Sitting of 26 February 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN WALES (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Final Report of the Commissioners, with Minutes of Evidence (March, 1917—June, 1917), Appendices, and Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Small Holding (Colonies) Act, 1916, for the year 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ROYAL PARKS (CULTIVATION).
Copy presented of Report by the First Commissioner of Works on the Cultivation of certain Areas in the Royal Parks [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Minute of the Board of Education, dated 26th February, 1918, modifying the Regulations for Public Elementary Schools, 1912, in England and Wales, as already modified by the Minutes dated 4th July, 1913, 24th June, 1914, 25th November, 1914, 21st March, 1917, 26th April, 1917, and 13th February, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copy presented of Local Distribution (Misuse of Documents) Order, 1918, Seed Potatoes (1917 Crop) Prices Order, 1918, Poultry and Game (Cold Storage) Order, 1918, Milk (Registration of Dealers) Postponement Order, 1918, Oats Products (Retail Prices) Order, 1917, General
1220
Licence, Oatmeal (Restriction) Order, 1918, Condensed Milk (Distribution) Order, 1918, Barley (Export from Ireland) Order, 1918, and Canned Meat (Maximum Prices) Order, 1918, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BULGARIA AND RUSSIA.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has official information to the effect that peace has been concluded between Bulgaria and Russia; and, if so, on what terms?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): I have no official information to that effect.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask, if a question is put down, whether the right hon. Gentleman can make a statement with regard to the Russian and German situation?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is at liberty to put a question down, but statements of the kind referred to are not easy to make, and I am not sure whether anything would be gained by them.

    IMPERIAL SERVICE DISTINCTIONS
    Colonel LESLIE WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the decisions which have been arrived at with regard to the distinction or distinctions which will be awarded to all those who accepted Imperial service in 1914; and whether it is possible for these distinctions to be awarded now in order that the Territorials who joined before August, 1914, will be able to show by means of this distinction that they voluntarily were prepared to servo their country and gave up their spare time in order to fit themselves to do so?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I regret I am not at present in a position to make any announcement as to the decisions which have been arrived at.

    RESERVE OF OFFICERS (PROMOTIONS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state what number of the 270 officers on the reserved list who have received promotion under the recommendations of the Churchill Committee belong to each branch of the Service; and what proportion these numbers bear respectively to the number of reserve officers in each branch of the Service who are eligible for promotion?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The promotions in, and appointments to, the Reserve of Officers under the Army Council Instructions of 12th August, 1917, which have already been carried out, are:—

    Cavalry

    …

    23

    Royal Artillery

    …

    15

    Royal Engineers

    …

    9

    Foot Guards

    …

    10

    Infantry

    …

    207

    Army Service Corps

    …

    5

    Army Veterinary Corps

    …

    1

    270

    Five recommendations are at present awaiting verification. To give the proportion asked for in the last part of the question would involve the labour of calculating the service of every officer in the Reserve of Officers, whether in reach of promotion or not, and I regret this cannot be undertaken at the present time. The Military Secretary would be pleased to explain the position personally to my hon. and gallant Friend if he would call and see him at the War Office.
    Colonel YATE: Are any promotions to be given to the Royal Army Medical Corps?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think so; on the report of the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill).
    Colonel YATE: The Royal Army Medical Corps are not mentioned in the list, and I hope they have not been overlooked.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      EXEMPTION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS (UNITED STATES).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he can state the position of the men who, without seeing overseas service, were discharged from the Army through medical unfitness and were granted passports allowing them to proceed to America; whether the American authorities can now send these men notices calling them up for re-examination; and whether, on the strength of an examination by American doctors, they can be returned for service in this country?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): The Convention which has been concluded between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America secures to His Majesty's Ambassador in the United States power to grant certificates of exemption to British subjects in the United States. His Majesty's Ambassador is being informed of the procedure governing cases of discharged soldiers in this country, with a view to securing uniformity of practice.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that every man concerned in the demonstration at Dartmoor settlement on 8th February received a charge sheet on 10th instant; that on 9th February these men were confined after labour hours to the settlement precincts and are still being so confined, although no decision had been come to on the charges made; whether it is regular for the Home Office Committee to impose punishments before the case is decided on; and whether he was aware of this detention when he replied in the House on 14th February to questions on this matter?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): On the 8th instant 569 of the men employed under the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors at Prince-town refused to do any work, and as there could be no question that a serious offence had been committed by these men the manager, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the Committee, confined all the men concerned to quarters after labour hours. The Committee subsequently had before them the explanations

      1223
      of the men concerned, and the report of an inquiry held at their request by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester. After consideration, they approved the action of the manager, increased the period of confinement to quarters to fourteen days and reduced all the men concerned to Class E for a period of six weeks. In addition, they requested the Army Council to recall to their units two of the men's leaders who were chiefly responsible for the strike, and these men have now been recalled.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he stated in this House no punishment would be taken until the inquiry had been complete, and that punishment was taken in spite of that?
      Sir G. CAVE: No; on the contrary. It appeared from the statement made in the House on the same day. that the men were temporarily confined to quarters.
      Mr. KING: But was that not in contradiction of the Home Secretary's own assertion?
      Sir G. CAVE: Certainly not. An hon. Member asked what disciplinary action would be taken, and I said that must depend upon the result of the inquiry.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this punishment, which it was understood would, at any rate, be deferred until after the inquiry, has caused the greatest ill-feeling and discontent even amongst those who have willingly accepted and carried out the Home Office scheme previously?
      Sir G. CAVE: I am not aware of that. As a matter of fact, the whole period of confinement before the inquiry has been reckoned as part of the period of confinement awarded as a result of the inquiry.
      Mr. KING: Did the right hon. Gentleman — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]. I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this matter on the Vote on Account or on some other suitable occasion.
      Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Home Secretary whether any inquiry has been made as to the death of H. W. Firth at Prince town work centre; whether attention was called to the state of his health while in prison and while at the work centre; and whether he can state up to what date before his death he was still at work under the direction of the authorities?
      Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Dr. Battiscombe admitted in his inquest evidence on the ease of H. W. Firth, who recently died at Dartmoor settlement, that when the deceased complained of cold and requested that he might have some eggs for nourishment, he told him that it was colder in the trenches, and that all the eggs were wanted for the soldiers; whether it is in accordance with the traditions of the public service that a dying man should be subject to taunts at the hands of public officials; whether H. W. Firth was dead when the eggs were subsequently supplied; and what action he proposes to take?
      Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of H. W. Firth, a conscientious objector to military service, who died at Prince-town on 5th February; whether he is aware that this man, when in a state of extreme weakness, was compelled to work in the quarries, and when he complained was accused of malingering, was refused special diet when in hospital until within two days of his death, and was not allowed to telegraph for his wife, on the ground that it was unnecessary, on the evening before his death; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary whether he has received any request from the Dartmoor settlement to hold an impartial inquiry into the treatment of conscientious objectors in the hospital there; what reply does he propose to make to this request; and whether complaints have been made in the past concerning the hospital treatment at the Dartmoor settlement?
      Sir G. CAVE: The facts as reported to me are as follows: Shortly before his release from Maidstone Prison, Firth was passed by the medical officer as fit for either class of labour, and there was therefore no occasion for sending a medical report with him from the prison to the work centre. On arrival at Prince-town he was put to winding the quarry winch with three other men. This is work which was formerly performed by two convicts, and when performed by four men it is light work. He asked to be transferred to other work because of the cold. The medical officer was not satisfied that a change of work was neces-

      1225
      sary, but Firth was allowed to wear his overcoat while at work. He was subsequently put on to indoor work—whitewashing. He was admitted to hospital, suffering from a cold in the head, on the 24th January, and was discharged on the 26th January. He was carefully examined during that period, but no serious symptoms were found, except that he appeared to have lost flesh. On the 30th January he complained of weakness and excessive thirst. He was admitted to hospital. Diabetes was suspected, but on examination no sugar was found. On re-examination on the 5th instant sugar was found in large quantities. He then rapidly became weaker, and died on the 6th instant.
      Shortly before his death deceased asked for eggs. The medical officer informed him that they were difficult to obtain as they were wanted for military hospitals, but ordered three, which were obtained after some delay. As regards telegraphing to Firth's wife, I am informed his condition was not regarded as serious until very shortly before his death, and it did not therefore appear necessary to the medical officers to summon Mrs. Firth from Norwich. It was, of course, open to any of his friends to do so, and they did in fact send a telegram. Owing to the suddenness of Firth's death, Mrs. Firth did not arrive at Prince-town until after he was dead. An inquest was held in this case on the 8th instant. The verdict of the jury was that the deceased died from natural causes, and they expressed themselves satisfied with the treatment of the deceased by the doctors who had charge of the case. I have no reason to doubt that this verdict and rider were found by the jury after an impartial inquiry, and I can see no ground for any further inquiry into the matter.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that those persons interested in the deceased—his representatives— were refused any opportunity of challenging the jury, and that, being only admitted at a comparatively late stage of the inquiry, they consider the whole of the inquiry by the coroner a put-up job?
      Sir G. CAVE: I believe that no right of challenge exists at all.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: I suppose it is not possible, is it, to discover medical men who are unprejudiced against these unfortunate men?
      Sir G. CAVE: I resent that question very much. Medical men employed in prisons, as the hon. Gentleman knows, do their very best to attend to the health of those under their care.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether, in view of the sad circumstances attending this case, and the allegations made, he proposes to hold an independent inquiry himself as head of the Department of Justice in this country, particularly with reference to the failure of the medical officer to discover the serious state of the man's health?
      Sir G. CAVE:That is quite a fair question. As a matter of fact, there is no more independent tribunal than a coroner and coroner's jury. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they are not dependent on the Home Office or any other Government authority at all. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester went down to Prince-town and made careful inquiry into this matter, and he entirely confirms the finding of the coroner's jury.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman completely satisfied with the capacity shown by, and the conduct of, the medical officer, Dr. Battiscombe, in this matter?
      Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I will raise the case on the first opportunity.
      Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a request from Dartmoor settlement asking that an impartial inquiry should be held into the hospital administration and the death of Harry Firth; whether the letter draws attention to two grave irregularities in the inquest proceedings in that the representatives of the conscientious objectors were not admitted to the inquest till the jury were sworn, which prevented the exercise of the right of challenge, and that the Press, the solicitor for the widow, and all conscientious objectors were excluded from the room while the jury deliberated, and that the prison doctors and officials were allowed to remain with the jury; and what action he proposes to take?
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary whether he has received representations from the Dartmoor settlement concerning the irregularity of the proceedings at the inquest held on H. W. Firth; whether the men's representatives in-

      1227
      structing the solicitor for the widow were not admitted until the jury had been sworn, when the right of challenge was gone; whether the Press representatives, the solicitor for the widow, and the representatives of the conscientious objectors were excluded from the room in which the jury deliberated, but the coroner, the two doctors whose conduct was impugned, and the prison officials stayed behind with the jury; and, if so, whether he will inform the House what action he proposes to take in the matter?
      Sir G. CAVE: I am making inquiries of the coroner as to these points, and will inform the hon. Members of the result.

      RECRUITING MEDICAL BOARDS.
      Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Minister of National Service how many Royal Army Medical Corps officers are now serving as presidents of recruiting medical boards; and will he give the names of such officers and indicate the boards over which they preside?
      Mr. BECK: There are no Royal Army Medical Corps Regular officers serving as presidents of recruiting medical boards under the Ministry of National Service. There are ten retired officers Royal Army Medical Corps who are employed entirely in a civilian capacity by the Ministry. There are, in addition, eighteen officers who hold commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps Territorial Force. All these gentlemen have returned to their civilian status.
      Mr. LAW: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the presidency of the Camberwell Board has been changed recently?
      Mr. BECK: Dr. Moir, I think, is the president.
      Mr. LAW: Is he not a Regular Royal Army Medical Corps officer?
      Mr. BECK: No: he is retired.
      Sir R. ADKINS: Have Territorial or retired Royal Army Medical Corps officers who sit as presidents of these medical boards the same voting power as the other members, or merely a casting vote in the event of the really civilian medical men being equally divided?
      Mr. BECK: I must ask my hon. Friend for notice of that question.

    COURT-MARTIAL (SENTENCE QUASHED).
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to Harry Passerinsky having been court- martialled at Plymouth on 5th December, 1917, sentenced and imprisoned for some weeks in Wormwood Scrubs, and the sentence having been quashed by the Army Council, any apology and compensation have been, or will be, offered to this innocent man?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the negative. The conviction was quashed on technical legal grounds.
    Mr. KING: As the conviction is quashed, will the man be released, and is he aware it was quashed some weeks ago and that he is stall in Plymouth in the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I was not aware of that fact. The question put to me was whether any compensation will be offered to him, and the answer is in the negative.
    Mr. KING: Will he be released?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will look into it.

