not need to move one single step to see the various ways in which we have progressed from one stage to another. In 1910 we were elected to

  1701
  curtail the privileges of the House of Lords. Have we not done so? Have we not passed a Bill which in matters of finance makes the House of Lords impotent. Although they may retard legislation, it still renders them in anything on which the House of Commons has set its will absolutely impotent. The House of Lords has been a good Samaritan to this Government and to this Parliament. They have returned good for evil. They have not, as they easily could have done, refused any one of the Prolongation Acts. They have passed them, and we are all sitting here by the good pleasure of the House of Lords. That is, again, another wonderful instance of the Prime Minister's destructive energies and of his power in the transformation of parties and in bringing together all sorts and classes and conditions of men in his Government. Many of us rejoice and others of us lament that the grille of the Ladies' Gallery has been abolished, but on the Treasury Bench, when we consider the various parties and creeds and classes combined together, we have a political mixed grill, nothing more and nothing less. We see there the rich and the poor meeting together. Such an Administration was never heard of. Lord Chatham set himself with great zeal and with only moderate success to destroy parties. He did not succeed though he went very near it, but the present Prime Minister succeeded. He has destroyed all parties. We do not know where we are, except the Irish party. It is very difficult to tell what a man is, and when I gaze at the Cabinet and at members on the Ministerial Bench I really do not know how to describe them. I see the Prime Minister, who ought to be Prime Minister of a homogeneous Government, surrounded every afternoon by persons who a couple of years ago were on anything but friendly terms with him. I do not know at present what are the politics of the Prime Minister. I could not describe him except in that beautiful little verse which we all learned in our childhood:
  "Twinkle, twinkle little star,
  How I wonder what you are!"
  Now we come to his destruction of parties, and likewise his absolute destruction of the ordinary system of administration. Formerly the Administration and the administrative Departments were mostly under the control of the Cabinet. At present they cannot be so. They are not co-ordinated, and they are extremely too
  1702
  numerous. At present there are only twenty-five of them. These twenty-five Departments of administration, created for the War and for war purposes, form a cumbrous, absurd, and expensive administration. Out of this comes a matter in which I have, perhaps, some little personal interest. What I see now is what was never seen in the House of Commons since the time of Walpole—that is, an introduction of business statesmen. Some twenty-five years ago, when many Irish Members were poor, as they are still, it was common to deride them because their constituents, out of affection, gave them what is called subsistence money, or what is, according to the new Ministerial pabulum, some slight honorarium, to enable them to live in London. They were bitterly reproached for that. At length I took it into my head to see how Ministers were placed themselves. I found out that these Gentlemen were largely engaged in company promoterships and directorships. I brought this again and again before Parliament, and at last Mr. Gladstone—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Donald Maclean): I cannot perceive the relevance of the hon. Member's remarks to anything within the scope of the Motion for Adjournment.
  Mr. MacNEILL: I always thought we could speak at large on the Motion for Adjournment and introduce any subject.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member can speak at large on any subject for which a member of the Administration can answer. I have previously refrained from interrupting the hon. Member, but I would point out that a very large number of his remarks are on a subject for which no member of the Administration can answer.
  Mr. MacNEILL: No; because they are unanswerable. I tried to get an answer to-day on the matter on which I am speaking. It is a thing to which I strongly object, namely, that a man should be a Minister and a company director together. The only answer I could get from the Leader of the House was that it was owing to the War. I thought, "Oh, War, what deeds are perpetrated in thy name!" I am glad to be allowed to direct attention to these matters, which are of great and even permanent interest. We see in the destruction by this Government of Cabinet government and the destruction of parties a dictatorship of the Adminis-

  1703
  tration over the House of Commons and the invasion of the House by a great number of gentlemen in offices and places under the Crown. I would say one word more on a subject which touches the Administration and the exercise of the greatest prerogative of all which is exercised by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister—that is, the creation of honours. We have all read that Danaë was wooed by Jove in the form of a shower of gold. Surely the country has been wooed by the Government in a shower of honours. In all history there was never such a shower as the list of 3,000 honours in one day. They rained and rained. We have been cheering the German defeat. I am afraid that the practice of giving so many honours was taken from Germany, because there is a very popular Order there known as the Order of Rats. I am afraid the new British Order has been taken from that. This matter should be considered by the public at large. This profuse distribution of civil honours is not consistent with the due exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. I have spoken on this subject at this time at considerable inconvenience, but these Motions for the Adjournment of the House are the only opportunities one has to consider the general administration of the Government, and when one can ask the House as a whole to consider the various developments which have taken place in the last couple of years—developments which are far more revolutionary and startling than any of the constitutional developments which took place between the Revolution of 1832 and 1916.
  Mr. HARVEY: I do not propose to follow my hon. and learned Friend into the wide field of Constitutional learning on which he is so great an authority, but to ask the House to return in thought for a short time to the great subject which was before us at the commencement of this Sitting. It may seem difficult to do so after the announcement that has been made to us by the Leader of the House, which was heard with so much satisfaction in all quarters. But the fact that we rejoice at the recovery of yet another strip of occupied territory from the German invaders and at the capture of prisoners and guns should not turn our thoughts from the wider purpose of it all, and all the more so, as we know that, however warmly and heartily we rejoice at that success, it has been won at the
  1704
  cost of great suffering and loss of life on the part of brave and devoted people. Therefore, it is right that we should yet again consider the subject which was before us at the commencement of the Sitting, because at this time we may approach it in a different way than we did at almost any other period, unless, perhaps, it be the period which immediately followed the Russian Revolution, since the War began. It is a period when the German Armies have been checked, and when it must be evident not only to the population in these countries and amongst neutrals, but also widely evident in Germany and Austria and in their allied countries that the aggressive aims of the party which at present seems dominant in Germany cannot be attained, at any rate to the extent to which they hoped they would be. We may say that the extreme hopes of German militarism have already been defeated and checked, and it is therefore surely possible for us to approach this subject in a very different mode from that which was possible a few months ago.
  9.0 P.M.
  I wish to refer to two points in the speech of the Foreign Secretary which struck me as calling for a response from these benches. He maintained that it was impossible to arrive at a satisfactory position in which peace could be negotiated until we had eradicated German militarism, and that in order to do that the method which was necessary was that the German people should be shown that war does not pay. My hon. Friends and myself join with the Foreign Secretary in desiring that German militarism should be eradicated. We want it to be eradicated in Germany, where it is seen in its worst form, far more serious to humanity than anywhere else, but in every country, too. Where I differ is in he way in which we are to show the German people that war does not pay. I agree, again, that it is necessary that the German people should realise that, but it is necessary that all the peoples of Europe, and of America, too, should realise that war is a method that does not pay. But every thinking man must admit in a calm hour that the vast multitude of men and women who imagined a few years ago that war was a method that paid have already learnt, to their terrible cost, how costly that method is, and how difficult it is to achieve by it the results which were promised at the outset of the War. I believe in their

  1705
  hearts the majority of the German people already would admit, if they could be got to discuss it in a cool hour, apart from the turmoil of battle, that war does not pay and has not paid, and that even for the great successes which at one time seemed to be crowning their arms the price they have paid was infinitely too heavy. The Foreign Secretary gave as an instance of the greatest success that had hitherto been attained by the German methods the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. So far from agreeing with him there, I feel that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is an instance not of success, but of the failure of German methods. It is full of the seeds of decay, and we are already seeing the seeds ripening to their bitter fruit. We see it in Russia and the other countries which are suffering under that Treaty. It has brought forth no such results as the Germans anticipated. It has resulted in estranging from them sympathies that they might have won, and producing an indignant revolt culminating in terrible acts of assassination. Not only in Russia has it been a failure. In Germany itself the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk has produced the utmost division and dissatisfaction. We are only allowed here to read a little bit of what the German papers say, but even in the twilight of our ignorance a certain amount of news comes through to us, and we know that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk has been denounced not only by the German pacifist party, by the Minority Socialists, but by the Majority Socialists, who hitherto have supported the War ardently. They have said it is a most unjust and wrong Treaty, and they cannot consent to it permanently, and German Liberals outside the Socialist ranks have also joined in expressing their protest, and there can be no doubt whatever that, left to themselves, there is such a volume of opinion growing in Germany against the injustice of that Treaty, that the German people themselves would before long be compelled to attempt a revision of what is at most only a temporary war measure.
  The second point with which the Foreign Secretary dealt which I wish to answer was his challenge to these benches as to whether we would be prepared to hand back the German colonies to Germany as she is now. He coupled that almost in the same sentence with an ironical sneer at the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden), because he had failed to recognise that
  1706
  people have souls. I think the right hon. Gentleman has answered himself by that remark. When he speaks of Germany as she is now, he has no right to think, and he ought not to make us think of a people as being possessed of an unchanging character, like some great building which goes down from age to ago unaltered. Peoples have souls, and Germany as she is now comprises not only the party which is unhappily dominant at the moment, the Junkers and the militarists, but it comprises the Germany of the future, which is a better Germany. It comprises the toiling masses, who are suffering most bitterly under the War. It comprises a large number of noble-hearted intellectuals, who protested against the worst features of the War party, and who are increasing in numbers, and when he speaks of Germany as she is now, he must surely remember that that is not a fixed quantity and that it is part of our task to call out the better Germany, the Germany that some day will help in the partnership of Europe, in which she will have her legitimate share, along with other peoples. Why should it be necessary for us always to appeal to the worst on the other side, always to see the worst in our opponents, never to try and call out the better self that is hidden at the back of every nation, however bad that nation may appear to be, however far it may have sunk from the level on which we would have her. There is a better Germany in the background, and it is to that that our statesmen ought to address themselves, and not always to the men who are at the forefront, who do not represent the real soul of the people.
  The Foreign Secretary spoke of the two possibilities of achieving the end we have in view, the possibility of a change of heart in Germany, and the other possibility, on which he dwelt more fully, of achieving a result by a military victory so great as to convince the German people that they have failed and must submit. I think the failure of the Brest-Litovsk agreement ought to be an answer to those who think that the old way will ever convince a people of the justice and rights of their opponents' case. We have seen how the Russian people have revolted, in spite of that Treaty, against its unjust terms, and we know that it can never continue. A treaty that was merely imposed by force on a reluctant and unconvinced nation would never carry conviction or