    CANTEENS (HOLLAND).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been directed to the urgent appeal of Sir Arthur Yapp for lady volunteers to serve in canteens in Holland; and if he will state on what grounds the War Office has refused to allow wives, mothers, sisters, or daughters to act as volunteers, so that they may have at any rate a glimpse of their loved ones who, in many cases, have been subjected to the grossest ill-treatment?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. On the understanding that the Young Men's Christian Association will pay the expenses of the relatives of non commissioned officers, whom they select as voluntary workers, who are not in a position to defray their own expenses, the War Office will raise no objection to the limited number so selected going.
    Mr. WASON: Will that apply to officers as well as non-commissioned officers?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I was dealing with a very difficult question—very difficult, indeed—of allowing people who cannot afford to pay their own expenses, while not giving any privileges to the wives of non-commissioned officers.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he is aware that discharged crippled soldiers are in some cases sent home with their luggage without any provision being made for conveying them to their homes when they reach the town in which they reside; and if he will instruct the officers in charge of war hospitals to notify the officers commanding Motor Volunteers when they are sending a discharged crippled soldier home and request them to arrange to meet the soldier at the nearest railway station and convey him to his own home?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir: I am not aware of this, but the attention of all concerned will be drawn to the desirability and necessity for seeing that such soldiers are conveyed to their homes in the most comfortable circumstances.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Will the suggestion be adopted that the officers commanding the Motor Volunteers should be notified when these men are sent?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will look into it.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Crown colony at Holbeach has been planned out for small holdings mainly for ex-Service men; whether thirty cottages have been built, scattered over the estate; whether he can state why these cottages have not been provided with outbuildings in any shape or form; whether he is aware that the lack of outbuildings will prevent small holders from keeping poultry and pigs and interfere with the efficient working of the estate; and what steps he proposes to take?
    Sir R. WINFREY: It is the intention to divide the Crown colony at Holbeach into small holdings for ex-Service men. Sixty-six new cottages with the necessary outbuildings will be provided. Nineteen of these are now in course of erection. Outbuildings
    1230
    have not been proceeded with up to the present, as it is hoped that some of the Army hutments may be utilised for the purpose. If this can be done, a considerable saving in the cost of equipment will be effected with a consequent reduction in the rent that will be charged to the settlers.

    RECIPROCAL MILITARY SERVICE (JAPAN AND UNITED KINGDOM).
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can hold out a prospect of this country entering into a military convention with Japan?
    Mr. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member means by military convention a convention relating to reciprocal military service, I do not think such a convention is likely to be made.
    Mr. KING: What are the reasons why a large number of British subjects of military age were allowed to remain in Japan and not join the Army?

    NATIONAL EMBLEMS.
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office will give authority for all ranks in English regiments to wear their national emblem, the rose, on St. George's Day, to the same extent as it is given to all ranks in Irish regiments to wear their national emblem, the shamrock, on St. Patrick's Day?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; it has been decided to leave it to the discretion of the commanding officers to apply for permission.
    Major HUNT: Why is it that Irishmen are allowed to wear their national emblem without having to apply for authority to do so, while Englishmen have to apply, and why is that distinction made between Irishman and Englishmen?
    Mr. JOYCE: Because Irishmen had to fight for their right.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think Englishmen or Scotsmen in the old days really were very anxious to wear any such

    1231
    badge, but Irishmen were, and, if my hon. and gallant Friend will read my answer, he will find that it was customary to give authority in those cases to the commanding officer when applied for.
    Major HUNT: All Irish regiments of all ranks are allowed to wear emblems without applying to the commanding officer, and why cannot the same rule apply to Englishmen of English regiments?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As I have pointed out, the Irish regiments had always taken the precaution to see that they had authority from the War Office.

    CAMBEAI.
    Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, in connection with the inquiry into the circumstances of the battle of Cambrai, it appeared that the failure to press home the initial success was due to the commanders in the field not having sufficient reserves of men to consolidate and hold the ground won; if any request was made to the home authorities for additional men; and if such requests were made were they complied with?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am unable to add anything to the statements which have already been made as to the results of the inquiry held in connection with the operations at Cambrai.

    ARMY BANDS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Under secretary of State for War whether the Army Council have now come to a decision to permit Home units to employ category men to act as bandsmen under certain conditions, and where the unit is already in possession of band instruments?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not quite clear as to what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "category men," but I am afraid that the man-power situation does not admit of men fit for general service being employed in bands at home. Comprehensive instructions regarding bands are, however, about to be issued.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      GERMAN PRISONERS AND INTERNED GERMANS.
      Major NEWMANasked the Under secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the scale of dietary allowed to German prisoners is still largely in excess of what can be obtained by a citizen of London under the ration scheme now in operation; whether, for instance, the meat ration weekly is all but 2 lbs. and bread and biscuit 6 lbs.; and will he say whether this scale is given alike to prisoners of war and enemy aliens in internment camps, and is any discrimination made between those on active work of any description and those engaged in sedentary occupations or doing nothing?
      Mr. GEORGE FABERasked why German prisoners of war in this country are now receiving, and as at present arranged are to continue to receive, more meat than our own people are now able to obtain, or than they will be allowed to receive under the forthcoming compulsory scheme of meat rationing?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am circulating with the OFFICIAL REPORT the new scale of dietary for German prisoners of war, bringing it into line with the compulsory ration scheme now in force for London and the Home Counties, so far as that is possible. The meat ration is reduced to l ½ lbs. weekly, and the bread ration is 2 lbs. 3 ozs. weekly, with 30 ½ ozs. of broken biscuit. It should be borne in mind that the civil population are free to purchase substitutes, whereas the prisoner of war is restricted to a definite scale, which is the minimum prescribed by the medical authorities. All prisoners draw the same meat ration, but those doing hard work draw extra quantities daily of bread (4 ozs.), oatmeal or rice (1 oz.), cheese (1 oz.), and maize meal (½ oz.). The scale for interned civilians is a matter for the Home Office.
      Mr. FABER: When will this come into force?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe it is in force now.
      Mr. FABER: Will the hon. Gentleman see that when it does come into force the German prisoners of war will not be better off in this respect than our own women?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I would point out to the House that what I did say in answer

      1233
      to the question was that the scale allowed them now is the minimum prescribed by the medical authorities.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: Does that mean that German prisoners cannot purchase anything in the dry canteen?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No; what I did say was that they could not purchase anything in the nature of substitutes.
      Mr. FABER: Is it not a fact that Donington Hall still have a fairly free hand to purchase outside the dietary scale?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I think not. I answered that point quite recently.
      Major HUNT: May I ask why, if they were given equal rations of meat, other substitutes could not be given them instead, so that German prisoners should not have more meat than our own people?
      Major NEWMAN: Can the Home Secretary tell us if his scale is ready yet?
      The following is the Dietary Scale referred to:—

      Daily Ration for Prisoners of War in Great Britain.

      Article.

      Quantity.

      Bread

      5 ozs.

      Biscuit

      4 ozs.(broken), plus 2½ ozs. weekly.*

      Flour

      Nil.

      Meat (fresh or frozen) or Meat (preserved, tinned)

      4 ozs. on 5 days a week.

      Salt-cured Herrings

      12 ozs. on 2 days a week.

      Edible Fat

      Nil.

      Tea

      ¼oz.

      or

      Coffee

      ½ oz.

      Sugar

      1 oz.

      Salt

      ¼ Oz

      Pepper (black)

      7½oz.

      Oatmeal or substitute

      2 ozs. weekly.

      Syrup or Jam

      1 oz.

      Split Peas or Beans or Rice

      3 ozs.

      Potatoes

      20 ozs.

      Fresh Vegetables (other than Potatoes) or Fruit

      4 ozs.

      Major HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what is the amount of meat per week allowed for a German prisoner doing hard manual work and for a British workman doing the same kind of work; and what is the amount of meat per week allowed for an interned German not doing hard manual work and the amount allowed for a British man doing clerical work?
      Mr. CLYNES: The ration allowance for military prisoners of war and for civilian internment camps is now being revised. The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that in no case will the amount of any rationed foodstuff be in excess of that prescribed for the civilian population.
      Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Could the hon. Gentleman either say now or have publicity given at an early date to the amount of extra food to which persons suffering from tuberculosis and persons requiring extra feeding are entitled, and is he aware that doctors do not know if they are within the pale of the law in prescribing such extra food?
      Mr. SPEAKER: This is a question relating to German prisoners.
      Mr. PETO: Does the hon. Gentleman's reply cover also the rations given to British criminal prisoners, lunatics, paupers, and all other classes of non-productive citizens, and could he say whether any of them receive any larger ration than that allowed to the civil population?
      Mr. CLYNES: The reply that I have given may be so interpreted. There will not be any difference.
      Mr. PETO: Is there now a larger ration for any of the classes that I have enumerated?
      Mr. CLYNES: That is the reason why the subject is now under revision.
      Colonel LOWTHER: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to put my question as a Private Notice question?
      Mr. CLYNESCertainly.
      Colonel LOWTHER: I have been asked to postpone my question.

      KINTAIL DEER, FOREST.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a communication from a group of statutory

      1235
      small tenants at Kintail, Ross-shire, complaining that, when they proposed to take up further grazings for food production in Kintail deer forest, they were authorised by the Board of Agriculture (Scotland), under Defence of the Realm Regulation q2, to kill deer trespassing upon and eating the crops of their grazings, but that, after the crofters had taken up and stocked their grazings, the Board of Agriculture warned them in a written communication that, as certain deer had been killed, such killing was illegal and the killing of deer must be left to the shooting tenant; whether it is part of the duty of the Board of Agriculture (Scotland) to interpret the Defence of the Realm Act Regulation; and whether these conflicting interpretations were made with his knowledge and consent?
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Morison): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. He has received a communication of the nature referred to and hag replied to it. The tenants were apparently under a misapprehension as to the scope of the Order regarding the killing of deer made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under the Defence of the Realm Regulation 2q. The Board have accordingly pointed out to the tenants that the Order authorises them to kill deer only on the agricultural holdings of which they are statutory small tenants, and not on the additional grazings which they hold from the Board under the powers of the Defence of the Realm Regulation 2 m. As regards the last two parts of the question, the Board did not attempt to interpret the Defence of the Realm Regulations, but they explained the effect of their own Order when a misconception arose regarding its operation. In these circumstances no question of conflicting interpretations arises.
      Mr. WATT: Did not the Board of Agriculture first state a certain right of action, and thereafter gave a refusal to the same right of action? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Board of Agriculture constantly give conflicting interpretations?
      Mr. MORISON: I think in this case there was no conflicting interpretation. The statutory small tenants got additional ground under the Defence of the Realm Regulations after the Order as
      1236
      regards the killing of deer was issued. That Order does not apply to the new ground that these tenants received.

      DUKE OF ARGYLL'S ESTATES (CROFTERS).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Duke of Argyll has taken proceedings to interdict crofters of Tiree from cultivating and producing food upon suitable but entirely idle land near their homes; and, in view of the present food situation and the thousands of acres of suitable land lying unused on the Duke of Argyll's estates, whether he will take steps to enforce the cultivation of these areas under the Defence of the Realm Act?
      Mr. MORISON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. He is aware from reports in the Press that a petition for interdict at the instance of the Duke of Argyll and Mr. Thomas Barr, farmer, Balephetrish, Tiree, has been pre seated to the Sheriff-substitute at Oban, and that perpetual interdict has been granted against certain cottars and others taking possession of the farm of Balephetrish and part of the farm of Kenovy, Tiree. The Board of Agriculture for Scotland are making every effort by arranging for an increase in the area of land under the plough to make up for the present shortage in the food supply, and they will exercise their powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations in any case where, in their opinion, it is expedient so to do.
      Mr. LYNCH: Why have the Government missed so many opportunities of cultivating land in this country and in Ireland? Is it not the fact that the people are of more importance than the game of the Duke of Argyll—or even than the Duke of Argyll himself?

      STRAW.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked what use is intended to be made of the increased quantity of straw which will result from the increased acreage under oats and wheat?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): Much of the increased quantity of straw will be oat-straw, which will be directly used in stock feeding. With regard to the remainder, the Board are supervising experiments at various centres as to the best methods of converting straw into fodder and manure, and the preliminary results

      1237
      of these are satisfactory. The Board understand that the Ministry of Munitions are developing a scheme for the utilisation of straw in the manufacture of strawboard and paper, an outlet which may require a large quantity of raw material.
      Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have commandeered all the oaten straw in Ireland, and that there is now none left for the feeding purposes for cattle?
      Sir R. WINFREY: I am not sure, but I think that is only for Army purposes.

      FLOUR.
      Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether Messrs. Spillers and Baker, of Cardiff, when supplying Kerry traders with flour, recently charged freight from Cardiff to Cork by their own steamers 50 per cent. higher than ordinary rates; whether, under those circumstances, flour cost Kerry traders at least 52s. per sack, and had to be sold at this price; and whether Messrs. Spillers and Baker will be asked to refund this overcharge, which is at least 16s. per ton?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): Consignments of flour for Kerry are normally shipped by the Fishguard-Ross-lair route at a through rate of 34s, 10d, a ton. In order to meet an urgent demand for supplies in excess of the quantity which could be sent by this route, a steamer was specially chartered at the current rate for flour, namely, 30s. a ton; the additional charges for marine and war risk and insurance and port dues, haulage charges, and railway freight made the total cost of delivery 44s. 10d. a ton.

      BUTTER AND MARGARINE.
      Mr. RENDALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether persons at Wick and Doynton, Gloucestershire, living in the district of the Chipping Sodbury Food Control Committee, are refused tickets for butter and margarine by this committee and that application to the adjoining food control committee at Bath is met with the statement that the latter committee has no power to grant tickets to persons outside their district, although such persons and many others are supplied with sugar from Bath; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
      Mr. CLYNES: I understand that the Bath Food Control Committee has now made satisfactory arrangements for the supply of butter and margarine to the inhabitants of the Chipping Sodbury district referred to in the question.

      HARVEST LABOUR.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Minister of National Service what steps he proposes to take in order to provide the labour of all classes necessary to harvest the produce of the increased arable land which has been recently ploughed up under Government Orders?
      Mr. BECK: As the hon. Member is aware, the interests of agriculture are specially safeguarded in connection with recruiting under the arrangements by which men whole-time employed on farm work are vouched by county agricultural committees. We are also endeavouring to secure that agriculturists are not withdrawn for constructional work, as explained by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary to the Air Ministry. Reinforcement has also been effected by releases from the Colours, in which the Canadian, South African, and New Zealand military authorities have co-operated; and, so far as the military situation permits, it is hoped to secure the temporary release of soldiers for harvest. Prisoners of war with agricultural experience have also been employed in larger numbers than hitherto, and the number will be further increased. The strength of the Women's Land Army is being increased. Special arrangements are also being made again to secure at harvest the services of boys from the public and secondary schools and from the Boy Scouts. Part-time committees will be encouraged to assist in providing additional labour for farmers within reach of the large towns. In all these attempts the Ministry of National Service is throughout acting in close co-operation with the Board of Agriculture and the War Office.
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when harvest time comes it is not only unskilled labour that will be required, but also smithies, wheelwrights, saddlers, and all kinds of labour, and will the Ministry of National Service take that fact into consideration?
      Mr. BECK: I can assure my hon. Friend that it has been already carefully considered and is being acted upon.

      WINTER DAIRYING (IRELAND).
      Mr. FIELDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) the annual quantity of Danish and other butter imported into Ireland for a period of five years preceding the War; and whether any steps are being taken in connection with the tillage scheme to encourage winter dairying in Ireland?
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRE-LAND (Mr. Arthur Samuels): The quantities of butter imported into Ireland during each of the five years mentioned in the question were:

      Cwts.

      1909

      …

      …

      …

      …

      68,347

      1910

      …

      …

      …

      …

      77,945

      1911

      …

      …

      …

      …

      88,472

      1912

      …

      …

      …

      …

      65,731

      1913

      …

      …

      …

      …

      71,585

      As tillage is the chief factor in winter dairying, the latter cannot be successfully carried out on an adequate scale until tillage becomes a. permanent feature of the farming in dairying districts. The Department of Agriculture have always recognised the importance of establishing winter dairying in connection with Irish agriculture, and steps have been taken to bring the matter under the notice of Irish farmers. It is hoped that one of the beneficial results of the compulsory tillage schemes which have been organised to meet the present emergency will be to secure a permanent increase in the area under tillage, and that in dairying districts this will encourage winter dairying.

      BEET SUGAR (IRELAND).
      Mr. FIELDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what similar measures are being-taken in Ireland to promote beet growing and found a sugar factory according to the proposal taken up by the Board of Agriculture in England; whether the ratio of saccharine in Irish-grown beet is higher than that of most other countries; and whether the yield of roots per acre is greater?
      Mr. SAMUELS: Pending the result of the experimental measures adopted by the Board of Agriculture, no steps are being taken to promote beet growing or to found a sugar factory in Ireland on the lines of the scheme adopted in England. The Irish Department of Agriculture are of opinion that farmers would be well advised
      1240
      to produce the staple food crops on as large a scale as possible rather than attempt to raise comparatively untried crops. I am informed that sugar beet grown on experimental plots in Ireland was found to compare favourably in yield and sugar contents with beet grown in most other countries. I would further refer the hon. Member to the very full answer given by the Chief Secretary to a question by the hon. Member for North Westmeath on this subject on 17th April last.
      Brigadier-General CROFT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the numerous places where it has been tried in Ireland, Ireland has been found most suitable for the production of sugar beet; and is it not a fact that there is no need for further experiment in beet sugar manufacture because we have the evidence of the whole world?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I said in my answer that Irish sugar beet had been found to be very satisfactory in its composition, and I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to answer to the question given on 17th April by the Chief Secretary.

      EMERGENCY RATION CARDS (SOLDIERS).
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the fact that, owing to the number of soldiers applying yesterday for emergency meat cards queues were formed, and, owing to delay in some cases, soldiers were unable to obtain their cards; and whether the Food Ministry will take steps to expedite this issue, in view of the short time in this country at the disposal of officers and men on leave?
      Mr. CLYNES: As my hon. Friend is aware, yesterday was the first day for beginning the new system, and our reports show that in some places considerable numbers of soldiers applied at the same place at the same time for emergency cards, and necessarily some delay was experienced. I can assure my hon. Friend that every possible step is being taken by the Ministry of Food, with the assistance of the food control committees, to avoid delay in this and in other matters connected with the introduction of the rationing scheme.
      Captain CARR-GOMM: Is it not a fact that most of the soldiers now on leave were issued with sugar cards when they

      1241
      left their units, and, if that is so, why could not this inconvenience have been avoided entirely by the issue of meat cards to them?
      Mr. CLYNES: The sugar cards issued to them could have no relation to the inconvenience arising yesterday with regard to other articles of food.
      Captain CARR-GOMM: I have not made myself quite clear. I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware of the fact that these sugar cards were issued and that this inconvenience caused to these men, some of whom are men from overseas who perhaps are ignorant of the ways of London and their way about London, would have been avoided if they had had their meat cards issued to them by their commanding units abroad?
      Mr. CLYNES: Particulars have already been given to the House that not only soldiers but a considerable section of the civilian population suffer inconvenience in the commencing stages of this scheme, but I have no doubt that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend will receive consideration.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What steps are taken to tell these men where they can get their meat cards?
      Mr. CLYNES: I cannot say what steps were taken on the other side of the water. That depends upon the military authorities.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of men coming over yesterday did not know where they were to get their meat cards?
      Captain CARR-GOMM: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange with the War Office that in future these men, when they come on leave, shall receive their meat cards with their sugar cards?
      Sir C. SEELY: Why not give them their meat on their sugar cards?
      Mr. CLYNES: I have no doubt that the War Office will take this point into consideration, if the matter has not already been settled. I would ask the House to remember that they together with the general public insisted that the Food Ministry, without delay, should bring this system into force, and necessarily in the speeding up and getting the system into working order as quickly as possible inconvenience is unavoidable.

    MILITARY ORTHOPÆDIC HOSPITALS

      DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister if any arrangements have yet been made to enable discharged soldiers to enter military hospitals for any purposes; and, if so, will he state to what extent previous restrictions have been cancelled or modified?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): Arrangements have been made with the War Office to place 300 beds in the military orthopædic hospitals at the disposal of the Ministry for discharged men, and the Army Council have agreed to admit cases of facial and jaw injury to their special hospitals. In addition, instructions have been issued to the commands to make arrangements for the release of over 2,000 beds now reserved by the military authorities in civil hospitals as a first step towards the general release of all accommodation in these hospitals, and I am pressing the War Office to use all expedition possible in the matter.

    PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of his undertaking, given to this House in presenting the Lords Amendment, that proportional representation would not be imposed on constituencies without their assent, he will state whether any Instructions will be given as to the means the Commission should adopt to obtain such assent; whether it is proposed to submit the question to the electors; and, if so, what machinery will be set up for that purpose?
    Sir JAMES BOYTONasked the Home Secretary whether, whenever it is proposed to combine constituencies now having separate representation under the Act for the purposes of proportional representation, the objection of any one such constituency will render the proposed combination inadmissible?
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether he will state in what manner the Proportional Representation Commissioners will hold their inquiries in London, and also what class of evidence will be heard by them, and will the invitation be by public advertisement, or in what other way; and will he undertake

    1243
    that, in any inquiry held in London, political associations of all parties, local municipal authorities, public men, and individual voters shall be heard on any schemes proposed?
    Sir G. CAVE: No such undertaking was given as is mentioned in the question, but I am confident that the Commissioners will take all such steps as may be required for ascertaining local opinion. It will be for them to determine the local inquiries to be held, the persons to be heard at the inquiries, and the effect to be given to the representations made. I have no authority to give instructions in the matter.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Did not the right hon. Gentleman, in urging the Lords Amendment upon this House, say, "Objection was taken in the House, not least by myself, to the suggestion of forcing proportional representation upon boroughs which were adverse to it; that objection no longer holds good as regards this scheme, because it is provided that local opinion shall be ascertained in regard to it?" Is not that an undertaking —the undertaking to which I refer in my question—given by the right hon. Gentleman to this House?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir; I do not call it an undertaking. I was explaining to the House the Clause I was then asking the House to pass—and I think I correctly described it.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Have not local inquiries been held under the Act and no notice taken of them whatever? Has not this gone through the ordinary course as it would have done without any inquiry? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that in future due notice is given of these local inquiries, so that time may be given for a case to be prepared by the local authorities?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, I differ entirely from the suggestion that no notice has been taken of the local inquiries. On the contrary, I know that local inquiries have been effective in many cases. Where local inquiries are held under this Clause due notice will be given.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Commission will hold that the assent of a Member of this House for any constituency is to be taken as the assent of the constituency itself?
    Sir G. CAVE: I must leave that to the Commissioners.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the Government see that districts which do desire proportional representation are not deprived of it by this House?
    Sir G. CAVE: That also is a matter for the Commissioners.
    Colonel Sir F. HALL: On the same basis, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that those who do not want proportional representation shall not have it forced upon them?
    Sir G. CAVE: I cannot give any undertaking: it is not in my power to do so. I have no doubt the Commissioners will take local feeling into account.

    POLICE SERVICE (WHITLEY COMMITTEE).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether it is intended to apply the principle laid down in the Whitley Report to Government Departments, and more particularly to the police service; and, if so, what steps are being taken with regard to the inclusion of police representatives in the conferences now being held, at the invitation of the Home Office, by the police authorities with a view to ensuring an adequate flow of intelligent recruits to the police service after the War?
    Sir G. CAVE: The question, so far as it concerns the conditions of employment in Government Departments generally, should be addressed to the Treasury. As regards the police, the conferences referred to are conferences of local police authorities. I have no doubt they will bear the recommendations of the Whitley Committee in mind, but the conditions of police employment are necessarily very different from those of industrial employment.

    TRADE COMMISSIONERS.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies what Trade Commissioners or Commercial Attaches have been appointed; what salaries have been granted in each case; and whether further appointments are pending?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND (Undersecretary of State, Department of Overseas Trade): I will circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the Trade Commissioners already appointed and their salaries, and a list of the posts still to be filled. As regards the Commercial Attaché

    TRADE COMMISSIONER SERVICE.

    The following Trade Commissioners have already been appointed in various parts of the British Empire at the salaries stated—

    Centre.

    Grade.

    Salary.

    Local allowance (additional).

    Canada—

    £

    £

    Montreal

    …

    1st Grade

    1,000–50–1,200

    500

    (Mr. G. T. Milne.)

    Toronto

    …

    2nd Grade

    700–25–900

    400

    (Mr. F. W. Field.)

    Australia—

    Melbourne

    …

    1st Grade

    1,000–50–1,200

    400

    (Mr. S. W. B. McGregor.)

    New Zealand—

    Wellington

    …

    2nd Grade

    700–25–900

    300

    (Mr. R. W. Dalton.)

    South Africa*

    …

    1st Grade

    1,000–50–1,200

    500

    (Mr. W. G. Wickham.)

    3rd Grade (Acting)

    500–25–700

    400

    (Mr. J. L. Wilson Goode.)

    British India†—

    Calcutta

    …

    1st Grade

    1,000–50–1,200

    600

    (Mr. T. M. Ainscough, O.B.E.)

    Straits Settlements—

    Singapore‡

    …

    2nd Grade

    700–25–900

    500

    (Mr. P. J. McKellen.)

    * The two Trade Commissioners in South Africa will be stationed at Cape Town and Johannesburg, but the station to which the senior Trade Commissioner will be attached has not yet been settled.

    †The duties of the Trade Commissioner in India also cover Ceylon.

    ‡The duties of the Trade Commissioner at Singapore relate to the Straits Settlements, Federated and Non-Federated Malay States, and Dutch East Indies.

    In addition, Mr. C. Hamilton Wickes, with rank as 1st Grade Trade Commissioner, is, for the time being, attached to the Department of Overseas Trade (Development Intelligence) in an advisory capacity at a salary of £1,000.

    Appointments to the Trade Commissioner Service have been sanctioned for the following stations, and it is hoped that they will shortly be made—

    Centre.

    Grade.

    Salary.

    Local allowance (additional).

    Canada—

    £

    £

    Winnipeg

    …

    …

    3rd Grade

    …

    …

    …

    500–25–700

    400

    Australia—

    Sydney

    …

    …

    3rd Grade

    …

    …

    …

    500–25–700

    300

    British India—

    Bombay

    …

    …

    2nd Grade

    …

    …

    …

    700–25–900

    500

    West Indies—

    Trinidad

    …

    …

    2nd Grade

    …

    …

    …

    700–25–900

    300

    It is contemplated that provision will be made in due course for the appointment of Trade Commissioners in other parts of the British Empire.

    Service, a Selection Committee is now reviewing the candidates who have applied for posts. No appointments have yet been made, but I hope that some of the posts will be filled very shortly.
    The following is the list referred to:

    MERCANTILE MARINE.

      HIRE OF VESSELS.
      Mr. HOLTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller the amount of monthly hire paid by the British, French, Italian, and American Governments, respectively, to a vessel of their own nationality of 4,800 tons gross, 12 knots speed, and 7,500 dead-weight capacity when requisitioned by them?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): The rate and conditions for a British vessel of the class described are £3,420 a month for the first two months and £3,300 thereafter, the Government bearing the heavy liability of war risk on current value and the cost of wages of crew in excess of pre-war rates, in addition to the ordinary time charterers' liabilities. As regards France and Italy, the terms of requisition have not, so far as I know, been published, but I am communicating with the respective Governments on the subject, and will let my hon. Friend know the result. I understand that the terms allowed by' the American Government for a vessel of the class described would be about £10,600 per month, the American Government taking the war risk on a basis of valuation not defined in the charter party, and owners paying wages in full at the rates current on 1st August, 1917.