  1707
  guarantee security. It is the other alternative which the Foreign Secretary named, but which he did not dwell upon, which presents the only hope for the future—a change of heart in Germany—it is most necessary there—and in all the nations of Europe. What we want is a change of heart involving our passing from this horrible method, which is irrational and unchristian, to a more civilised, better, and nobler way. We must appeal to the instincts in our opponents that make for better things; and if we do that we have with us the forces of labour throughout the civilised world working increasingly towards a just and enduring peace, protesting increasingly against the burden and the sacrifice and the irrational and unchristian method of settling our disputes. We have with us the forces of religion, little thought of and often perverted, but still at work in the background.
  Is it not possible in the months that are coming for our statesmen to be willing, however firmly they adhere to the objects they have before them, to try for once this other method in approaching our foe. Why must we always regard every advance that is made in public on the other side as if it were therefore a bad thing? The Prime Minister the other evening spoke about the peace tentacles of Germany. That suggests a horrible octopus. It suggests that every effort for peace on the part of Germany has nothing in it that is good, that it is wholly made with an evil intent; and yet the Prime Minister must know quite well that, though there may be many things that we cannot agree with in the German proposals, there is in the heart of the German people a real desire, although it may not be as strong as we wish, for peace. We have to appeal to that and to strengthen it. Surely it should be possible for the tone of the speeches of our leaders to be different. It should be possible, without any relaxation whatever in our military effort while the War continues, for statesmen of different sides to meet together round a common table and to discuss the possibility of entering into the preliminaries of peace negotiations. You cannot discuss these things satisfactorily, speaking at intervals of time, across hostile barriers and through the Press. Just imagine what the position would be in a labour dispute if in the
  1708
  bitterest labour dispute employers and employed only addressed each other by speaking to meetings of their own supporters. We know quite well that they are prepared, however bitter the division, to meet round a table and discuss their differences; and we know that when it is said that it is impossible for us to meet during the War men whose hands are stained with the blood of innocent people we know that the Home Secretary has only just come back from a successful conference with German officers in which he met the official representatives of the German Government and successfully negotiated an exchange of prisoners. We have trusted the word of Germany in that. We have not been frightened to negotiate with them while the War goes on. Therefore, while the War goes on it ought to be possible, without any interference with military plans or military efforts, for statesmen to meet without disguise, not in secret meetings in Switzerland, but openly and honestly as was the case at The Hague, and to find out facts which we do not know and which we cannot know until the representatives of the different countries are prepared to meet each other.
  The Government in the months which are intervening before this House meets again should encourage every unofficial effort that is being made to call out the best in our opponents and to put before them and all the world a vision of what this awful calamity means, a vision of the suffering, the desolation that is being caused to thousands and millions of homes, the agony of the battlefield, the misery of broken lives, the misery of homes destroyed, and a vision of Europe as it ought to be and as we must help to make it, united in the fellowship of nations along with our kinsmen and friends on the other side of the Atlantic, to keep the laws, and to help each other in that real comity in which every nation shall have its positive contribution to bring to the well-being of mankind. We need to help, and we ought to help every effort that is being made in that direction, the efforts that are being made on behalf of labour to get a united labour programme, and the efforts that are being made on behalf of those who are trying to reunite divided christendom in the name of their Master. Even now it may not be too late for men to hear the echo of the apostolic appeal that has been made by

  1709
  the Pope, in which, in the name of the Master, whose representative he is, men are asked to turn aside from this wrong way, with its cruelty, its suffering and its loss, and be willing to meet each other, to discuss their differences, to explain their positions, and to see if there be not, indeed, a better way.
  Captain BARNETT: In rising to refer briefly to one topic not dealt with in this Debate, I desire to associate myself with what has been said so eloquently by the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal. Field-Marshal Haig's brave troops, French as well as English, have given us a really good send-off for the Recess. The topic that I wish to refer to is the railway superannuation funds. These funds, which amount to £15,000,000 sterling, are subscribed partly by the men and partly by the companies, and in the period before the War they were, as a rule, invested with the companies at a good rate of interest. That is to say, the railway companies not only added to the subscriptions of their employés, but they found them investment at the rate of 4 per cent., which, in the case of the Midland or the North-Western, was a good thing before the War. Circumstances have changed, and these funds are still invested and still only bearing 4 per cent., when the British Government, with the finest security in the world, has to give 5 or 5¼ per cent. The pensions which are given to a most deserving body of men, on the basis of these superannuation funds, are actuarially worked out on the capital available. It is quite unnecessary to point out that a pension of £30, or £60, or £100, before the War represents something very different from what it does to-day. I am speaking to-night on behalf of the older men, who, in the evening of their days, are enjoying these well-earned pensions of, say, £80 or £100, which have come to be worth less, however, than one-half of their face value.
  I know I shall be accused of making another raid on the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to inform me that he would come in to hear what I was going to say, but he has been called out, and no doubt is better engaged than he would be in hearing my observations. I hope that he will read my remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT. This money is lent to the British Government at 4 per cent. Supposing there had been no War, and
  1710
  supposing the railway companies had been carried on without State interference, and that there had been a rise in the cost of living and in the value of money, is it not certain that the railway companies would have given an increase? If the rate of money in the market was 5½ or 6 per cent., they would not have been content to give only 4 per cent. on the savings of their employes. Unfortunately, the position that exists to-day precludes railway directors from taking any course such as suggesting an increase in the charges at which the Government is working the railways, and precludes them from doing anything to help their employés in this matter. An increase in the rate of interest from 4 to 5 per cent. on £15,000,000 would be £150,000 a year. It is not a question of revising the rates of pensions because that would mean calling the beneficiaries together and changing the rules. But it would be well for the Government to realise that there is a moral obligation to increase the rate of interest on these funds to something like the rate which the British Government is paying for money. The difference between the 4 per cent. hitherto given and the 5 per cent. which I suggest, or £150,000 a year, would go a long way towards providing a war bonus in the really deserving cases—in the, cases of people who have not been able during the War to increase their incomes, including the old and infirm who are having a difficult existence owing to the increased cost of living. That sacrifice of £150,000 a year is one which the country could very well afford to make. I throw out the suggestion and I hope it will be favourably received by those in authority. I am sure, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks he can do anything in the matter, he will do so, in order that these funds may be put in a more satisfactory position—at any rate while this period of stress and urgency continues.

  ALLIED ATTACK (WESTERN FRONT).

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. HOGGE: In yesterday's Debate, in the course of the Prime Minister's remarks, he was good enough to say that I did not know what I was talking about and I was equally good to tell him that he knew less what he was talking about. I have given notice that I was going to raise this on the Adjournment to-day, but I do not see any sign of the Prime Minister or, as a matter of fact, anybody who can reply to the discussion I am about to raise.

    1711
    We cannot leave this Session without dealing with what is, after all, the most important matter, because it is the most practical matter which has been dealt with yet to-day in our Debates. This is the third occasion since the Vote of Credit was brought in last week on which I ventured to raise the question of the wives and children of our serving men. So far I have not been able to get a sympathetic reply from the Government. Therefore I am reluctantly compelled at this late hour of the last day of the Session to raise this question again, and I will continue to raise it on every occasion until the Government realise what their duty is with regard to those people and will deal with it in a competent way. We had, as I have pointed out before, a proposal made by the Government to increase certain allowances. Those allowances were divided into three categories, namely, the allowance of wives, wives with children, and mothers of apprentices who have joined the forces. While every Member of the House joins in congratulating the Field-Marshal who commands our forces on the advance made to-day, I cannot help recalling the fact that a great part of that advance is probably due to the fact that we have been able to put into the fighting line, owing to the emergencies of the situation, lads of eighteen and a half and nineteen years of age whose mothers are not getting a single penny from the State for the services which these lads are rendering to the State, and I consider that it is a standing disgrace and scandal to this House, because it is to this House. It is not to the people in the country. It is not to the nation. The nation would not grudge any expenditure upon these people. They grudge the very wasteful expenditure to which this Government has been committed which are now being revealed by the Financial Committee which is going into so many matters at the moment.
    So far as I am able to pin any responsibility down, it lies on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, who refused to face the facts of the situation, and who apparently prefer to waste the money of the country on these enterprises of which we are now receiving information, rather than give it to the mothers and parents of the soldiers who, among others, have made this magnificent advance to-day. I refuse to leave this House of Commons for a long Recess,
    1712
    during which I and the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall draw our salaries when we refuse to pay to those people what they are entitled to, and what they are being deprived of because this Government has failed to face the facts of the situation. I propose to deal with the matter now, seeing that we have more time than usual, and that there are very few Members present in the House. Incidentally I would like to point out that when we do consider vital matters of this kind many Members of this House do not seem to be sufficiently interested to take part in those discussions. It will be different if we are having an election in November. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to stand for a division in Glasgow. He will have to answer a large number of questions on this point when he gets to Glasgow. I will take care of that. When he faces his constituents he will be up against the people who matter, whom he cannot put aside. The wives of our serving men who are going on the electoral register for the first time, our discharged soldiers, and the men who are going to be demobilised are going to have something to say to the Members of this Government who have looked after every other interest, including their own, rather than the interests of the serving men and the discharged men, and the dependants of the men who have been killed.
    The first of those classes are the wives, whom, unfortunately, we call childless wives. We have been told by the Financial Secretary for War that if a wife who has no children, and is in receipt of 12s. 6d. a week, requires more to maintain herself in physical efficiency she ought to go out and work. I object root and branch to the attitude taken up by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the part of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, because a wife happens to have no children, because the State by the law of this country has compelled the husband of that woman to fight, to lay down his life for this country, if she has to have enough to eat she must go and work. It is a mean and despicable action on the part of any Government, and on the part of the House of Commons, to say that a woman that because she happens to have no children—a woman from whom you have taken her husband by law—she shall be compelled to go into the industrial market and work in order that she may