      LONDON CARGOES.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he is aware that there are long delays in London cargoes that have been landed at the port of Liverpool reaching London; and whether, in view of the necessity of complete cargoes reaching London as soon as possible, he will take all steps possible in order to ensure that these cargoes shall be dispatched from Liverpool and delivered in London with the least possible delay?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The important point referred to by my hon. Friend has had, and is having, most careful attention. The Shipping Controller is doing everything in his power to expedite transport, in spite of inherent difficulties. I should be obliged if my hon. Friend would give me any specific instances of undue delay which are brought to his notice.

      EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.
      Mr. BUTCHERasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) what are the present arrangements between this country and Germany as to the exchange of officers and men of the mercantile marine who are prisoners of war, either for repatriation or for internment in a neutral country; and whether he can give the numbers of the officers and men, over and under forty-five, who have been so exchanged?
      Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): Officers and men of the mercantile marine are entitled to benefit by the various agreements for the repatriation of civilians over forty-five and invalids. They are also entitled to benefit by paragraph 12 of The Hague Agreement, under which 400 British invalid civilians are to be transferred to Holland. To give the total number of seafaring men repatriated during the War would involve much research, but I understand that 210 members of the British mercantile marine and British fishermen have been repatriated since January, 1917. Some British seafaring men may have arrived in Holland this week for internment, but we have not yet received the list; also forty-six have been transferred to Switzerland.
      Mr. PETO: May I ask, not what they are entitled to, but what they are getting? Are we to infer that since The Hague Agreement there have been no merchant officers repatriated except those said to be arriving this week, and is it not a fact that the German Government are waiting to know if we are going to send any of their officer prisoners of war, certified men, before they allow any of ours to leave?
      Mr. HOPE: I must ask for notice of that question.
      Mr. BUTCHER: Will the hon. Gentleman do his utmost to effect an exchange of these men of the mercantile marine who have deserved so well of the country?
      Mr. HOPE: My hon. Friend may certainly be sure of that, though I am afraid that my answer docs not go very far.

    BRITISH TRADE AFTER WAR.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to be able to make a full statement of his plans so that the House

    1249
    of Commons may consider whether adequate steps are being taken in the direction of promoting British trade after the War?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member will no doubt find a full opportunity of asking for any information which he desires to have, either on the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Overseas Trade (Development and Intelligence) for the current financial year or on the Estimate for that Department for the coming financial year.
    Mr. BROOKES: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me when these discussions can take place?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: One will come on this afternoon in all probability on the Supplementary Estimate for this year and on the Estimate for the coming financial year.
    Mr. BROOKESasked whether any further appointment of Trade Commissioners or Commercial Attaches are in suspense owing to the inability of the Treasury to grant the necessary credits; whether, in this case, his original Estimates have been modified; and if he will give the names of those countries where the existence of our intended commercial representatives is thus imperilled?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer as regards the Trade Commissioner Service is in the negative. As regards the Commercial AttachéService, a scheme for a greatly extended service has been prepared by a Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and has been under consideration by Government. Sanction has been given for the expenditure during the coming financial year of a sum which will enable appointments to be made to a considerable proportion of the posts proposed by the Committee, and it is intended to proceed to fill these posts as quickly as possible. The question of providing for the completion of the scheme will then be again taken into consideration.
    Sir F. HALL: Has the hon. Gentleman recognised the fact that great interest is taken in the City in regard to these appointments being made, and will he do his best to see that the Government do not keep down the necessary amounts that are required in order that there may be developments so that the manufacturers
    1250
    of this country may be able to prosecute their work with regard to capturing trade which hithertofore has been held by the enemy?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am quite well aware of the interest taken, but, as regards the provision of proper finances, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. LOUGH: What sanction does the hon. Member refer to as having been given to the expenditure? Has this House sanctioned it, and, if not, will he undertake that there will be no expenditure until this House has sanctioned it?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The sanction in the first place is the sanction of the Treasury. The Estimates for the year will come before the House for consideration in the usual manner, like any other Department.
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether the House is to understand that there is any difficulty in obtaining the necessary funds to carry out this important work?
    Mr. LOUGH: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that no money shall be expended until the House has given its sanction?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question to be dealt with in Committee of Supply.

    OUTDOOR RELIEF (HAILSHAM GUARDIANS).
    Sir G. TOULMINasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a widow is receiving from the Hailsham Guardians 15s. per week for herself and five children under eight years of age, the youngest being nine and a half months old; that she has to pay 5s. per week for rent, thus leaving 10s. per week for food, fuel, light, and clothing of six persons; that but for the occasional assistance of a widowed sister and of two elder children of fifteen and thirteen she and her younger children would starve; and whether he will take steps to see that an adequate sum is allowed her, so that her home may not be broken up and she and her children forced into the workhouse or the children be separated from her and sent to institutions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stephen Walsh): My right hon. Friend has made inquiries into this case and learns that an increase has now been made in the weekly relief. The case is somewhat complicated, and, if desired, I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the correspondence that has passed, from which it will be seen that the Poor Law officials have shown every desire to deal sympathetically in the matter, having regard to all the circumstances.

    MUNITIONS.

      WOMEN WORKERS (DISMISSAL).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions how many women munition workers have been dismissed or received notice of dismissal during the last three weeks as a result of the termination of certain contracts; what notice was given to the Employment Exchanges in the districts affected; whether he is aware that hardship has been inflicted upon women whose services to the country have been the subject of many Ministerial eulogies; and whether he is prepared to authorise the payment of a month's wages and railway fares home?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The number of women munition workers who have been dismissed or received notice of dismissal during the last three weeks as a result of the termination of certain contracts is about 8,000. It is not possible without inquiries from each Exchange to say what notice was given to the Employment Exchanges in each district. Firms were requested to give the Employment Exchanges a fortnight's notice of the numbers, and a week's notice of the individuals, to be discharged. Fresh instructions are being circulated emphasising the necessity for the longest possible notice.
      The Minister regrets that a certain amount of hardship is inevitable, but everything that can properly be done will be done to reduce the hardship. There are openings for a considerable number of women in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, in agriculture, in shipyards, and in other occupations. The machinery of the Labour Exchanges and of the National
      1252
      Service Department is being utilised to its fullest capacity in order to bring the women who may be displaced into these other forms of national service. The possibility of giving priority in employment on war work to these women is under discussion.
      The suggestion that the Minister should authorise the issue of free railway warrants home is receiving sympathetic consideration. Other suggestions—e.g., the payment of wages for a certain period—are being examined by the Departments concerned in conjunction with the Treasury. An Inter-Departmental Conference is being held this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the Chairman of the War Cabinet Committee on Unemployment, to consider these and other aspects of the problem.
      Mr. ANDERSON: Is the figure given of 8,000 right up to date, and does it take in certain dismissals due to the termination of contracts now being discussed?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: It covers all the notices of dismissals for a period of three weeks up to Saturday.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. Friend assure us that the girls, of whom there are a large number in the 8,000, will not be stranded in different parts of England and will be returned to their relatives in Scotland?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: That point is dealt with in my answer, in which I state that the suggestion that they should be given free railway warrants to their homes is receiving sympathetic consideration.
      Mr. HOGGE: It wants more than that.
      Mr. G. FABER: In view of the importance of not discouraging the efforts put forward by the women of this country during the War, will the hon. Gentleman be especially zealous and careful to find places for these women at the earliest possible moment?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: One of the considerations taken into account in deciding on the termination of those contracts is the possibility of replacing the displaced labour in that particular area,.
      Mr. T. WILSON: Are there no arrangements in existence now for transferring women doing certain work from the place where they are discharged to other places where their services may be utilised?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to my answer, he will see that that point is dealt with
      Sir C. SEELY: How long is the notice that is given to these women?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I have already said in my answer that the notice given to the Employment Exchanges is a fortnight as to numbers and a week to individuals.
      Sir C. SEELY: I mean the notice to the women themselves?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: In that case they are entitled to a week's notice.
      Sir R. ADKINS: Would it not be possible, in view of the obvious difficulties, to give a longer notice, because the Department would surely be in a position to know its own mind longer than a week before a factory would be closed? Will the hon. Gentleman see that longer notice will be given?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: In stating the period of the notice I said that fresh instructions are being circulated emphasising the necessity for a longer notice.

    ADMIRALTY REQUISITIONS (HOUSES).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is now in a position to state on what public grounds the Admiralty have issued a notice to two gentlemen to vacate their house without any delay, affording them no time to find shelter elsewhere; and whether he is aware that Admiral Beck, when he confiscated practically all their small holding, promised that their house should be left intact?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): On the 5th February notice was given that possession of the premises in question would be required on the 28th February. This, perhaps, appears to be short notice, but in view of steps previously taken in the locality it must have been apparent to the parties affected that they might at any time be required to vacate in consequence of the growth of the naval establishment in question. My hon. Friend will be glad to know, however, that it has now been arranged to allow them to remain until 28th May, on which date, it has been ascertained, other
    1254
    accommodation will be available. It was hoped at the outset that it would be possible to avoid taking this and other houses, but no promise was given that this would not be done. The parties dispossessed may, of course, make a claim to the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission for any monetary loss they may suffer, and every assistance will be given to them in connection with the preparation of such claims.

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE PURCHASE).
    Major DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state whether a measure for State purchase of the liquor traffic will also include provision for local option?
    Sir G. CAVE: I cannot add anything to the answer which was given to the hon. and gallant Member yesterday on this subject.

    OFFICIAL TELEGRAMS.
    The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. G. Faber:
    46. To ask the Prime Minister whether Lord Northcliffe, Lord Rothermere, and Lord Beaverbrook, in their respective official capacities, now have, or will be enabled to have, access to the daily distribution of official telegrams from foreign countries and from the British Dominions?
    Mr. FABER: In the absence of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, and in view of the importance of this question, I ask leave to put it down for to-morrow.

    STATIONERY OFFICE (PRINTING CONTRACT).
    Major NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Stationery Office has recently placed large contracts for printing with a firm of printers called the Anima Printing Company, which was formerly known as J. Weiner and Company; whether the director and manager of this company is a naturalised Austrian; and whether he will instruct the Controller of the

    1255
    Stationery Office to cease placing contracts with firms controlled by persons of enemy origin whilst there are firms owned and controlled by persons of purely British birth able and willing to do the work?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am informed that the Stationery Office has no official knowledge of the Anima Printing Company, but that the firm of J. Weiner, Limited, has been in the name of J. Weiner, Limited, on the books of the Department for several years. Mr. Weiner, I understand, was born in Vienna, and came to London in 1837, being naturalised in 1906. After full inquiry, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the public service would lose by the action suggested in the last part of the question.

    TIMBER FELLING (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what arrangements are being made to prevent the cutting down of trees in Ireland; and whether he is in a position to give information as to the measures proposed to be carried out this season for replanting and acquiring land useless for other purposes?
    Mr. SAMUELS: It is not desirable that steps should be taken to prevent the felling of trees which are needed for war purposes. Care should, however, be taken that sheltering should be preserved for holdings. As already stated in reply to several previous questions on this subject, the Department of Agriculture have under consideration measures to secure that in felling timber due regard is had to the necessity for making provision for replanting. As the planting season has now practically ended no special action can be taken for replanting at present. The importance of the subject is fully recognised and the matter will continue to receive careful attention.
    Mr. FIELD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an enormous quantity of timber is being felled in Ireland which is not required for war purposes, and will that practice be put a atop to as far as possible?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I do not think there are any powers existing for that purpose.
    Mr. FIELD: Will you seek to obtain the powers to prevent this wastage so far as Ireland is concerned?

    PEACE PROPOSALS.
    Mr. D. MASONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of Count Hertling's statement, as reported in to-day's Press, that we should be much nearer peace if proper responsible representatives of the belligerent Powers would meet in conclave for discussion, the Government will take steps to bring about such a conclave?
    Sir G. CAVE: No notice of this question has reached me.
    Mr. MASON: I am sorry. I sent in notice. I will give notice for to-morrow.

    Boarded-out Children (Lampeter Guardians).
    Sir G. TOULMINasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Lampeter Board of Guardians is paying only 3s. 6d. per child per week for the maintenance of its boarded-out children; whether he will state how many boards of guardians are still paying under 5s. per week for boarded-out children; and whether he will take steps to get this inadequate allowance increased?
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I am informed by the guardians that the question of increasing the weekly allowance is to come before them at their meeting on the 1st March next. As I previously informed my hon. Friend, the Department gave a general sanction on 12th December last to the raising of the rate. of allowance to 7s. 6d. a week. No figures are available as to the number of boards of guardians granting under or over 5s., but the reports which I have received indicate that the allowances are, as a rule, adequate.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: Although the allowances, as a rule, may be adequate, an? there not a large number that are very far from reaching 7s. 6d., and are round about 3s. 6d. per child?
    Mr. WALSH: Yes, there are a large number, but the grant depends upon the

    1257
    circumstances of the case, and we have no power of direct interference with the authority of the guardians themselves.
    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if in March last year the Estates Commissioners gave an undertaking that if the sub-tenants of premises in the town of Middletown, county Armagh, comprised in the Stearne estate, could arrange to purchase the premises in their occupation from their direct landlords on terms which could be approved by the Commissioners, and if they were prepared to lodge the purchase money in cash, the Commissioners would vest the premises in the purchasers; that the subtenants in question have endeavoured, without success, to arrange terms with their direct landlords, who were able to purchase the property under the Land Purchase Act; and whether, in these circumstances, the Estates Commissioners will fix the price to be paid by the subtenants for the premises in their occupation, seeing that they have undertaken to lodge the purchase money in cash?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to a question on this subject on the 28th March last. The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are prepared to adhere to the undertaking given in March last, but if the parties concerned do not themselves come to an agreement the Commissioners are not prepared to take further action in the matter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: Can the Home Secretary say what Supply will be taken on Thursday?
  Sir G. CAVE: We propose to take on Thursday the Report stage of the Vote on Account.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, in connection with business to-day, what Vote is referred to as Class II., Vote 8 a, because that Vote does not appear on the list of Supplementary Estimates?
  Sir G. CAVE: I will make inquiries, and let the hon. Member know.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, for our convenience, how far he is going with these Orders, and whether he intends to take the Report stage of Votes A and 1, Army Votes, and the Air Force Estimates to-day?
  Sir G. CAVE: Yes; we propose to take that Order, if possible.

  SUPPLY.

    NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1917–18.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHIXLEY in the Chair.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Goastguard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): This Navy Supplementary Estimate for 1917–18 is rendered necessary as a result of the Parliamentary Rules affecting the use of excess Appropriations in Aid operating upon the Token. Vote system. We must obtain Parliamentary sanction for the use of Appropriations in Aid in excess of the sums provided in the Token Estimates for the Navy. Questions of naval policy do not, I apprehend, arise
    1266
    upon it. They must, I imagine, await the introduction of the main Estimates for 1918–19. The War renders the Token Vote system necessary for the fighting Services. We have submitted to the House now three annual editions of the Token Votes. My right hon. Friend will submit the fourth edition, that for 1918–19, next week. In the Token Estimates for each of the seventeen Navy Votes Parliament votes us £l,000, and under each Vote we are empowered to take a sum of £100 as Appropriation in Aid. The substantive expenditure comes from the Vote of Credit. These actual expenditures are set forth in an account made to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and he reports upon that to the Committee of Public Accounts. That account, although it contains the full substantive expenditure for each year, does not give the details of the precise expenditure under Votes 8, 9, 10, and 11, for obvious reasons. The necessity and justification for the Token Vote system are set forth in a Treasury Minute of 5th February, 1915, with which I dealt very fully in March, 1916, when I submitted the first Supplementary Estimate. I will recall to the Committee the course it prescribes in respect of Token Appropriations in Aid. The document said this:
    "My Lords accordingly propose that the substantive Appropriation in Aid of the receipts should be left over to be made upon Supplementary Estimates under the respective Vote later in the financial year, when the amounts can be more precisely ascertained, a nominal Appropriation only being made on the original Estimate?, and that the receipts as they accrue should be retained by the Departments and applied by them in reduction of Exchequer issues from the Vote of Credit "
    We are authorised under the original Token Estimate of 1917–18 to spend £l,700 in Appropriations in Aid. So far as we can see we shall receive and spend in 1917–18 £13,000,000. It would be impossible for the moment to dissect that substantive sum into the various sources from which we derive it and allocate it to the respective Votes which provide for the services for which we secure this revenue. So, for the time being, we allocate it, as shown on the face of this Supplementary Estimate, provisionally under Vote 1, again with Treasury approval. It will be distributed hereafter under the Votes which give us the services for which we get this Appropriation in Aid in accordance with time-honoured custom in the Appropriation Account. Appropriations in Aid have grown sensibly under war conditions. In the recent pre-war years we used to get

    1267
    about £2,000,000 a year Appropriations in Aid. In 1914 they amounted to £2,556,266, in 1915–16 to £5,688,317, in 1916–17 to £15,095,721, and here in 1917–18 we reckon they will amount to £13,001,700. The increases in war time of the Appropriations in Aid is due largely to repayments from allied Governments for the issue of fuel and munitions, payments for contractors for the issues of stores to them, and repayments from other Departments of the Government for services rendered, particularly the War Office and the Munitions Department. We are entitled to spend seventeen single hundreds of Appropriations in Aid, and we expect to receive and shall spend £13,000,000. In pursuance of the Treasury Minute I come with this Supplementary Estimate and ask the Committee to regularise the appropriation of that sum. Further, Section 4, Sub-section (l) of the Appropriation Act of 1917 has authorised the Treasury to give temporary sanction for applying any further receipts which may have accrued under particular Votes in aid of any shortage which may arise under other Vs in the 1st. m for 1917–18, and finally an Appropriation Bill later this Session will ask for Parliamentary sanction to this transfer between the Votes.
    Mr. HOGGE: I want to ask for some information with regard to writers.
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman has correctly explained that this and the following Vote is really merely of the nature of authorising the Appropriation in Aid. No question of general policy with regard to wages or allowances arises on this occasion, but an opportunity will be open next week.
    Mr. HOGGE: This provides money for expenditure on wages of certain people in the Royal Navy. Do I understand your ruling to mean that we cannot discuss the wages either of officers, seamen, boys, Coastguards, or Marines on this Vote?
    The CHAIRMAN: No; this Vote is not authorising that payment. It is only authorising a certain method of bookkeeping for a sum which was authorised last year, and which will again be authorised next week for the coming year.
    Mr. WATT: I had intended raising the question of wages paid to the servants of sub-contractors for the Navy. By the
    1268
    instructions of the Navy advanced wages were paid to servants of sub-contractors —
    4.0 P.M
    The CHAIRMAN: That point can be raised on two occasions. The earliest one will be on Vote A of the main Estimates. On. Vote A, anything that. appertains to the administration of the Navy can be raised. Then there will be a subsequent occasion when Vote 8 of the main Estimates comes up.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1917–18.
    Resolved, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His "Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for Pay, etc., of the Army."
    CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1917–18 — INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, IRELAND.
    Resolved, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for Intermediate Education in Ireland, including the Teachers' Salaries Grant."

    DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,085, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1918, for Salaries and Expenses of the Overseas Trade Department."
    Mr. HOGGE: On this Vote, I think, we are entitled to some information. The Government had an opportunity the other day, when they introduced the Supplemental Estimates, to explain why they wanted this money. Before "we agree to the passing of this Vote, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Vote to tell us for what purpose this money is wanted?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND (Undersecretary of State, Department of Overseas Trade): I will gladly tell my hon. Friend the purpose for which this money is wanted. Last summer a considerable difference of opinion had arisen as to how the com-

    1269
    mercial services of the Government abroad should be administered. It was a difference of opinion of long standing. It had been thought that, on the whole, this service, being of a. commercial nature, ought to be under the control of the Board of Trade. On the other hand, it was known that our representatives dealing with commercial matters abroad had to work in close contact with the diplomatic missions, and, of course, it is always true that no commercial question of magnitude can be raised abroad without its possibly having a diplomatic side. There were these two views on the question. It was a difficult matter —as it has been right throughout the history of the whole question for many years—to say whether this service appertains, rather, to the Foreign Office or to the Board of Trade. It was a difficulty which was felt, not only in this country, but in the United States and in Germany. In the end, after consideration of the matter, it was determined to try to deal with it by a new method. The conclusion was reached that probably the best way of dealing with it would be by instituting a new joint department of the two public offices, to be called the Department of Overseas Trade, and a Supplementary Estimate providing enough money to carry on for this year is the subject now before the Committee.
    I am not sure whether the hon. Member wishes for further information as to the detailed work, but if so, I shall be glad to give it to him. It is quite simple. The new Department at home is a composite Department, and for that reason it is an experiment in administration. I do not propose to go into the merits of the question as to why it was set up, because that would be almost indecent as I should be discussing the pre-matrimonial differences of my parents, the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade. The working is comparatively simple. A certain number of officers are contributed, on the one hand, by the Foreign Office, and, on the other hand, by the Board of Trade, and the new Department is responsible to both; but its responsibility is allocated to one or other, according to the matter which conies up. It controls the foreign services which have to do with commercial matters, or, rather, it controls them at the present time in a large part, and it is contemplated that in future it will control them in their entirety.
    1270
    The services abroad are of three different kinds. One kind consists of officers for the British Empire, who are Trade Commissioners. Of these, there were four previously, and they will in future consist of sixteen. Of this number thirteen have actually been sanctioned, and three are under consideration. Of the thirteen who have been sanctioned, if I remember rightly, nine have actually been appointed, and the tenth has been selected, but the actual appointment has not yet been signed. That deals with the British Empire. On the other hand, the foreign services with regard to commerce consist of two parts—the Commercial Attachés and the Consuls. For the time being the Commercial Attachés are under this new Joint Department, while temporarily the Consuls arc still dealt with by the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office. There is little likelihood of friction, because while looking after the new Department as Undersecretary I also preside over the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office as Under-Secretary. Therefore, collision is not likely to occur.
    The Commercial Attaché Service existed before, and the proposal is to expand it very considerably, to reorganise the whole of it, and also to reorganise the service of Consuls. The reorganised Commercial Attaché Service, in so far as it can be Carried out, has been carried out. Sanction has already been obtained from the Treasury for a somewhat reduced scheme, but not the whole of what the Treasury were asked for. At any rate, sanction has been given for as large a proportion of the posts as can properly and usefully be filled during the coming year. That is all under the new Joint Department. The Consular side is not in question this afternoon, but if I am not out of order, I may say that the whole of that, too, is under consideration at the present moment, in order to make it adequate for the requirements which it has got to meet after the War. Later on in the Estimates for the coming year there will come up for discussion the whole of the Commercial Attaché Service, and on that can be raised the duties which the Commercial Attachés are expected to undertake; also the whole of the Trade Commissioner Service for the British Empire, and the duties which they are expected to undertake; and, of course, the home establishment. I have given an

    1271
    outline, or a skeleton, of the organisation of the new Department. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by giving more details than are necessary, but if there be any other item of information that is desired, I will very gladly give it.
    There is one point which is the real justification for taking this matter in hand now, and it is this: In this country before the War everyone was too content to allow questions of the development of our foreign trade and of our commercial rivals to go unanalysed, and competition to go on without being properly met. What has been realised to an increasing degree since the War began is the very definite system of commercial penetration of foreign countries which was pursued by the Germans before the War. It is necessary under modern conditions that we should have, not only up-to-date information about ordinary questions of the selling of goods, and whether our goods are as good as other people's goods, whether they are the goods that are required, and whether the quotations are made in the proper currency, in the proper weights, and so on. But there is a need of a proper analysis and report from the different foreign countries of the whole methods of banking, finance, transport, and all the other factors that enter into commerce as an organised system. The Consuls will, of course, be expected in the different foreign countries to deal adequately with their own particular towns where they are situated and the districts over which they have charge. The duty of the Commercial Attaché will be to keep the Government informed as to what is going on with regard to the general financial development and the whole economic state of foreign countries, to inspect the Consuls, and to see that they do their duties properly, and to keep a constant watch for the benefit of British trade, in order to inform them, so as to see that if any new system of commercial penetration be attempted by our rivals in the future, it shall be at any rate clearly understood, and that knowledge shall be put at the disposal of the British trading community.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for the very short statement which he has made, and I would say this, that if the average business Member of this House had under-
    1272
    stood that, under the words "Class II., Vote 8 a," there was being raised this afternoon a compendium of the machinery which is being created to deal with the commercial warfare for the future, there would have been a larger attendance of Members. I think the Government are doing themselves an injustice when they attempt to take a Vote of this kind without any explanatory statement, and it is a commentary on the methods, not on my hon. Friend, whom I thank quite frankly for what he has said, but of those who are responsible for business, that they should attempt to get a Vote of this kind through without giving some statement of policy and some information to the Committee. What is meant by the statement of my hon. Friend? What he is dealing with is the creation of an entirely new system for dealing with the future trade of this country outside these Islands. Incidentally he has explained to the Committee his own situation, which is so indelicate that he cannot even discuss his own parentage. On that point I think the Committee is entitled to have some more information in regard to the rather extraordinary, or perhaps it would be better to say the peculiar, nature of this arrangement. My hon. Friend has one foot in the Foreign Office and the other in the Board of Trade. I do not know whether either of those feet being in either of those offices is in the grave or not, but in the past the system which has obtained from either of these Departments has not been perfect. My hon. Friend has apparently been sent to a Department which is going to attempt to make the best of the arrangement. We are entitled, before we allow the Government to have this Vote, to know whether this experiment, which has now been run so long that out of sixteen of the appointments which are to be made as Trade Commissioners to the British Empire thirteen have actually been appointed—
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I said that thirteen have been sanctioned and ten have been selected.
    Mr. HOGGE: In that case, what about the countries with which we are at war now? Do the sixteen Trade Commissioners include the belligerent countries'? Take the case of Russia. Presumably my hon. Friend is looking forward to the time when the huge commercial proposition in Russia will require to be dealt with,

    1273
    and we shall have to have Trade Commissioners for Russia. Russia is not the only one of the belligerent countries. I should like to know whether the ten who have actually been appointed or the thirteen who have been chosen cover those countries which are not at the moment belligerent countries, or whether he can tell us in how many of those belligerent countries, or, if Russia is now a neutral country, in how many of those neutral countries his Department has had the prevision to appoint someone who will be a link between the commercial communities in those countries and the commercial community in this country, which will obviously desire to enter into commercial negotiations as rapidly as possible after the declaration of peace? My hon. Friend may say that the remarks he has made are preliminary remarks to the discussion which I am perfectly certain he is glad should arise in this House, because if there is one thing more evident than another to Members of this House from experience abroad it is that the old system which we knew before the War was by no means the best system for dealing with the commercial relations between this country and people abroad. I remember myself, for instance, making a rather detailed journey through Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia, and I was never able in any one of those countries to get information from the Consuls. One found over and over again that the Consuls in various towns in those countries performed a social function, which may be very desirable as far as the ruling powers in those countries are concerned: but if you wanted information what could be translated into money, which, after all, it is the business of commercial representatives in those countries to give, the last person in the world to whom you can think of applying in any of those countries is the British Consul.
    I should like to know whether my hon. Friend can give us the names and the qualifications of the ten gentlemen who have been appointed, and let us know whether these gentlemen have been drafted from the Civil Service of this country? When I say that, I do not mean to imply that you cannot find in the Civil Service of this country men qualified for these posts. I am not making that aspersion at all, but I wish to know whether we have men drawn from that kind of service or whether those men have been appointed on account of their business experience and
    1274
    standing in this country. It is perfectly certain that other Members of this House, men probably having a closer connection with the business interests of this country than I possess, would feel a certain amount of assurance if they were acquainted with the names and qualifications of the gentlemen who have been appointed. A second point which arises is as to the dual arrangement by which the Consulate is still under the Foreign Office, and the Commercial Attachéis under the Board of Trade. I understood that that was what my hon. Friend said.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I said that the Department was a Joint Department equally of the Foreign Office and of the Board of Trade. The Commercial Attachés have been already transferred to the new Department, and it is intended that the Consuls should be transferred as soon as the difficulties of housing accommodation allow this to be done.
    Mr. HOGGE: That interruption of my hon. Friend raises a very serious point. As I understand, the arrangement is this: In future there will be transferred to this Department, for which he is responsible to this House, the Consuls who have been appointed in the past by the Foreign Office, in addition to the Commercial Attaches who have been appointed now and who are already transferred to his Department. If that be so, obviously it raises a very important question, which no Member of the House could have imagined was going to be raised this afternoon. It means that the Foreign Office is being deprived of a certain number of its functions, the appointment of British Consuls and the looking after of British interests especially in very remote corners of the world, and that these are now being handed over to the Department specially created, which is like Mahomet's coffin, between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, between heaven and earth—I do not know which is which—under a new Minister who, after all, has only got the status of an Under-Secretary. I do not blame him for that—it is not his fault—but his Department is going to deal with the appointment of Consuls and Commercial Attachés all over the world, and obviously is going to be one of the great Departments of State which is going to attract to it the attention of all the business people of this country. I see present my right hon. Friend the Member for St.