    1713
    maintain herself. In order that I may put the House in the proper atmosphere, I will read a typical letter which explains the position. I do not know what letters Members of this House have been receiving during the past few days, but I have not yet been able to open within the last few days the numbers of letters that I have received dealing with this particular aspect of the question. I am sorry that this letter will take some time to read, but we have plenty of time, and it will enable you to understand exactly the position:
    "I have been reading of your complaining in the House of Commons of the rate of the soldiers' wives' allowance—12s. 6d. per week. You are quite right. It is not enough and has driven many women to work who have not been well enough. I will state you my case. There are thousands more such as I to be found. When my husband enlisted in 1914 I had two children. In the following April they contracted measles and I had the misfortune to lose them both in twelve days—a girl, three years and three months and a boy eleven months. My allowance was then reduced to 12s. 6d. I was forced to work. I went charing to keep my home going and worked until 3rd November. Then I fell down unconscious with nervous debility. I was suffering from chronic bronchitis and from asthma and internal troubles. That illness lasted six months. I went to work again. I worked four months. Then I had sixteen more weeks in bed. That was in 1916. My sister-in-law made me apply for civil liabilities. I do so. They made me a grant of £5 a year, to be paid quarterly. I had to go away after the illness. I went into the country for eight weeks. I came back to work again. The usual thing—was ill again. So a doctor said I was not fit for work or to be left in the house alone. He advised me to go away. I went to a friend of mine. While there I was under the doctor six weeks in bed with congestion of the lungs and muscular rheumatism. I had to have the district nurse in twice a day. I went on a few months. Then another month down in bed again. So I got better. I told my friend I would come away and go to work again, the price of food being so dear, I worked a month. The result, bed again for five weeks. I cannot get the necessary food to give me strength. I was dangerously ill at a hospital. I am up to-day for the first time, 7th August."
    I have also a letter from her showing the husband's case, but I do not want to go into that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Bead it!"] If the hon. Member wants it read, as there is plenty of time I will do so. This woman's letter says:
    "My husband enlisted in the winter 1914—"
    I see my hon. Friend is going away. I simply began to read it because he wanted me to do so, but as there are other hon. Members who do not want it read I will not proceed with it further. But this kind of thing is typical, and it is absolutely a matter of most serious concern.
    Colonel Sir J. HOPE: Did you send this woman to the local war pensions committee?
    Mr. HOGGE: If the hon. Member had listened to me he would have found that she was to apply this morning.
    Sir J. HOPE: Did you tell her to do that?
    Mr. HOGGE: I intended telling her that if she had any knowledge of the conditions which she ought to have been told by the Government, but has not been told except through advertisement in the newspapers, which she could not afford to buy, she could apply to the local pensions committee for a supplemental rent grant, or a supplementary illness grant, but that if she had the same experience as 99 per cent. of the people who do apply, she would not get it.
    Sir J. HOPE: That is not fair!
    Mr. HOGGE: If my hon. and gallant Friend has any knowledge of applications to local war pensions committees he knows that is so, and when he interrupts I may say that I have forgotten more about this subject than he ever knew.
    Sir J. HOPE: That is your opinion!
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
    Mr. HOGGE: I do not want to weary the House with a description of the husband's case. This woman's husband came back in November, and has never been out of hospital on account of wounds of one sort or another. If my hon. and gallant Friend knew what occurred at these local war pensions committees he would know that this woman's case would not be considered for a moment. If she goes out to work she has no recourse to a local war pensions committee. The only recourse this woman could have would be for two purposes—a supplementary rent allowance, and, secondly, an illness grant—and she would not get either if her income approximated to the one her husband had before he enlisted. If she is sent out to work by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who represents the Government machine in this matter, she would have no ease before that committee, to whom, of course, I am going to advise her to go if she has the information enabling her to apply. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian will afterwards probably tell her better than I how to obtain what she requires.

    1715
    I hold a further letter from a woman who has taken into her own home a childless woman, the wife of a soldier and twelve years married. She has been reduced from comparative affluence to a mere pittance, plus the magnificent 12s. 6d. a week of which Ministers are so proud, by her husband's voluntary absence with the Army. My correspondent writes:
    "Being an invalid, and a very poor woman, I can supply her with sympathy, but certainly not with food and other comforts necessary for her if she is not to remain a chronic invalid."
    This is a case in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman would say she was entitled to apply to the local war pensions committee. I wonder how she could prove that she was unable to obtain employment or was incapable of it. What is the use of talking about regulations? What is the use of regulations not humanely administered or are not uniformly administered by the local war pensions committees all over the country. Here is a letter from a childless wife whose husband joined up; she has had a house for twenty-five years, and has had to part with her marriage presents. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to part with his marriage presents in order to keep his house going. This woman is fifty-four years of age, and if she applied to the local war pensions committee what would she be told? She would be told that if she had no encumbrances she could go out to work. I wonder if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would like to tell the average childless wife of fifty-four years of age in Midlothian to go to the local pensions committee, if she is going to be told that at fifty-four years of age, if she has no encumbrances, she can go out to work. This woman's husband was fifty-one, and serving in the Army. When she asks for a little extra help from the local war pensions committee she is told, forsooth! by that Committee she can go out to work. I should like to be in the position of a local war pensions committee with members of the Government before me in the position of these wives of serving men, who have made this advance today, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer interrupted the order of business of the House to announce. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would interrupt the order of the business of the House to announce that the wives and
    1716
    dependants of the men who have made this advance are going to get what they deserve and are entitled to from the Government.
    Take another case, an atrocious case, for which I am willing to vouch in every particular, and if challenged will produce the absolute originals in the case. This woman's husband was earning from 50s. to 60s. a week before he was called up. She was a childless wife married at twenty years. She received 20s. from her husband's employers, which was afterwards reduced to 10s. when the War continued longer than most people expected it would continue. With what result? She then went to the civil liabilities committee to get a grant to carry her liabilities, and I want hon. Members of this House to mark exactly what this woman's letter says. She received notice to appear before the Commissioner, and was told by him that she ought to obtain employment in a munitions works or a tobacco factory, that she was getting too much, that 1s. a day and 2s. 6d. a week for clothes was sufficient. She was asked how many meals she had a day, and when she said "Three," was told by one of the servants of this Government that one mid-day meal was sufficient. She was also asked how many loaves of bread she had a week, and when she said "Two, from Monday to Friday," was told it was too much. The Commissioner then wrote out and gave her the following list as being what he considered sufficient food for this woman per week, and I can produce the original, written by the Commissioner, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, like the Prime Minister, doubts my word. The Prime Minister yesterday tried to show that I did not know what I was talking about, and the Prime Minister was all wrong. Re knows that, and that is perhaps why he is not here to-night. I remember a Debate in which I interrupted him before, in which he said that if I gave him notice he would always come down and meet any point I put up. I gave him notice this morning by telegram that I would raise the question, as to whether he was a liar or I, in this Debate, and he is not here. I understand he has gone to hear Welshmen singing, rather than listen to a Scotchman speaking. Here is the document given by an employé of this Government to this poor woman, whose husband, perhaps, is one of the men who has taken part in our advance:

    1717
    "One and a half pounds of broad or cereals, ½ lb. of beans, peas, or lentils, 1 lb. of dried fruit, 2¾ lb. of vegetables, ½ lb. of grease, ¼ lb. of sugar."
    He handed that over to the wife of one of our serving men, and said, "You can get along with that for a week, and that is sufficient for you." After this intreview she received one quarter's allowance, £1 5s., was then requested again to appear before the committee and asked if she had obtained any employment, and when she said, "No, she did not feel strong enough," she was told she must consider her grant stopped, and was referred to the committee of the parish in which she lived, from which a lady afterwards called. Among other questions, she was asked if she could obtain a doctor's certificate to say she could not work, and after thinking the matter over she decided not to do this, considering that she had already gone through quite enough. I put a very simple question to my right hon. Friend the other day. If my right hon. Friend took his stand upon the fact that it was not fair to pay to a war bride more than 12s. 6d., would he take into consideration the women who were pre-war wives? That is all I asked. I said I would split the difference with him, and I suggest it again to-night, that if he cannot see his way to extend the 12s. 6d. to the childless wife, who marries a man who is fighting, will he take into special consideration the women of the type that I have mentioned, women of fifty and fifty-four years of age who have a house, who have sent out of that home sons to the war who have been killed? If he will not take into consideration the war bride, will he give to the woman who was the wife of a man before he joined up, who have a house and responsibilities, who ought not to be asked to go out to work between fifty and sixty years of age, some consideration? It is not much to ask, and it would make this holiday very much more pleasant if he did make that concession.
    The second point is the question of the wives with children. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Scotsman, and therefore he is logical, and I should like to hear his defence—I know he enjoys the spirit of Debate—and I should like to hear his dialectical subtlety arguing in favour of the justice of giving a woman with one child an increase of half a crown and giving the woman with more than one child 4s. 6d. for all the other children she has got. We all remember in our childish
    1718
    days the story of Mother Hubbard, who had so many children in that particular shoe that she did not know what to do with them. The fact remains that the more children the woman has the less she gets. Hero is a letter from a wife with children:
    "I am a soldier's wife, and I cannot help writing to express my thanks that someone should think and sympathise with us as regards our allowances."
    This woman has six children. The eldest is eleven years of age, and the youngest two. Her Army allowance is therefore 37s., out of which she has 7s. to pay for rent, and 7s. for the maintenance of a boy at school, leaving 23s. for six to live on. In spite of the magnificent advance in front of Amiens, the wife of a man, it may be, who is in that advance, has been distributing 23s. between six children. She says:
    "I have tried my best not to sink and so had munitions for six weeks, but had a very serious breakdown and have been laid up for five weeks as a result."
    That is what is happening to the mothers, of those children, who before the War did not know what it was to go without boots or a decent meal. She sees her children, on account of the increased cost of living, crying round her skirts for some of the little comforts they were accustomed to, and out she goes to work, and the woman who goes out to work has a husband who is, perhaps, on sentry duty to-night in No-Man's Land, in front of the very advance we have been cheering here to-night. For Heaven's sake, if this House of Commons is going to be generous about anything, let them be generous to the wives and children of the men who have waited, and watched and suffered four years! Nobody will grudge that money. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer get up to-night and say, if he likes, that this would cost an extra penny on the Income Tax, and I believe he would not get a single post-card from an Income Tax payer objecting to giving the money for this purpose. Why, in Heaven's name, does one require to bring up this question? One does not want to bring it up over and over again before one can get any satisfaction. The third case is that of the apprentices—the case which the Prime Minister told me what I said yesterday was a lie. I am sorry the Prime Minster is not here. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will send the Prime Minister a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 108, No. 86, with the reply

    1719
    of the Government with regard to the dependants of apprentices. Then, instead of calling me a stranger to the truth, he will include all his colleagues in the Cabinet. This reply says:
    "In the early days of the War many lads joined the Colours before they had begun to earn sufficiently, whether by reason of apprenticeship, secondary education, or other causes, and no dependants' allowance, therefore, was issuable to their parents."
    No dependants' allowance was issuable to their parents! Because I said so yesterday I was called a stranger to the truth. Here it is in the Government's own statement. The Prime Minister had not the time to read it:
    "Others remained in civil life until called up under the Military Service Acts. Wages had risen rapidly meanwhile and they were able to make substantial weekly payments to their parents before enlistment, and dependants' allowance was payable on their becoming soldiers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1918, col. 1826.]
    If anybody wants to grip this position, let him get this copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and he will have an absolute refutation of the Prime Minister's reply to me yesterday. The point I have put about these apprentices I put again to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The proposal of the Government is to pay a flat rate of 5s. to the parents of apprentices of they are over twenty-one years of age and not over twenty-three. That is the proposal. Will the right hon. Gentleman listen to this letter from Midlothian, from which I will read:
    "Would you give me your advice on the following? In September, 1916, my son, at the age of eighteen, attested under the Derby Scheme—"
    and do not forget the Derby Scheme was brought about by a Minister of the Crown who is now Ambassador in Paris, and who gave certain promises. He was made a Minister of the Crown on account of broken promises he gave, and was subsequently made an Ambassador in this country, on account of broken promises.
    "and in December, 1916, was called to the Colours. For eight years previously—"
    This is the point. My right hon. Friend is a Scotsman, and knows the inwardness of what I am speaking.
    "I had to work to maintain an invalid husband, and to near a family of four, assisted by my son after he left school, but of course in his apprenticeship he did not earn much. In March, 1916, my husband died."
    10.0 P.M.
    This woman became a widow. For this boy, who joined in 1916 in the course of
    1720
    his apprenticeship, the mother cannot get 5s. a week until September, 1919, under your new Regulation, and then my right hon. Friend comes to that box, as he is entitled to do, with tears in his voice, and tells us about the magnificent advance of the British troops. We all admire our own troops. There is not a man to-night who is not going home happier and with a lighter step because of the news we have heard at that box. My right hon. Friend knows from personal experience, and many of us have had the same experience, of what these advances mean to all of us, the wiping out of many relatives and friends we have known and loved all our days. It is all right for some of us heads of households who can keep things going. What about the mothers in the streets of our big cities, the mothers in the little cottages in the villages of this country, dreading the postman's knock after reading of the victory in the papers to-morrow—whether that is going to bring the little brown paper that brings so much? The mothers of those boys, who are making these advances, those boys who are enabling us to sit here to-night to discuss the affairs of State, cannot get a paltry 5s. a week. If the boy is killed they cannot establish a claim to a pension, because, forsooth, they cannot prove that there is any pre-war dependence. I would cut off my right hand before I would be left in a position to be thought mean and paltry to these people. I do honestly say—and I have waited all day to do it, and I do not think the House can complain of repetition—that if there is one thing this nation must do, and must do completely, it is to receipt the account after the bravery and courage of these young lads, and the services they have rendered to this nation. If we cannot receipt this account, then we shall go down to posterity with the shame of it upon our heads.
    Because I have been unable to get any satisfactory reply, any concessions up to this moment, because these allowances come into operation on the 1st October, before we shall come back to this House, in order that we may have an opportunity of discussing this in a full House, and an opportunity of dividing this House on a fair issue, I beg to move to leave out the words "15th October," in order to insert the words "24th September." That will enable us to come back here before these allowances are in operation. It will

    1721
    enable us to ascertain the opinion of the wives and dependants in the country. We have no right to go away for ten weeks' holiday, leaving those people in this condition. We have no moral right to do it, and I will not subscribe to it.
    Mr. ROCH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am surprised, in view of the Amendment just moved, that there is no reply from the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh has now on two occasions brought the question of which he has spoken before the attention of the Government. Up to the present the Government has been adamant. We have had a reply from the Financial Secretary to the War Office justifying the revised scale. Everybody admits that it is a considerable improvement on what has prevailed in the past. The revision, nevertheless, leaves very serious anomalies, and these are going to constitute grievances which will be felt in many homes during the coming winter. We all know that during this winter this War will be felt in the homes of this country in a way in which it has not been felt before. All Members of this House, no matter where they sit, will be agreed that, wherever the hardships of the War should be felt, that, at least, in the case of these particular dependants, upon whose behalf my hon. Friend speaks, these hardships should be least felt.
    The real question which the Government have to face is the giving of an effective opportunity for expressing the opinion of the House upon the points raised. Efforts have been made to bring the Government to what we believe to be a reasonable frame of mind. But the two recent occasions were scarcely adequate, because, obviously, it is impossible to ascertain the sense of the House on the Vote of Credit and Consolidated Fund Bill. My hon. Friend, however, felt so keenly that on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill he went to a Division, unwisely in my opinion, because the great majority of Members felt that they could not vote against money for the War, even on a grievance so important as this. No man could be blamed for voting against the Amendment on that occasion. What i desired is an opportunity to the House to express an opinion on this question by itself—that the sense of the House may really be tested. Is the Government
    1722
    willing to give such an opportunity? We do not desire to delay the Adjournment of the House to-night, or, indeed, to press the Amendment, if the Government will give us an assurance that when the House does meet there will be an opportnuity on a substantive Motion for the House to express its opinion freely upon this question. Two nights ago we had the Lotteries Bill. There was great excitement. Those benches were thronged. The front benches were full. There were appeals to great moral principles on an issue as trifling and as petty as has ever engaged Parliament during the War. Here we have an essential matter. It touches people who are really making sacrifices. This is really a serious question. Not whether a number of society ladies' pearls should or should not be raffled. This concerns the wives and dependants of the men who are fighting to-night as to whether or not they are being fairly treated by their countrymen. Cannot the Government give us a day for the discussion? There is not so much business when we come back. The first week will be devoted to Scottish Education, an important measure no doubt, but the great bulk of it will not be able to be put into operation for ten years. This is a thing that comes within the next ten weeks. If the Leader of the House is not prepared to grant our request we are prepared to divide the House on the Motion for Adjournment.
    Mr. MORRELL: It is surprising that no reply from the Government has been given to the speeches made on this subject. I certainly had no intention of addressing the House, and should not have got up, but I do not think the Government is treating this House with proper respect. We have a whole bench of Ministers here, and not a word of any sort has been said upon this matter. I can hardly imagine anything more important than the subject matter raised in the speech of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hogge). Not only is the matter important, but it is of importance in view of what happened in Debate yesterday on the Third Reading. My hon. Friend made a statement the accuracy of which was directly challenged by the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend gave notice to the Prime Minister that he intended to raise this matter to-day. The Prime Minister apparently has been unable to get here, but the Leader of the House is here. Is he going to say anything upon this important matter? Is he