    1275
    Rollox (Mr. McKinnon Wood), who was at the Foreign Office before the Coalition had an accident, and he may be able to tell us what he thinks as to how this arrangement is going to work, and whether this new expedient of setting up a new office, with only an Under-Secretary in this House to deal with those two large questions, is the best and most businesslike way of dealing with great problems of the kind. It has been alleged of this and other Governments that their last concern is the concern of the business man of this country. I do not think that you will impress the business man of the country when he knows that the channel through which he is to secure information about his business in other countries is to be transferred to a minor Department of the State, and that that is the only proposition of the Government for dealing with a very large problem of this kind after the War.
    My hon. Friend dealt with the question of our development in foreign trade. The Committee will be very glad to know what steps my hon. Friend and his Department are taking in the matter. He mentioned such things as information with regard to banking, transport, the adoption of the decimal system, and the analysis in foreign countries of such trades as it might be suggested men and industries in this country might engage. I might ask also as to the scope of the old Reports which we used to get from the Consular officers abroad, those small octavo blue volumes which were sent to a small number of people, and often contained a great deal of information, but were never sent out in such a way as to attract the public generally. After all, the business of a Department of State of this kind is to put its goods in the shop window. A Department of State, when it has information which is of value, ought to display it to the public, and to the people who can make use of it. It is far too frequently hidden. Therefore, I would like to hear from my right hon. Friend, who, I understand, is a business man, interested in large business concerns, whether he is taking any steps to make more accessible to the business community in this country the kind of information which I have suggested. I am no business man, in the sense of being up from day to day against large business propositions, but it did
    1276
    strike me as very curious that on the Voting Paper to-day we shall have hidden away under Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, Class II., Vote 8a, a Vote which I have tried, however imperfectly, to point out is really the birth, or, if not the birth, the christening, of a new Department which is bound to develop to very great things, upon which, I think, criticism from business men in this House is essential. If I have succeeded in drawing the attention of those who are interested in it to the Vote before the Committee, I think that the speech which I have tried to make, however imperfect it may have been, will be of some use.
    Mr. FRANCE: I had no intention of speaking when I came into the House, because I had no idea, that the mysterious name and letters signified a Vote which carried with it so much of importance to this country, and the Committee ought to be grateful to the hon. Member who has elicited not only this information, but the frank and clear statement of the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to follow him or press him unduly with regard to the rather unhappy family matters into which he entered. He spoke of pre-matrimonial differences. Those sometimes occur, and do not matter very much as long as they lead up to a happy marriage. But I gather that my hon. Friend is not satisfied with the matter, and that something in the nature of a judicial separation is in course of occurring at the present time, and it is not quite certain who has charge of the child. The right hon. Gentleman is in the rather unhappy position of occasionally having to live with one parent and occasionally with the other, in order to try to solve the difficulties and bring them together into amicable relationship. That seems to be a rather curious state of things. At the same time we are glad to know that changes are to be made I, for one, with some little experience of business in other countries, will welcome any change which will make the position of business men, as far as Consular services are concerned, more satisfactory, but there are one or two points on which the hon. Gentleman has a leady touched which many of those who are interested in business would like to have a little more information.
    The hon. Gentleman has spoken of these Trade Commissioners, and I would ask him, if possible, to give the names of these

    1277
    gentlemen. The right hon. Gentleman has given the figure of ten appointments, and I am not quite sure that I completely understand the relations which the holders of those appointments will have with regard to the Consular Service and the Commercial Attachés, but they occupy positions of great importance. The right hon. Gentleman has been asked what are to be the qualifications for appointment under this service, and I should like to hear also what salaries are to be paid to these gentlemen. Unfortunately, in the past, if I may say so, it has been too much the practice and habit of Government Departments to think that they can get the very best of commercial intelligence and ability without paying for it. I should like to know what salary is given to attract what would have to be the very best brains, diligence, and knowledge in the commercial world to make these important posts of real advantage. I wish to have further information as to the relation between the Trade Commissioners and the Consular Service and the Commercial Attachés. I wish to know whether the Trade Commissioners themselves will be a new Department over which the right hon. Gentleman has to preside?
    With regard to the Consular Service and the Commercial Attachés, I endorse what the hon. Member has said in relation to the Consular Service. I have myself paid visits to various parts of the -world with the object of finding opportunities of increasing business, and I have had introductions to representatives of the Government in various classes of work. Those visits have always been made pleasant and agreeable by the gentlemen concerned. On the social side, I would say that the work has been done admirably and calls for full acknowledgment of the kindness and gracious hospitality they afforded; but in regard to practical information, help and encouragement in respect of the business part of one's visit, the assistance has not been very real. One has felt, and felt only too strongly, in the past, that there has been a divorce between the Consular system and the practical needs of business, the reasons for which I need not discuss. Experience shows that it has been so. If the Commercial Attaché, acting with the Consular Service, is to have information which may help the business man in his relations abroad, I, for one, will welcome that change most
    1278
    cordially. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to tell the Committee how the relationship between the Consular Service and the Commercial Attaches will really stand? The right hon. Gentleman said that they would both come under his new Department. Will it be too much to ask whether questions of policy are to be referred to his own Department, and is that Department to decide questions that may affect such matters as treaties with any other countries? Are those questions to be decided by this new Department or have they, in the end, to go to the Foreign Office for confirmation and sanction? These are practical questions on which the Committee would be glad to have some information. My final point is this: In the past the status of the Commercial Attaché, wherever he has been abroad, has not been on a satisfactory basis. One has found, in some cases, where there is an Embassy, and in others where there is a Consular Service, that the social status of the Commercial Attachéhas been looked upon as something quite different from that of the representatives of the Crown. He has been found in a small room somewhere, not much recognised, not easily found, holding an entirely different position, not only so far as the business world is concerned, but the country in which he is living is concerned—a position, where it concerns business of this country, which he ought not to occupy, but which, especially in view of this great reconstruction, ought to command attention in the interests of the Empire. We should be assured that the status of the Commercial Attaché will be raised to that of other branches of the Consular Service, so that the business of this country will in no way be put at a disadvantage, either socially, politically or commercially.
    Mr. RENDALL: I listened to the right hon. Baronet with some pleasure and some profit, but I confess if we had known that this subject was to come on we should have been glad of longer time to become more acquainted with the manner in which his Department deals with it. The whole inception of this Department seems to have been carried out under the idea that it was necessary to be somewhat surreptitious, but I suppose that under proper organisation its duty will be to have no favouritism to traders and to deal fairly by all traders

    1279
    The right hon. Gentleman has said himself that he has had to deal with certain difficulties, and that his Department had two parents who had been quarrelling; and when he took over these two Departments he found that each parent had made certain pledges, some of which he had decided would be kept and others that would not be kept. The right hon. Gentleman has stated the circumstances, and I think the Committee will agree that several of those circumstances have been very unsatisfactory in connection with this Department. I have no intention of dealing with the larger questions raised by hon. Members who have preceded me, but I wish to state that last summer, or about August, I, with other Members, approached the Department with a deputation of the Association of Trade Protection Societies. The Department was partly in relation with the Foreign Office and partly in relation with the Board of Trade, and it had made certain arrangements for obtaining information about foreign traders and foreign business, and had also arrangements with private associations, or associations almost of a private nature. At any rate, those associations were all contributing information. It was then that I was asked to take a deputation to the Board of Trade on this matter. I cannot do better than quote from the "Board of Trade Journal," of 3rd May of last year, what took place:
    "In connection with the restrictions imposed on trading with firms in foreign markets by means of the statutory list, the Foreign Trade Department have taken up the question of obtaining from His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular offices in certain foreign countries fuller and more systematised information than has been available hitherto in regard to possible importers or buyers of British goods. With this object in view, the Foreign Trade Department have issued a circular (known as Form K)."
    Further on it says:
    "A number of replies to the circular have already been received by the Foreign Trade Department, and the information thus collected will shortly be available for distribution to British firms likely to be interested."
    Then follows this rather more important paragraph:
    "In order to secure an effective method of distribution, the Foreign Trade Department have arranged for the dissemination of the information by the Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom (through its Associate Chambers of Commerce), the London Chamber of Commerce, and the Federation of British Industries."
    1280
    I wish to call your particular attention to this sentence, the last, in the paragraph:
    "When necessary, the information will be also distributed through approved trade associations."
    There was a statement, made presumably by the Board of Trade in the "Board of Trade Journal," and with the approval of the Foreign Office, that this information is going to be demanded through certain channels. I think they are certain favoured channels. It says:
    "When necessary, the information will be also distributed through approved societies."
    It was then that the Association of Trade Protection Societies desired to approach the Board of Trade. From the Foreign Office they had got no satisfaction at all. They merely got letters of acknowledgment time after time, till eventually the Foreign Secretary was good enough to say that there was no need for the Association of Trade Protection Societies, because, so far as could be seen, it would only lead to overlapping. Thereupon, as I have stated, a deputation was arranged to go to the Board of Trade on the matter. The deputation consisted of several Members of Parliament and several members of large trading organisations, and we saw the President of the Board of Trade himself and also Sir William Clark, who, I think, is now the permanent official dealing with this matter. After putting our case before the President of the Board of Trade, he entirely accepted our point of view; he said it was reasonable, and I will quote what he said:
    "It seems to me that the two points arise out of what has been suggested here by you this afternoon. The one is. if your association is plated upon the Special Register, would the information that arises out of that act be of value to any considerable section of your members? The other is, can we trust this association with the information that would follow on your being placed on the Special Register? My view is this, that there is section of your members to whom this information would be of value, and certainly as regards the second point, there is no doubt in my mind on that score. Therefore, I am going to ask Sir William Clark to see that your association is placed on the Special Register, and to ask you to be careful, and to use your discretion in giving out the information that will be sent to you from time to time. As regards Form K, that is issued by the Foreign Trade Department, and that is a Department of the Foreign Office. We will ask them to see that Form K is supplied to you, and I think we shall get their consent."
    We had that statement made by the President of the Board of Trade, and of course we thought our whole object had been attained. We left him with very

    1281
    much warmer thanks than circumstances now seem to justify. A little time afterwards we found that information was being refused to the Secretary of the Association of Trade Protection Societies, and we at once communicated with the right hon. Gentleman now sitting on that bench. He was extremely polite and most charming in his demeanour to us. He at once saw the importance of the deputation, and I am sure the pleasure of seeing him was almost sufficient to counteract the disappointment which we experienced from what he said. It was not sufficient, and we felt extremely aggrieved. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Clark) associated with him in his Department. We had been told that we would get information, and Sir Win. Clark, who was present, was apparently a party to what was going on, when the Minister told us that we would get what we wanted. We left, thinking that we would get it, and it is now refused. The defence of the right hon. Gentleman to our demand is that it is not convenient and that it is not quite the thing to have two or three of these large bodies of traders, because of the possibility of overlapping, and therefore it would appear that the giving of information is confined to three organisations, or practically two organisations, the Association of Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of British Industries. That seems to be an entirely unjust thing to do. It is favouritism to certain organisations. The general taxpayer pays for this information being given, and the general taxpayers are the people who ought to get that information, without being compelled to join any association which they may not wish to join.
    The consequence has been that chambers of commerce all over the country have been going round to members of the Association for the Protection of Trade Societies and asking them to join their organisation, because by that means alone can they hope to get this information. That is an impossible situation for a Government Department to have introduced, and we are entitled to have from the hon. Gentleman, I will not say an explanation of what has happened—because that would be of no use at all—but an assurance that he will treat equally all trade associations, and will not put one particular organisation into the position of being able to say, "We are in a favourable position to get information which you cannot have unless you join
    1282
    our organisation." I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider this question, and that he will bear in mind that, the President of the Board of Trade having within the last six months made it perfectly plain, after full consideration, that he was prepared to grant the request of this association to be supplied with information, he is not entitled to go away from that promise or to suggest that it was not definitely made, and that therefore he is at liberty to wriggle out of it. Yet that is the impression which has arisen in certain quarters as to the attitude which he may adopt, and I am certain that this Committee will be very glad if he can see his way to entirely repudiate the idea.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: The Committee must be struck with the great facility with which this Government wriggles out of any position into which it has tumbled when creating a new Department. I do not in the least be-grudge the appointments which have been made in this case. My hon. Friend is a very able man, and will no doubt do his best. But I do suggest that the creation of this Department is a matter which ought to have come before Parliament before it was finally decided upon, and that a Vote should have been asked for to pay the salaries and other expenses. The Department has been created for the particular purpose of forming a link between the Consulships of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade Why should the Government not have come frankly to this House and let it know what was going on, and ask for the Vote necessary to establish it? This House should have had the opportunity of laying down the terms. These ten appointment have been made. I feel very strongly upon this subject, because in the investigations of the National Expenditure Committee we have come across most extraordinary things. I am going to ask my hon. Friend to state what are the salaries attached to these posts. I happen to know one of the gentlemen appointed, and all I can is that if he has been appointed for his commercial knowledge, then God help the Department! I want to know who the others are. You cannot get good commercial men to.go abroad to these posts, because they can do better by staying at home. One unfortunate thing about our Consulships has always been that the Consuls appointed