    1723
    going to give the House any guidance as to what are the facts, as to what is the truth of the case put forward? Are we to hear nothing from the Government benches? We are accustomed to very strange procedure in these days, but certainly in all the ten years I have been in the House I cannot remember any case comparable to this, in which you have an important matter brought forward, after due notice, by an hon. Member who has every qualification to speak upon the subject. The whole Treasury Bench, including the Leader of the House, sits there, and we do not have a word said. The right hon. Gentleman smiles. He thinks it is very funny.
    Mr. BONAR LAWindicated dissent.
    Mr. MORRELL: I assure him it is not. This is not treating the House of Commons, or the women concerned, or the matter of pensions with respect.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is going to speak in a little while.
    Mr. MORRELL: If so I am delighted to hear it, and I will say no more. The right hon. Gentleman made no motion to get up or that he was going to speak, or I would not have said so much. I should like to hear the defence. There is a very strong case, it seems to me, for the Amendment, so that we may discuss this very serious matter, which has been adequately established during this Session. There is not sufficient time now, but there is an opportunity for making it by coming back a little earlier; by not taking a long ten weeks, which are really unnecessary. I hope sincerely, unless we get some adequate answer, that the House will support my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: Although I absolutely agree with the last speaker, I think it is quite right that the Minister should not intervene at once, but allow hon. Members first to express their views. I remember one occasion when the Front Ministerial Bench was taken very severely to task for intervening too early in the Debate, and has, in fact, been asked not to reply until they have heard hon. Members speak. I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Front Bench for not jumping up too soon and for allowing those who sit on the Back Benches to say what they wish.
    1724
    Whatever may be our opinion in regard to his politics I feel that the Leader of the House is the last person in this House to treat any hon. Members with discourtesy.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Morrell) complained that I smiled, but that is an offence of which I cannot very often plead guilty. Fault has been found with me for not making a speech on this question, but I have made a good many more speeches than I desired to make. There really is no ground for complaining that we have not dealt with this question, although it may be true that we have not dealt with it satisfactorily. All these arguments have been used before, and we have endeavoured to give reasons for the decisions to which we have come, after examining this question. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has referred to the state of the House at the present moment, but I am sure the hon. Member is sufficiently acquainted with this House to know that the attendance of Members very often depends, not entirely upon the subject, but upon the hon. Member who is addressing us, and it is possible that be cause the subject has been so often put forward, in precisely the same way, that more hon. Members are not present. I do not think there are many hon. Members, even in this thin House of Commons, who did not feel as I did, a little shocked that a subject, with three parts of which no man living can fail to sympathise, should be treated in the sort of tone which has been adopted by the hon. Member. It may be that we are not dealing adequately with this subject, but this, at least, is true, that the conscience of the whole of the nation as a whole is more roused now than it has ever been before in any war, and I can say that no Government anywhere has ever made so many advances in the direction of trying to deal fairly with these people as we have. I think that will be admitted even by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.
    Mr. HOGGE: Hear, hear!
    Mr. BONAR LAW: When our first proposals were brought forward, the House of Commons did not think they were adequate. I took that view, and suggested that a Committee should be set up to consider the matter. I was not in office at that time. Since then, the subject has been considered over and over again, and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh knows quite well that

    1725
    what we are now doing, whether it be adequate or not, represents an immense advance, not altogether incommensurate with the increased cost of living. On an average, the pensions and allowances have been almost doubled since the first pension was established in this House. No doubt anyone who chooses could put the case in the same way as it has been put, and it would raise an amount of sympathy which makes it almost impossible to resist any demand of this kind. Take one of the instances given by the hon. Member—that of a wife with six children, who gets 37s. 6d. a week as an allowance. Do not let us forget that if you look at it simply from the point of view of some munition workers, that is a very much larger income than even at the present higher scale of wages is being obtained by them. I say again, when we can compare the amounts that are earned by those who are working in the munition factories with the allowances we pay to the dependants of the men who are fighting our battles, and are thereby doing so much for the country, we cannot feel satisfied. But nobody will suggest we could by any possibility raise the scale of allowances so as to bring them in line with the wages paid in munition work. Would not the logical outcome of any such suggestion be that all scales of payment, including those in the workshops, should be regulated by the State all round?
    Mr. PRINGLE: And the profits of the employers as well.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that is the logical way of dealing with the matter, but I do not think it would have been possible in the present temper of this country to have made an arrangement of that kind. I have never said that the last word has been uttered on this matter. What I do say is that the subject was considered by the Government only a very short time ago, that we went into it fully, that we had before the Cabinet all the arguments which the hon. Member has again addressed to us to-day, and we dealt with the matter in a manner which we considered best, having in view all the responsibilities that we have to shoulder. I am not objecting to allowing the House of Commons to have a discussion on this subject by itself, if a Motion be brought forward making a direct claim on the lines suggested by the hon. Member. If there be such a claim put forward, and if
    1726
    there be any indication before the close of the Session that there is a general desire for such a discussion, we shall be willing to consider it favourably. Had there been any indication of a general desire for such a discussion before the Adjournment, I would have found time, and when we come back, if there be an indication of such a general desire—I do not ask for a majority of the House of Commons or anything like it, but if there be really a widespread desire that this question should be discussed by itself—I say at once that I will endeavour to find an opportunity. I think that I have tried to meet the case as fairly as I can. We are now, I hope, going to adjourn till October, but the hon. Member is very much mistaken if he thinks that we are going away for ten weeks' holiday. I admit that we shall be relieved from the necessity of attending this House, but this is the only sense in which we shall have a holiday. I hope, therefore, that Members, looking back upon the Session as a whole, will agree that the Government have tried to treat the House of Commons fairly, and that they will now allow us to adjourn.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman promises a day for discussion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly; quite definitely if there is any indication that there is really any general desire, and by that, as I have said, I do not moan anything like half the House.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I wondered how we should find out!
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend will agree that there has never been a case in which I have made a promise of that kind where the House has not found some way of letting me know.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does this mean that the House will meet again before the General Election?
    Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman is a very old and practised hand in the House of Commons, and he knows perfectly well that in putting a case we use certain arguments in order to achieve certain ends. We put things in a certain way in order to achieve our purpose. I have raised this question three times in order to get what my right hon. Friend has now promised us.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: You have never asked for it before!
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. It was I who put down the original question. It was I to whom my right hon. Friend said that he would refer it to a Committee of the War Cabinet, and it was he to whom I put the question whether we should have an opportunity of discussing it before we went away. I was wiped out on all these occasions, because there were more people here then, and I had not moved an Amendment at half-past ten at night in order to shorten the Recess. I am perfectly prepared to withdraw my Amendment after what my right hon. Friend has said. I am certain that in the Recess hon. Members will hear enough about the matter from their own constituents, apart altogether from anything that we have done to stir them up, on account of the increase in prices, the shortage of coal, and so on, and make them welcome the opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman has offered.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original question again proposed.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I desire to address the House in reference to the speech delivered by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs this afternoon. That speech, taken in conjunction with the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, conveys to us the impression that the War Cabinet has once again gone back to what was known as the "knock-out blow" policy. That is particularly borne in upon one by the speech of the Foreign Secretary. It appears that we are now again looking to such a victory in the field as will enable us to carry out those obligations to our Allies which have been set out in what are known as the secret treaties—obligations to secure great territorial advantages to France and Italy. The Foreign Secretary assures us that we are going to claim something substantial for ourselves in the retention of the German colonies, a retention which, according to him, is to prevent Germany amassing great forces of native troops, but which every reasonable man knows is to enable us to retain the sources of raw materials from German industries and transfer them to our own. It is that speech which limits the gratification I felt to-night in hearing of the great advance and victory of our men, because these great feats of heroism will fructify in nothing if they simply mean
    1728
    that we are going to cast further burdens upon our soldiers. If, whenever we achieved success, we are going to harden our terms and put further great obligations upon our men, of what use is it to them, at any rate, that victory such as we have heard of to-day should be achieved? If we are going back to that policy of the knock-out blow, we should take into consideration what it really portends and make proper preparation for it. That object cannot be achieved within one year or two years; possibly it may be at the very earliest three years. If the Government is intent upon carrying out that policy of military victory, cost what it may, then undoubtedly a time has come when it should make proper preparation for carrying on such a military policy. We have heard during recent Debates, especially in that upon the League of Nations—May I call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the constant interruption going on below the Bar, and ask whether it is in order for hon. Members outside the House to interrupt a speaker by conversation which must distract him? I am trying to say what I have to say before eleven o'clock, but if I am interrupted I shall go on, which I believe will mean that I have an opportunity of continuing my speech to-morrow. I would draw your attention to that, Sir, and ask whether I should be interrupted in this way?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not in order for hon. Members who are technically outside the House to engage in conversation. If they wish to do so they should come and take their seats within the House.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: We have heard the fear expressed in recent Debates that if some such arrangement is not made we may have a further war, which would mean the end of civilisation. I do not think that fear need be indulged because the continuation of this War, if it is rendered necessary by the diplomatic policy of the Government, will end civilisation and I am not so sure that the Prime Minister is not at the back of his mind encouraged in his military policy by the knowledge that the continuation of the War will bring about a great revolutionary crisis in this country. I am not so sure that the Prime Minister does not know sub-consciously that he is luring the Tory party and all it stands for to destruction.

    1729
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles, but if he knew the Prime Minister as well as some of us who were associated with him in the great reform before the War he would know that while he is quite incapable of grasping any great economic principle he is at heart an incendiary, and I do not think he has any inclination to safeguard anything pertaining to the vested interests of the old social order in this country. That will not retard him in the prolongation of the War but that it will bring about the overthrow of the social state I am perfectly confident. Not that I mind. I do not object in the least. The one hope that this War brings me is that it will end civilisation as we knew it. After all, what is there in the civilisation of the pre-war era which was particularly worth salvation. We need not arrest the War for the purpose of saving such a civilisation. It was difficult to quite comprehend what the term civilisation means. I think we can only arrive at it by considering the process of civilisation in operation and then getting to some understanding of this precious system which some hon. Members fear will be overthrown. I have myself seen the process of civilisation in operation. You may take the state of a savage tribe living upon this land and enjoying its fruits. The civilised people arrive to civilise them. The process is to take away their land, to give them no opportunity of providing for their own needs except they go out and work. By the deprivation of their lands they are compelled to do so. The process of civilisation begins. If they resist it war is proclaimed upon them, the Maxim gun is used, they are shot down and brought within the boundaries of the British Empire, and they become thoroughly civilised people, going out to work for a pittance. Such is the process of civilisation. It is deprivation of the people of men's primary rights. Precisely the same process has taken place in this country. The people as a whole have been deprived of their primary rights of land and all natural opportunities. They have been reduced to a condition of a virtual slave people, with the privileged few on top and the ill-paid slave labour beneath. Civilisation, therefore, seems to me to be a simple system of maintaining privilege for the benefit of the privileged few. It matters not, therefore, in the least to the great mass of people whether such a system is overthrown. That it will
    1730
    be overthrown I think is clearly obvious, and if the Prime Minister has at the back of his mind the thought that the War need not be arrested, because it will have that good effect of creating social, economic, and financial conditions that will overthrow the social order and enable him to play a part such as he would like to play, and I think he will play in the history of this country, I would say to him that that time has already come. It will come through economic and financial causes. There is not the slightest need in order to bring about that revolutionary change to continue the War for another two years. Another two years' war will raise the National Debt to ten thousand million pounds. It will cost us a Budget of a thousand millions a year, which we cannot find. There is no need to go to that point to bring about revolutionary change. We have reached that point already. We shall end this financial year with a debt of eight thousand millions, which will necessitate the raising of taxation to the extent of £800,000,000. That in itself will be a problem such as will bring about a revolutionary change, but there is a greater problem still associated with the ending of this War. We are told that we have raised some 6,250,000 men for the Army and the Navy. These men will one day, when the War is over, be disbanded and unemployed. You have millions of men trained in munition works and subsidiary processes connected with the War which will end with the War, and a great many of those men will be unemployed, or who will be transferred to other industries and whose transference will not immediately take place. As regards the industries of this country, we know that some of the consumers of their products to the extent of many millions will need them no more, because they have been slain on the field of battle.
    We know that over huge territories and vast populous cities in Russia there is abysmal poverty and famine, and no prospect of purchasers there for the manufactures of this country. That holds good as regards virtually the whole continent of Europe. Therefore there can be no possibility that in the conditions after the War there will be such a demand as the pre-war demand for the products of this country. The present labour forces of this country, supplemented by machinery and women who have been providing for our civilian and war needs, and for our

    1731
    Allies' needs as well. What will be the conditions after the War, when there will be lessened demand for this labour, and less demand for our commodities in other countries? We shall have a considerable surplus of millions of men discharged from the Army, and you will have conditions of unemployment, and will be confronted with a state of things which will cast great burdens of taxation upon a people impoverished by conditions which result from the War. You will have this class of unemployed men seeking employment with industries restricted in output through lack of demand and the conditions created by the War. You have already prepared for financial, economic, and social revolution in the days to come. We hear it glibly stated that we must go on fighting until we win the War. No one will be able to say who has won the War for the next ten or twenty years. Hon. Members may be amused at that idea, but that shows they have never thought of the subject. Though you may have a great military victory which may enable you to say you have won the War, ten or twenty years hence it is possible that those who are defeated may be in a stronger economic, industrial, and political position than those who had a military victory. The War, I say, will be won by the country which ten or twenty years hence is in the strongest economic and industrial position. The Government must have concern for the industrial and economic future they are building up for the nation. To my mind, we are taking too great a burden on ourselves—that has been the tendency of this country all through. In the past it may have been a necessity, but when we think of the Allies we have taken upon ourselves, the vast extent to which we have turned our industries for the production of munitions, the great services of the Navy, it is obvious that if we are not careful we, of all the combatants, will come out of the War worst industrially and economically. The more we turn our manufactories and industries to the making of the necessities of the War the greater will be the difficulties of this nation in the restoration of our former industrial activities. We read that for America we are now to turn out the clothing for some millions of men, and we have to provide munitions, and so on. All that means that our labour and our capital and our industry are being
    1732
    diverted not only for the war needs of our own Armies, but for the war needs of the Allies as well. Consequently, the disruption of industrial life will be greater in this country than in any other Allied belligerent. The consequence is seen in certain directions already. Take, for instance, our mercantile marine, which once gave us the supremacy of the world, which has so largely created the financial supremacy of this country. Our mercantile marine has been reduced in this War by some 3,500,000 tons, while the mercantile marine of our Allies has been maintained. In the case of America, it is going up by leaps and bounds, a fact which indicates that the indefinite prolongation of this War means the end of the mercantile supremacy of this country. When we hear speeches made which entail this indefinite prolongation of the War without any preparation being made by the Government for the economic and industrial result I am filled with concern. If we go on in this way we shall arrive at a position in which we shall have a National Debt of £10,000,000,000. Why does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer come forward with such financial proposals as will give some guarantee that the obligations can be met in future? I am confident that they cannot be met in the future if you raise your revenue by way of loan and cast this burden upon the impoverished community that is to come after the War. We see gigantic expenditure taking place. Because of the ease with which we can raise money there is no endeavour to curtail to the utmost the expenditure of this country. Individually and nationally we have embarked upon a record of expenditure simply because we can raise money easily as long as the Government can keep its printing machines going turning out paper money. It is because I feel it my duty to put on record my view that no proper regard is paid by those who exercise such diplomacy that I felt compelled to address the House to-night on the prospects that are in store.
    Mr. MORRELL: I am extremely sorry to address the House at this time of night. No one desires more than I do to get this Debate over. For the last ten hours, since one o'clock, I have been waiting to address the House on this matter. It was a great disappointment to myself and many of our party—many of those who are perhaps small in number in this place, but speak for a very large number of people in the country, that the Debate which took place

    1733
    on the peace proposals was brought to an end so soon after the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had made his speech, before we had an opportunity of replying to him, I, therefore, just rise to say—I do not intend to keep the House after eleven o'clock—that I trust that in future those who speak for a very small minority in this House, but who speak on a very big subject and for a very large number of people in this country will have more opportunity than we have had in the past of bringing before the House the great issues of peace and war. All through the Debate on the Vote of Credit I wanted to address the House on this subject as did other of my hon. Friends. Finally, the Motion for Adjournment came, and there was only a very short time left, so that we were prevented from rising. All sorts of other comparatively insignificant matters were discussed at a time when thousands upon thousands of brave men are losing their lives in a quarrel which some of us might have brought to an end on perfectly honourable terms to this country in a just and durable peace, very much more quickly than seems likely to be the case if the present policy continues to be pursued. I do not want to detain the House now, or to stop the Adjournment Motion, as I felt tempted to do, because the Leader of the House, I recognise, has met us fairly, and I do not want to stand in the way of the officials. I must say, however, that I want very much to make this protest against the way in which we—although a small minority in this House—have been treated during the Debates of the last two weeks, when we have had before us issues of enormous import-
    1734
    ance, not only to this generation, but to the whole future of the country. In all that time we had not an opportunity to put our views before the House. That may seem a matter of comparatively small importance to some hon. Members, but to us the questions at issue are of enormous importance, and I feel that I would not be doing my duty unless I protest against my hon. Friends and myself not having had an opportunity to express our opinions. It is for these reasons that I make this public protest.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday, 15th October."

  TRANSPORT.
  Ordered, "That the Select Committee on Transport have leave to sit, notwithstanding the adjournment of the House."—[Mr. James Hope.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at One minute before Eleven o'clock, till Tuesday, 15th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.

WAR.
  ECONOMIC POLICY.
  ECONOMIC POLICY.
  LLOYD'S UNDERWRITERS.
  LLOYD'S UNDERWRITERS.
  SPIRITS IN BOND, SCOTLAND.
  SPIRITS IN BOND, SCOTLAND.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
    BULLOCKS (SLAUGHTER PERMITS).
    BULLOCKS (SLAUGHTER PERMITS).
    EDIBLE OIL.
    EDIBLE OIL.
    BUTTER.
    BUTTER.
  IRELAND.
    PRISON WARDERS (PAY, ETC.).
    PRISON WARDERS (PAY, ETC.).
    LAND PURCHASE.
    LAND PURCHASE.
    PETROL SUPPLIES.
    PETROL SUPPLIES.
    DUBLIN REBUILDING.
    DUBLIN REBUILDING.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    SPECIAL SERVICE VOLUNTEERS.
    SPECIAL SERVICE VOLUNTEERS.
    SOLE SURVIVING SONS.
    SOLE SURVIVING SONS.
    YOUNG SOLDIERS.
    YOUNG SOLDIERS.
    SCHOOL CARETAKERS.
    SCHOOL CARETAKERS.
  WESTFIELD CAMP, CUPAR.
  WESTFIELD CAMP, CUPAR.
  ARMY HORSES.
  ARMY HORSES.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (STAFF).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (STAFF).
  MUNITIONS.
    JONAS, COLVER AND COMPANY.
    JONAS, COLVER AND COMPANY.
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
  ALIENS.
    HOLZAPFELS, LIMITED.
    HOLZAPFELS, LIMITED.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
    INTERNED BRITISH CIVILIANS.
    INTERNED BRITISH CIVILIANS.
    RELIGIOUS EMBLEMS.
    RELIGIOUS EMBLEMS.
BURGHS GAS SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 3) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 6) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lords following be proposed to the House as the Panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act:—

D. Argyll.

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss).

L. Kintore (E. Kintore).

L. Elphinstone.

L. Southwark.

Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

MAXIMUM PRICES FOR CEREALS.
THE EARL OF SELIBORNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Hindlip

1. Whether it is correct that it has been decided not to raise the maximum price for cereals produced in Great Britain.

2. When was this decision arrived at.

668

3. Whether, in view of the increase in the cost of production, and the necessity of encouraging the production of cereals in this country, His Majesty's Government propose to reconsider their decision.

4. At what date and by whom were the maximum prices for cereals fixed, and have they been reconsidered. If so, when and by whom.