    1283
    do not speak the language of the country to which they are accredited. I do not believe there are two British Consuls in Scandinavia who speak the language of the countries to which they are accredited. All such appointments should be scrapped.
    Will the hon. Gentleman give me the names of the ten selected men; will he state the principle on which they were selected; and will be. add the salaries which they are to receive? Were these appointments open to competition or were the posts given to friends? I have seen a good deal during this War of appointments of this nature. Only the other day I remonstrated with one of the, Departments because I found there holding a position a man who was formerly a company promoter, and who years ago was stigmatised in "Truth" as a company promoter of the very worst type. He had been given this appointment, although he knew nothing about the business which he had to undertake. Men holding appointments for which they art: not fit and drawing salaries for work which they do not understand ought not to be in the public service, and I hope my hon. Friend will see that that sort of thing does not go on in connection with this new Department. He has a great chance. He should see that he gets first-class men capable of great developments on the new lines. There is an enormous opportunity here for doing a great deal of good for our manufacturers, and it these men are carefully and judiciously selected I am sure it would be of great advantage to trade, and we shall not get-instances, I hope, in this new Department of men occupying positions who bring discredit, rather than credit, to the country they represent.
    Sir WILLIAM PEARCE: I am sorry it was not better known that we were going to have this Debate this afternoon. Thin is a matter which concerns the trade and business of this country in a remarkable degree, and there ought to be a bigger attendance of Members. I should like to suggest that these appointments should not be made permanent, or for a long period of years. At the present time, in consequence of the demand for service in other directions, it is extremely difficult to obtain anybody of ability to conduct operations. Those who are engaged in business must be aware how
    1284
    difficult it is to secure the services of first class men; there are so few men who are free. I do not suggest there has been any secrecy about the establishment of this new Department. It has been felt for a long time that trade interests do not get the attention from the Foreign Office, with its multifarious duties and interests, which it is desirable it should have from a Government Department, and it has been the desire for a long time to secure for Commercial Attaches more influential backing, and to enable them to occupy more important positions. Everybody knows, at any rate in the trading community, that there have been great defects in the appointments made to our Consular Service, the effects of which have been that the business world has not received the attention it desires. It was a matter of general opinion that a new start ought to be made. I thought the House understood, and I am sure the Commercial Committee of this House understood, what was the position. The hon. Gentleman appeared before that; Committee to give an account of his work, and he has also, I understand, seen influential people in the City, including representatives of the London Chamber of Commerce. He made no secret of the fact that he intended to embark upon this policy, and he has been wise enough to ask the advice of anyone who could help him.
    I hope he has made a good start. It is an extremely difficult, matter to succeed in, and I trust the House will not expect too striking a measurer of success. But still we may hope to do a good deal better in the future than in the. past. We may not be able to achieve everything we want, but that is a different matter altogether. One of the greatest authorities I know of in these questions has-always insisted on the importance of business firms having departments in any country with which they do business, and being represented there by men who speak the language of that country and who can get to know local conditions. I doubt very much if success in the highest degree is obtainable unless the merchant or manufacturer takes a step of that kind. The hon. Gentleman, with his new Department, will be able, however, to give them a good deal of help. He has already done something. He is enthusiastic, and I am only sorry more hon. Members were not aware that this Debate was coming on. An attack has been made on my hon. Friend on behalf of those who resent that

    1285
    chambers of commerce should be given preferential treatment in this matter. But these chambers have an extremely numerous membership—nearly every business man belongs to one of them—and if the information is given to them I do not think there can be any serious cause for complaint simply because it is not also given to another trading body. If it is given to the chambers of commerce it is easily available to everyone, and, therefore, it seems to me this is rather a matter of sentiment than of real consequence. I am sure the business community will wish the hon. Gentleman every success in his new policy.
    5.0 P.M
    Mr. PRICE: I think the Committee is greatly indebted to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) for calling attention to this Vote, and I am quite sure that if hon. Members had. known that it was to be taken a great many commercial men in this House would have been here. I am surprised to find that there are not more members of the Commercial Committee, as it is called, present at this Debate on a most important Vote affecting their interests, and I am sorry that it should be so. If the Department of the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) only removes some of the friction which has existed between the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office it will be worth establishing. I remember that years ago when I went into this matter of Consuls and Consular Reports I was sent from one Department to another, and I had great difficulty in knowing where the ultimate responsibility lay. I think it lay with the Foreign Office, but the Foreign Office is extraordinarily jealous of its Department, Before I became a Member of this House I used to read every Consular Report issued. Anybody reading those Reports over must have been impressed by the fact that there were some Consuls who were very competent for their work, who gave exceedingly good information, and who had a very good insight into business; while, on the oilier hand, some of the Reports were written by men who knew very little about business. In travelling abroad I make it a rule to visit these Consuls, and when one found out the grounds on which some of them received their appointments one was not surprised to find that they were people who knew little about business. One of them, I remember I was told, received his
    1286
    appointment because his mother acted as wet nurse to Queen Victoria. That did not seem to be a good qualification for that position, and the man was, indeed, never consulted by the British community that visited there because they were always referred to the Consul of the United States of America. He was a man of great commercial experience, and the British community always used that man in preference to our own Consul.
    In giving these posts of Commercial Attachés or Commissioners the great thing is what qualifications the men have for the positions. I am quite sure that after the War is over there will be a great many men who will want to change their mode of life. Some who have been in banks will want to go abroad, and a great many will be trying to get a post such as this. I. trust the hon. Gentleman will be in no sense led to give posts to these men be cause at this particular moment they have rendered military service. You want to find out what qualifications they have, if they know the trade, while it is essential that they should know the language of the country in which they are living. Very few of our men in those positions do know the language of the country in which they are living. There is a body of men from which the right hon. Gentleman would do well to get a great many men who have had commercial experience in. this country. There are a great many of these men of extraordinary ability, many who have risen in life, and some of whom today travel abroad. If the hon. Gentleman were to search out some of those men they would be an enormous advantage to the Department. They have been trained from the lowest grade in the business, they have shown ability, learnt languages, have travelled abroad, and if the hon. Gentleman would make appointments from that class he would get first-rate business men. It is a sad tiling that many of our representatives abroad do not know the language of the country. I remember meeting in Germany a man who was the son of a very large manufacturer in Glasgow. He did not know German. I asked him how he got on, and he said there was always someone there who spoke English. I think it is disgraceful that a man like that, the son of a big manufacturer in Glasgow, should have to confess that he had to rely on someone speaking English to enable him to sell his own goods. I told him that I thought it necessary to learn some German in order

    1287
    to be able to speak to the people with whom I was dealing each day. If more of our people would abandon that insular pride in the English language and would try to learn other languages it would be a great benefit to the commerce of the country. I am sure the hon. Gentleman should try to appoint as Attachés different men who at present represent firms abroad and who know the language of the country.
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) one question on a point with which he did not deal in his speech. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) referred to the old series of Consular Reports, and said, I think, that they gave commercial information in a rather inaccessible form. Apparently he has not had his attention directed to the "Board of Trade Journal," and one question I want to put to the hon. Gentleman is whether his Department is going to take over the "Board of Trade Journal"? The questions that were put as to favouritism in the distribution of information really turn on difficulties arising during the War. It is very obvious that the Department over which the hon. Gentleman presides will be expected in peace-time to give this information in the widest possible way, and the "Board of Trade Journal," or something of the kind, is obviously one of the best ways to give such information. Before the War that journal had a considerable number of subscribers, and the number, I think, was increasing. It always struck me, however, that not only did not a great many business men take the trouble that the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Price) took in reading the Consular Reports, but that they did not read the "Board of Trade Journal." They used to complain that they did not receive information which was really accessible to them there, and which was very useful to those who made use of the "Journal." I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that that journal, or something of the kind, should come under the control of his Department, and that its development would be a matter of great importance.
    I would like to add one or two remarks in deprecation of some of the appeals that have been made by hon. Members with regard to the future administration of the Consular Service. For instance, an appeal has been made, which on the face of it is very plausible, that our Consuls should
    1288
    always, on the one hand, be of British nationality, and that they should, on the other hand, always speak the language of the country they are in. The latter appeal is obviously a very strong one, but I hope hon. Members will realise that if we are to have a Consular Service in which we are represented at practically every port in the world by a Consul who is to be both a competent Britisher who speaks the language of the country ho is in and who is at the same time a man capable of furnishing a report of the trade of the place and of following the business there, we shall have a very costly Consular Service indeed. The Consular Service in the past has been conducted on a principle that has been thought by some to be too economical, and perhaps in some, cases it was too economical. At the same time, I doubt whether we should contemplate the establishment of a system winch would provide in every little port, however little the work to be done, a Consul who is to be a competent man of business and also a man knowing the language of the neighbourhood. In many of these ports the Consular duties are very light, and that is why they are so often discharged — and often very faithfully and helpfully discharged—by natives of the country. If you want a paid full-time man who will not have anything like full-time work to do, on the principle that you should always be represented by a Britisher and a man who knows the language, you will be compiling a very large bill of costs. There is another fact which I assume the hon. Gentleman has had in view all along. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh told us of a tour he made in North-West Europe, in which he was seeking for information that could be translated into money, and that he was disappointed with the lack of assistance he received from the Consuls. It is not very clear what my hon. Friend meant by information that could be translated into money.
    Mr. HOGGE: I will toll my right hon. Friend. Obviously, the commercial man goes to a country in order to see how he can use his capital. He asks the Consuls for certain information with regard to the trade of the country, and as to how capital can be best employed there. Those people ought to be able to tell Britishers how that can be done, and the best way to do it, when they have the facilities in their hands. My point is that if they cannot do it, you cannot employ money to the best advantage.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My hon. Friend's phrase seems to be less formidable than it appeared to be. I agree that it is useful that the Consul or Commercial Attaché should always be able to give information, though as regards the investment of capital in a place—which seems to be my hon. Friend's point—that is rather another matter from what other hon. Members were thinking of when they said that the Consuls should give some such information as would enable British traders to dispose of their goods. The point I wish to put is that there is obviously a limit to the kind of assistance that a Consul or Commercial Attachécan properly give to British traders seeking for information that can be translated into money, because he has to consider the whole of the British traders. His information must be given with impartiality. He must not give an introduction to one trader and not to another. He might get into an awkward position by giving an introduction to a British trader to certain firms, which introduction would be resented by another British trader coming on the heels of the first. The Consul must be impartial. He must have a body of information at his command which will be accessible to all traders, and that is why I should like to lay more stress on the published information given in the "Board of Trade Journal "rather than on the kind of direct service that a Consul should be expected to give to travelling traders. He must not seem to benefit one trader over another, and it will be very difficult for the Consul to seek to help British travellers visiting his port without at some time seeming to give an advantage to one trader over his competitor.
    I was reading only the other day a trade magazine in which in one paragraph attention was called to the need for this kind of commercial information that we have been discussing this afternoon, and I think complaint was made that the British trader did not get the amount of help for which he was entitled to look—I fancy that those who made that complaint had not always availed themselves of the information accessible—but in the next paragraph was told a story of a British trader who went to a certain foreign town and there made the acquaintance of a German traveller. The German traveller, who wanted to sell similar goods, had actually to get his goods from the British trader. The British trader could not speak the language, and had no help
    1290
    except what he could get from a porter whom he obtained as an interpreter. The result was that the German had the advantage over him at every point. It is impossible to look to the Consul or Commercial Attaché to make up such deficiencies as those. The German trader helps himself in these matters, and the British trader should also help himself. I do not know whether it would be in the province of the new Ministry to call the attention of British traders to the necessity of paying attention to matters of that kind, but if the hon. Gentleman could use his influence in that way he would be doing as much to promote the interests of British trade as by the diffusion of information.
    Mr. PRICE: With regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Robertson) as to men speaking the language of the country in which they are staying, may I explain what has been done by the town of Stettin, in Germany? In the town of Stettin, apart from the curriculum of schools, they decided to form another school giving entirely commercial information, and they granted a certificate to all those who passed through this school. They offered a reward to every boy who went abroad of £70. He was under no obligation to bring it back again, but if he got into a position to enable him to do it they said that they would receive the money. The condition on which the £70 was given, and on which the lad accepted it, was that whatever port of the world he went to live in he should report to the committee of this school or college the trade which Stettin could do in the district in which he was living. In no single instance, covering many years, was there a case of any lad who received the £70 who did not return the money, except in the event of death. All over the world these boys from Stettin were constantly reporting to that district as to the trade suitable for Stettin. If my right hon. Friend could adopt a suggestion of that kind and ask British residents in any part of the world to report as to the trade done in the particular district in which they lived, and then publish it in the local journals—and that is a very important matter—it would add very greatly to the usefulness of the service.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I am rather sorry that it was not more widely known that this Debate was coming on, and I cannot help thinking that if it had been that a great many people who have been talking a good deal about this subject would have