5. Were the prices fixed by a Committee appointed by the Ministry of Food. If so, who were the members of the Committee, and had producers of cereals any representative on the Committee.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I very much regret that, having asked my noble friend Lord Hindlip to postpone this Question, I shall be unable to-day to give a definite reply. But I will endeavour to explain the procedure adopted with reference to the points on which information is desired
It is the duty of the Food Controller to fix maximum prices for cereals produced in Great Britain, and in the discharge of this duty he is naturally assisted by the three Departments of Agriculture concerned. There has been set up a Home Cereals Committee for the purpose of advising the Food Controller in this respect. It comprises representatives of the Wheat Commission, of the three Departments of Agriculture, the milling and grain trades, and the Army Forage Department, thus covering producer, dealer, and user. The new Central Agricultural Advisory Council have now asked for direct representation on the committee, and they have been invited to send two representatives.
For the encouragement of corn production, and in order to inspire confidence among the farmers; it was announced early in this year that maximum prices for the 1918 crop would be fixed on substantially the same basis as those of 1917. Recommendations were made to the Food Controller some weeks ago in favour of some slight adjustments in the scale of prices; and, in view of the changed seasonal conditions, some further modifications may be thought desirable. The urgency of the matter is recognised, and a definite announcement will be made as soon as possible.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I wish to say a word in connection with this question

669
because it appears to have been forgotten by the Government why there is all this trouble and difficulty about the increased cost of production, arising from the prices settled or recommended by the various Wages Boards throughout the country. I wish to remind the Government of the reason why all this has arisen, and at the same time to tell them how serious is the position, in my opinion, unless some fitting and proper adjustment of prices is carried out without delay.
Just imagine how farmers in this respect have been treated. On February 23, 1917—and I have stated this before in the House without its receiving any attention whatever, without its having been published in the Press, or attended to in any degree, so far as I can see, by the Governraent—the Prime Minister gave the most unqualified pledge that ever was given by a Minister, that there should be no Wages Board set up till after the war. I will quote his own words, so that there can be no mistake upon the subject. He began by stating that there must be an addition in wages for the agricultural labourers, and he further stated that they had taken as the proper figure the 25s. a week recommended by the National' Service Department, under Mr. Chamberlain at that time. Then he went on to say this, and I hope it may be taken into consideration by the Government—
"We discussed for some time" [that is, I presume, the Cabinet] "the question of whether you should have a Wages Board to fix wages or whether you should have a fixed minimum. That is what influenced us eventually in not settling up a Wages Board during the war. The farmer—I will not say preferred to know the worst, but he preferred to know exactly what he had to face—
And here I may say that if you are to hope for any really permanent increased production, that is something which the farmer must know and it never ought to be forgotten. He must know how he is situated with regard to the cost of production, in order to know how to carry out his business successfully. The Prime Minister proceeded—
"He (the farmer) did not want to be bothered with Wages Boards; he preferred to concentrate the whole of his mind on ploughing the land. After the war Wages Boards can be set up."
Now, is it possible to have given a more positive pledge than is given in those words? Yet when the Corn Production Bill was laid upon the Table, it was seen
670
at once that the second part of that Bill was devoted entirely to the setting up of the Agricultural Wages Boards. I have always said that I cannot blame—and I never have blamed—the Prime Minister for this, for in the multitude of other occupations and serious matters which he had to carry on his back, and with all his immense responsibility, I was perfectly well aware that he never attended one single debate upon the Corn Production Bill during the time it was passing through the House of Commons. He was constantly abroad, as everybody knows, going to Paris at one time, to Italy at another, and somewhere else on a third occasion in connection with vital matters concerning the successful prosecution of the war. I have good reason for believing that he was not aware of it, and yet it has been done. I hope that after what I have said, to-day, for the third time on this point, it will at least receive some attention and consideration.
I will go to another sentence in that speech, which is in these words. The Prime Minister turned round to Mr. Balfour, saying—
"My right hon. friend beside me (Mr. Balfour) reminds me that it is not merely during the war that this guarantee of a minimum wage will be given, but during the period when there will lee a guarantee of prices";
—showing conclusively that these two things (the fixed minimum wage on the one hand, and the fixed price for corn on the other) were each the complement of the other. But there was a third pledge given, and this was with regard to maximum prices. What was said upon t he question of maximum prices was this—
"The only guarantee we have given of the maximum is this, that if the State commandeers either potatoes or cereals the prices will not be fixed without the consent of the Boards of Agriculture of England, Scotland, and Ireland; therefore there will be an opportunity of consultation before the prices are fixed. Obviously, you cannot limit the power of the State to commandeer for national purpo es. I hope and trust that, with this guarantee, the farmers will put their backs into it."
That is exactly what the farmers did, and it is exactly what many Members of Parliament, like the member who has now the honour of addressing your Lordships, also did.
We went all over the country, and pointed to the guarantees thus given. I went to a variety of meetings, and I said

671
"Here is the man for you. He has made you these promises and these great concessions, which I think no other Minister would have ventured to make in these days, and, he having done this, it is your business to support him." And they did; for, late as it was in the season, they grew 350,000 acres of more corn than had been grown in any year before for a very long time. What more could they do? And now they are confronted with the position that unless something is done, and done directly, towards increasing the price of corn, you may say good-bye to all your hopes of a largely increased production of corn, which is the one kind of food which is most essential to the population, and of which you will find it stated in the Royal Commission which was appointed to consider our supplies of food during the war, that this is the one kind of food which is consumed in an immensely larger proportion by the population of the country than any other single kind of food you can name.
Now let me point out what your own Minister of Agriculture said upon this question. He was asked to attend a great meeting of farmers in Norfolk, and I can tell you that another meeting of 3,000 farmers in Norfolk was held not very long ago, an account of which was sent to me. I read it with no great surprise. Yet I never heard of a meeting of 3,000 farmers before during the whole of my political career. Therefore you may imagine how strongly they feel on this subject in Norfolk, which, next to Lincolnshire, is probably the largest corn-growing county in England. In Lincolnshire they feel just as strongly, and they write to me just as strongly as they do from the county of Norfolk. What did Mr. Prothero state? I will read an extract from the report—
"Mr. Prothero proceeded to answer questions that had been handed to him in writing. The first was, 'In the event of any rise in agricultural wages, what increase does the Government intend to make in the maximum prices fixed for farm produce? Mr. Prothero said that the cost of production was the basis upon which prices had been fixed, and any increase would and must be met by corresponding changes in the maximum prices."
That is a positive statement made to a great meeting of farmers, which cannot be contradicted. The Minister would be the first to admit it, and I am quite confident that what he said to them he must have made known to the Cabinet. I say that it is nothing less than my duty, and
672
the duty of all people who know something about this subject, to press what the President of the Board of Agriculture has stated upon the Government with all the force at our command.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, my noble friend has made a considered attack upon all Departments of the Government, to which I have no right to reply.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: No right?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Only with the leave of the House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Viscount has made a considered attack upon various Departments of the Government, to which, I regret to say, I have no right to reply; but if your Lordships will allow me to say a few words, I shall be glad. We cannot go back upon the establishment of Wages Boards.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Quite true.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: They exist, and they have to be taken into account in fixing prices, but I deprecate the view that a change of policy is the same thing as a breach of faith. Parliament insists—and perhaps rightly insists—on debating all kinds of matters before the policy of the Government is finally adjusted, and the natural result is that announcements are made, or expectations are aroused, which have to be modified later on. Conditions in time of war change so quickly that what may be true to-day, as a statement of fact or as an outline of policy, may in a month's time have to be reversed. I regret, therefore, that it should be considered that because at one stage—in regard to the food problem, for instance—a particular view is announced, that view, in the changing conditions of war, may not be modified later on without subjecting the Government to charges such as we have just heard from the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: May I interrupt my noble friend for one moment? Does the noble Earl mean to say that this doctrine is to hold good when, on the very faith of the statement made, great additional expenses have been incurred and unusual efforts have been made in full reliance upon that statement?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I should like to check the statement of the Prime Minister to which Lord Chaplin has referred, but I do not think that the effort to promote cultivation would have been decreased if the establishment of Wages Boards had been announced at an earlier moment. I think the two went together, and I do not believe that if Wages Boards had been established or announced at an earlier stage the acreage grown would have been materially increased in consequence. The only other point I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to is this. Personally, I should be very glad if circumstances justified the increase of prices, but I hope those who advocate this will not consider our home prices in isolation.
There are other countries where corn prices are fixed and where guarantees are accorded, notably in the United States of America. Lord Chaplin will remember that quite recently an Act was passed by both houses of Parliament in the United states to raise the price from $2.20 to $2.40. That Act was vetoed by President Wilson. If we take a corresponding step here there will be no veto. It would be hollowed, of course, by a rrecrudescence of the demand elsewhere to increase the price, and that demand would, of course, be conceded. That naturally would react on other sources of supply to the Allies, notably in the Argentine and in India, and, possibly, in Australia. Therefore an increase beyond an adjustment of price in this country may involve the taxpayer here in an outlay two or three or four times greater than the increased guarantee to the producer at home. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will remember that adjustments here will be followed by reaction elsewhere, and that the question should not be treated in isolation.

WITHDRAWAL OF KEYMEN FROM AGRICULTURE.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether His Majesty's Government have had their attention drawn to the following Resolutions passed unanimously by the National Agricultural Council on 6th August last; and whether he can give an undertaking on their behalf that no more keymen will be withdrawn from agriculture, and that those keymen considered indispensable to food production by the county war agricultural execu-
674
tive committees will be released from military service—

1. That the National Agricultural Council, representing landowners, farmers, and labourers, desires to enter the strongest protest in its power against any further withrdawal of keymen from agriculture as certain disastrously to affect food production; and calls upon the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries strenuously to resist any further pressure to make such men available for military service.

2. That in view of the fact that so many key-men have already been called to the Colours as seriously to jeopardise the maintenance of the present standard of food production, and to make its increase impossible, and that those men, while essential to agriculture, represent but a small fraction of the fighting forces of the Crown, county war agricultural executive committees should be empowered to claim the return from the Army to the land of any men who in their opinion are essential to the cultivation of the greatly increased area of arable land during the next ensuing farming year.

3. That these resolutions be communicated to all the mèmbers of the War Cabinet, to the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and to the Director-General of National Service.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in asking His Majesty's Government this Question I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it is the first time that any pronouncement of the National Agricultural Council has been mentioned in this House, or, indeed, in Parliament. I think I may claim that the resolution to which I draw attention is the most authoritative pronouncement on agriculture that has ever yet been made, because never hitherto have agricultural labourers and farmers and landowners united in one organisation for the purpose of formulating their joint demands from time to time. I was desired by the Council, after they had passed this resolution, to ask this Question of His Majesty's Government, and I was urged to endeavour, with the greatest emphasis at my command, to make His Majesty's Government realise the danger of the present situation.
"Danger" was the word that I was asked to use. There is a general belief that, unless stopped by the War Cabinet, Sir Auckland Geddes will resume his recruiting operations among the keymen of agriculture the moment after the harvest. By "keymen" I mean of course carters, ploughmen, engine men, and shepherds; those most skilled men on whose operations agriculture depends. There is no doubt in the minds of the county war agricultural committees that Sir Auckland Geddes will

675
resume his recruiting operations among these men unless stopped, and I have been asked by the National Agricultural Council to warn the Government that if more of these men are taken the industry will be brought to a standstill.
The situation is already more serious than the Government realise. Case after case has been brought to our notice where, apparently, there is really no prospect of the farmer getting in the harvest which is now standing on the ground. The harvest will be much more difficult to get in than was anticipated a month ago. There has been abundant rain. I have no doubt, the rain has done much more rood than harm, but the result is that many acres of valuable corn are, in some eases, almost flat on the ground and cannot be harvested by machine. It will have to be harvested by scythe or hook (by hand) and where that is the case, on a farm that has been absolutely denuded, or almost denuded, of its skilled men, I do not wonder at the farmer sitting (low n in despair and wondering how he is going to get his harvest in. Therefore the situation is a very serious one and demands all the, assistance that His Majesty's Government can give, and nothing would reassure the farmer more than to know that this taking of his key-men is going to stop.
The National Agricultural Council also claim the right, not at their own discretion, but at the discretion of the war agricultural executive committees, to claim back from the Army some of these keymen who have been taken, and who in their opinion are really essential for the farming operations of the coming year. The total number of such men that might be claimed is probably much less than the number of Americans landing in France in any one day, and their corporative value here on the land or in the Army really does not admit of argument. Therefore I have been asked to put this matter in a clear light before the Government, and to express, as I have done, the sense of responsibility of the National Agricultural Council in its demands and also its sense of the extreme seriousness of the position.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): My Lords, I regret very much, and your Lordships will also regret it, that my noble friend the Secretary of State for
676
War is not able to be in his place to-day as he desired to answer some of these questions. I will, however, give your Lordships such information as I am able to do upon the subject.
First of all, the Government are aware of the resolutions passed by the National Agricultural Council, and the matters referred to in them have received for a long time their fullest consideration. When the call was made for the last 30,000 men the position as affecting the whole agricultural industry was the subject of the most earnest consideration by the Government. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture on more than one occasion placed the entire facts before the Government, and explained very fully the probable effect of the withdrawal of these men, not only on the coming harvest, but on the general need of agriculture. He went as far as was possible to go to save the country districts from the hardships which the withdrawal of these men would cause, and the Government were fully informed of and thoroughly realised, the effect of their proposals.
My right hon. friend showed quite plainly that the industry was dependent on these men; that they were in the very highest degree indispensable, and that the number of unskilled men who may possibly be called upon to replace them would be of comparatively small value without their guidance. He went further, and made it quite clear that the absence of these keymen would imperil not only the coming harvest but the whole programme of food production which had been laid down as indispensable for the safeguarding of the nation's food supply. With all these facts before them, and in the full knowledge that disaster to agriculture at this moment would have an effect upon the war no less than a disaster to our Army, the Government took the responsibility of deciding—and no one but the Government, with a full knowledge of all the relative demands and necessity for man-power, could decide—that these men should be taken away from the imperative needs of agriculture to supply the still more imperative needs of the Army.
The House is aware that the full number of 30,000 men was not taken, and that on a certain date, owing to further representations which were made and other causes, the call up of these men was stopped, and 9,000 men were left until after the harvest

677
In addition, I am able to inform your Lordships of certain figures which have been given to me by the Ministry of National Service. Ten thousand men are being released from the Army for England and Wales.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Are they skilled men?
LORD CLINTON: Not largely skilled men.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is the whole point.
LORD CLINTON: Previously to this, the Ministry of National Service had arranged with the War Office to give one month's agricultural furlough to men in command depots who are not fit for discharge within a month, and also to allow convalescent soldiers to do harvest work. The Ministry of National Service is also arranging for the employment of about 15,000 men from public and elementary schools, scouts divisions, etc. Further, the part-time committees which have been established by the Ministry are providing large numbers of seasonal workers. One committee in Liverpool has provided workers to do 2,500 days' work on the land each week.
Besides the above temporary sources of labour supply, permanent war agricultural volunteers are being enrolled, and up to date 2,068 have been actually placed in permanent situations on the land, and at least a further 2,000 have applied for jobs who have not yet been placed. These volunteers will form a permanent source from which agricultural labour can be reinforced, and approximately 60 per cent. of these men have had previous agricultural experience. The Food Production Department are arranging to have a number of these volunteers trained as ploughmen. The number of men in agricultural companies now number about 60,000, and they are also a permanent reinforcement to agriculture. The War Office has agreed, where low category men in such companies were placed by the county agricultural executive committees with a farmer—provided that the men are not above category B 2—that they will be left with such farmer for a period of twelve months. A number of the men in the agricultural companies have now had sufficient experience of agriculture to make them valuable.
678
There are 17,100 prisoners of war at work on the land in Great Britain, and 488 have been allocated but are not yet at Work. In addition to this, arrangements are being made to make a temporary levy, if necessary, for harvest work on prisoners of war employed on other work in this country. It should also be remembered that men are being constantly discharged from the Army and are going back to agricultural work. Those are the figures which I am able to give about these men. We have no information as to how large a number of them are trained men, with the exception of the 60 per cent. of agricultural volunteers to whom I will refer.
The first of the two specific Questions asked me by the noble Earl was whether an undertaking could be given that no more keymen will be withdrawn. I am authorised to give that undertaking, subject of course, I imagine, to no urgent need arising for the Army which is not at present anticipated.
LORD GAINFORD: The 11,000 men to whom the noble Lord has referred will not be taken?
LORD CLINTON: The noble Lord means, I think, 9,000. I understand it to apply to them.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The point is not that. All these 9,000 men may not be keymen. There may possible be young men among them.
LORD CLINTON: Quite so. I understood that Lord Gainford was asking whether my authority went so far as to say that those keymen included in the 9,000 would not be taken. I understand that is so, but I regret that I am not able to make any statements as to the release from the Army of the keymen already called up.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Is that matter under consideration?
LORD CLINTON: I have no definite reply upon the subject.

FORESTRY.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he is now in a position to state the decision of His Majesty's Government on the Report of the Forestry Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I know that this matter has been receiving the close attention of the whole of the Cabinet, but a decision is very urgently called for, because there is no authority that has the means or the staff wherewith to collect the seed from the coniferous trees which will probably all be cut down in the course of the next winter, and unless this season's seed crop is collected at least, so that we may have plants for replanting after the war, there really is little or no prospect of any such seed being forthcoming when the war is over, as an almost complete clearance will have been made at the end of this next winter. The whole problem of re-afforestation depends on the decision of the Cabinet, and therefore my noble friend who is going to reply will not be surprised when I tell him that all who are interested in this subject in the three kingdoms are looking forward very anxiously for a decision.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, my noble friend has asked me to reply to the Question put by the noble Earl. This matter was referred by the War Cabinet to a subcommittee of Ministers Who reported generally in favour of the proposals of Mr. Acland's Committee, and their Report has been accepted by His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It would, of course, be impossible, within the limits of a Question only recently put down, to give the noble Earl full information on the subject, or upon the full details of the Report of the Committee; but I think I can state generally that a central authority for afforestation for the United Kingdom will be set up, and a policy of planting will be pursued with the least possible delay.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: With reference to the noble Earl's Question regarding the collecting of seed, I understand that there are at present many millions of trees—certainly a very large number—in the State nurseries which might be made use of, and I am informed that the seed will now be collected.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: But it is a very urgent problem.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will call the Government's attention to these two points.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If my noble friend will ask Mr. Acland. who presided over the Forestry Sub-Committee, he will explain the matter to him. All these seedlings are a very small proportion of what will be wanted, and Mr. Acland will tell my noble friend why the problem is so extremely urgent. Lord Lovat will also tell him the same.
[From Minutes of August 7.]

SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
SHROPSHIRE, WORCE TERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following twenty-five Bills received the Royal Assent—

Consolidated Fund (No. 3).

Public Works Loans.

Maternity and Child Welfare.

Trading with the Enemy (Amendment).

Government War Obligations.

British Nationality and Status of Aliens.

Education.

Trade Boards.

Asylums Officers Superannuation.

Public Health (Borrowing Powers) (Ireland).

Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges).

Naval Prize.

Corn Production (Amendment).

681

Income Tax.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 5).

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6).

Rothesay Tramways (Amendment) Order Confirmation.

Rotherham Corporation.

Maidenhead Gas.

St. Olave's Church, Southwark.

Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas.

West Sussex County Council (Bridges).

682

Bristol Corporation.

Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power.

THE AUTUMN RECESS.
LORD HILTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until Tuesday, October 15.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past one o'clock.