    1291
    come here—some, I dare say, to criticise, but, I am quite sure, a good many to express appreciation of that which has been done so far by the Under-Secretary. It appears to me that this Overseas Department is about the most valuable piece of reconstruction that has yet been attempted. A great many people have complained about the Consular Service of the Board of Trade not assisting trade as much as it might do, but I think there are other aspects to that question. There is the question, for instance, as to whether there are bodies which are sufficiently capable and well officered to offer that assistance to the Board of Trade which would indicate to them the lines on which they might proceed, progress, and develop. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome from chambers of commerce and kindred organisations indications as to the way in which he should proceed. The information which is now being transmitted to the chambers of commerce is gradually percolating and being distributed to new chambers and new departments of those chambers, but I doubt whether it will be properly appreciated until there is some improvement in the method of distributing it. One meets very few people who take the "Journal" of the Board of Trade, to which reference has been made. I feel quite sure that-more use might be made of that "Journal" in distributing it and by indicating there where the fuller information could be obtained in addition to that which is now being distributed. With regard to the question of having persons of British birth and able to speak the language of the particular country in everyplace where there is a British Consul, I think one has to look very carefully at a proposition of that kind. I rather agree with what the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said on this subject. What we ought to secure is the appointment of a very capable man in charge of each district of a country, and that that man should have under him men conversant with the local details and idiosyncrasies, and, of course, able to speak the language and at the same time having a knowledge of home conditions as well as of the conditions of the country in which he was placed.
    I cannot help thinking also that it would be necessary, and very desirable, in the developments which the hon. Gentleman may be able to secure, that
    1292
    these men who are Consuls abroad should eventually come home, so that we could have in his Department here the knowledge that they had acquired of the conditions of the various foreign countries from which they came, and that there should be a circulation of such men. When I use the word "circulation" I do not mean such a circulation as I heard of in which a man who had acquired a full knowledge of the facts with regard to East Africa was then sent to the western shores of South America. I mean rather that a man who has got to know all the details of, say, South America, should come home and be a reservoir of information here, and that men here should be sent out to South America and other places to learn the conditions there, while at the same time they had knowledge of the trade which we desire to push in the countries to which they went. Some criticism has been offered as to the manner in which the information is distributed. I think the chamber of commerce is the proper line, but that at the same time the right hon. Gentleman should try and secure that no monopoly is established. Anyone can become a member of a chamber of commerce, and subscriptions are extremely small. I cannot see, personally, any difficulty in anybody who wants information from the Board of Trade obtaining it at a most trivial cost. I am not, indeed, quite sure that there is a very great deal in this respect in the criticism which has been passed. I shall be glad to hear any further explanation which the right hon. Gentleman may be in a position to give as to any developments which he has in immediate contemplation.
    Colonel YATE: I think we all welcome most cordially the reconstruction of our Overseas Commercial Department, and that we look forward to great developments in this direction. I hope the time has come when we shall see all our Consuls fully-paid Consuls of British birth and not men of foreign birth trading on their own account. I know it would cost a great deal more money, but on that aspect of the question I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the reconstitution of our Consular Overseas Service he proposes to institute a system of the levying of Consular fees abroad similar to the system which is adopted by foreign countries. The amount of money collected in that way would go a long way towards meeting the expense of fully-paid Consuls.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am sorry that any hon. Member should have thought that there was any wish to hide the activities of this Department, and I can assure hon. Members that there is no such desire. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) in his interesting remarks at the beginning, which really gave an opportunity for this Debate, gave, I am afraid, what is possibly the only instance in which he has failed in his Parliamentary duties, and that is in not having read the White Paper which was issued at the beginning and in which the whole facts are set forth.
    Mr. HOGGE: I knew all about it.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I can only say for myself that there has not been the very least intention of burking any discussion of any sort or kind. When the Estimates for next year come on, I hope that there will be shown on those Estimates the whole table of the Commercial Attachés for each place and the Trade Commissioners also, so that the Committee may have before it a conspectus of the whole of the work so far as it can be put down in black and white on paper..I myself would also welcome it, because one of the difficulties with regard to the work at present is the fact that amidst all the preoccupations of the War it is not always easy to get enough attention paid to some of the necessary problems with which we are going to be faced at the end of the War. Therefore, from my own personal point of view, the more attention that is called to this question, the more I am glad, because it means that to that extent the problem is analysed and more steam is put behind the work. For that reason I also have been doing my best, as many Members of the House know, to invite criticism and opinions from many Members of the House and from as many people in commerce and business outside as possible. I refer not only to members of the Commercial Committee of the House, but also individual members both of London and the provinces, and I have taken opportunities to ask them to come and talk over the problems so as to try and arrive at solutions of some of the questions which, in this connection, have never been fully analysed in this country before.
    During this Debate a question has been put whether this new experiment of
    1294
    administration, because it is quite a new experiment, is really justified. I think if hon. Members will go into all the details of the question they, and I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Robertson) also, with his experience, will probably agree that this Department is really a very justifiable experiment in administration. It has, of course, got its drawbacks. It may be said that no man can serve two masters, and that consequently it is not easy to serve the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the President of the Board of Trade. But all those are verbal criticisms which have to give way to the logic of facts, and getting to the logic of facts, if a Department of this kind is worked with good will and understanding on both sides, my feeling is that it is the best way to meet a very difficult situation. The right hon. Gentleman knows, with his experience, that it has always been a real matter of difficulty as to who ought to look after the Commercial Services abroad. Of course, in so far as they have a commercial aspect, it is naturally the Board of Trade which is interested in them, but at the same time there is hardly a single commercial question of any great importance in foreign countries which may not at any moment take on a political value, and, quite rightly from that point of view, the Foreign Office feel that they ought to have a say and knowledge of a matter which might be the genesis of some international question, and that they are the only authority which can properly deal with political questions abroad of that kind. That is one of the considerations which has dictated the present state of affairs with regard to Consuls. I think the primary duty of the Consuls ought to be to sub serve the commercial interests of the community at home, but you cannot dissociate Consuls from political questions and political work as well, and it is for that reason that it is impossible at any time to sever their connection with the Foreign Office. When my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) suggested that they would be transferred from the Foreign Office to the new Department, I think he indicated that he had not got a full idea of what the new Department is intended to be. It is a joint department of the Foreign Office as well as of the Board of Trade, and it is really a transference from one part of the Foreign Office to another, because the new Department is Foreign Office also. The recom-

    1295
    mendations which I may make with regard to appointments or transfers will always be recommendations to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to give his final sanction. So that it does not cease to be the Foreign Office; it is essentially joined to the two.
    An hon. Member asked for certain information as to the way in which we have proceeded with regard to Trade Commissioners and their knowledge of languages, and perhaps it was my fault at the outset that I did not make the situation quite clear, because the hon. Member for Edinburgh clearly did not quite understand it also. There are two halves to our services abroad. The half which is represented by the Trade Commissioners has nothing to do with foreign countries. The Trade Commissioners are of service to the British Empire only, and consequently, with the exception, conceivably, of French Canada, and perhaps part of South Africa, the question of foreign languages does not arise in their case. The British Empire is served by Trade Commissioners; foreign countries are served by Commercial Attachés and Consuls. I hope I have made that quite clear. As regards Commercial Attachés and Consuls, the possession of a knowledge of the language of the place where they are serving, I was going to say, is absolutely requisite, but if ever there were an exception, at any rate, it would be a rare exception—but otherwise a knowledge of the language of the country in which they are serving is an absolute requisite. I can only speak of one meeting of the Selection Committee for Commercial Attachés. One appointment was made. The appointment has not yet been passed by the Secretary of State, but perhaps I may anticipate it by saying that in such case he was not only bi-lingual with regard to English and the language of the country in which he proposed to serve, hut that he had taken a degree of engineering in the country in which it was proposed he should serve as well as in this country, so that in that case, at any rate, the requirement would be satisfied.
    With regard to; the Trade Commissioners, about which a question was raised, I have a, note hereof those who have been already appointed, and I am only too glad to tell the Committee the method of their appointment. I had
    1296
    certain applications made to me personally, and I passed on all the applications to a Selection Committee which was set. up to deal with them. The Selection Committee included three men of business, as well as some officials representing the Board of Trade and other Government Departments. This refers to the Trade Commissioners for the British Empire. The Selection Committee, which was quite a small Committee, included three outsiders in the shape of three men of business—Sir Algernon Firth Sir Henry Birchenough, and Mr. Stanley Machin. of the London Chamber of Commerce—and the whole of the appointments were filled by a Selection Committee composed partly of members of the Departments and a large proportion of outside business men. The result was that ten posts have been filled or recommended as Trade Commissioners of the British Empire—not Commercial Attachés. I took a note of what their qualifications- were. For Canada, Mr. Field, of Toronto, who was previously the trade correspondent there, and editor of the "Monetary Times" of Toronto; for Australia, Mr. McGregor, who was a commercial engineeer, and also was in business in the metal trade; for New Zealand, Mr. Dalton, who was previously a member of the department which carried out special inquiries at the beginning of the War in his particular trade; in South Africa, Mr. Wickham, who has been in a firm in Calcutta. And so right through the whole record. I am sure the Committee will not wish me to give all the names, but I shall be only too glad to hand the record to anyone.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can you give us the ten names?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: They are: Canada, Mr. G. T. Milne and Mr. F. W. Field (Toronto); Australia, Mr. McGregor; New Zealand, Mr: Dalton; South Africa, Mr. Wickham and Mr. Wilson Goode; India, Mr. Ainscough: Straits Settlements, Mr. McKellen (Fine Cotton Spinners); and attached at present to headquarters, Mr. Hamilton Wickes. Another has just been recommended for the West Indies, Mr. Pavitt, who is a chartered accountant. Those are the ten who have already been either appointed or recommended, and the salary is, for the first grade, rising from £ 1,000 to £1,200 a year; for the second grade, £700 to £900; and for the third grade, from £500 to £700.
    Mr. HOGGE: Are those all first grades?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No; one first grade in Canada, one first grade in Australia—five altogether of the first grade, and, I think, five of the second, and six of the third— that is the whole sixteen.
    Mr. C. PRICE: Do I understand the representative appointed for South Africa was in India?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: He had been in a firm in India for a portion of his time.
    Mr. PRICE: Had he any South African experience before?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not think he had. It is impossible, if I may say so, to get quite the ideal with regard to every particular person. No doubt it would be quite ideal if you could get a person who has got experience of South Africa, but if you get a person of real good experience, who has done administrative work, any person with brains will accommodate himself to the conditions in South Africa. With regard to the Commercial Attaches and Consuls, a question has been asked me which is of interest. I entirely agree with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyneside. I think myself the duties which the Consul can perform for the commercial community are sometimes over-estimated, and in this country, I know, many people are accustomed to say that British Consuls have been no help with regard to business, and that we ought to look to German and American Consuls as models. I have extracts from the German papers in which they say they ought to look to the British and American Consuls as models, and I have now an authoritative opinion from America saying they ought to look to the British and German Consuls as models.
    I think there is a perfectly natural misconception by which the commercial community in nearly every country is inclined to expect from its Consuls more than the most ideal Consul could really give. I think we have got in mind ideas with regard to the recruitment of Consuls for the future, and as to how they should be trained to be of the best possible use. The sort of idea floating in my mind was to see if they could not be given a year of a definite commercial education in some of the modern universities—take Leeds, for example—where they might not only be trained from the point of view of lectures,
    1298
    but also get practical experience in some of the factories near by at the same time, and that after that they should go through a definite course, which would be equally necessary, of banking, currency, finance and transport. Then, I think, perhaps, one would get a person of the type who could be of most use, but if anyone expects they could go to a place and at once ask the Consul to turn their efforts into money direct—I am not wishing to be responsible for what the hon. Member has said at all —I think that involves a misconception of what a Consul can do. I do not think a Consul ever can, under the best conditions, definitely tell a person exactly what is the status of the different people with whom he can trade. What I think a Consul ought to have is a really working knowledge of what the trade of the place is, of the principal traders in the place, and the principal financial and banking institutions, so that a person who goes there, ignorant, shall we say? of the town and district, can be given a general idea of the commercial life there, and can be told of the people to whom he can go in order to get really reliable knowledge. That is, I think, the proper function of the Consul, put in very general language, but which, if carried out adequately and with zeal, really would make him a very great help to the person who came there.
    The proposed relation of Consuls and Commercial Attachés is this: In the scheme the Commercial Attaché Service to a large extent has now been under consideration and has been settled. The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Pennefather) has helped enormously. He has been one of those who first helped us in really remodelling and revising, but with his help, and other help when given, it is proposed that there should be this service of Commercial Attaches throughout foreign countries, in four grades. The salaries are to be—first grade, maximum £l,500 a year; second grade, £1,100; third grade, £800; and fourth grade, £600. Of course those are supplemented by local allowances to cover extra expenses in very expensive places, and also office allowance to cover the expenses of the office. As between Consuls and Commercial Attachés, the proposed position is this—of course, one has to conceive both of transitory and normal periods: In the normal period, when the whole system is in working, the Consuls will be recruited in the way I have suggested, and the most promising of them will be eligible for

    1299
    Commercial Attachés. After going through the fourth and third grades, if still showing the same promise and performance, they would go on to the second grade and the first grade Commercial Attachés; otherwise they would pass back into the Consular Service. Thus both Services would be really one recruited in the same way, but the Commercial Attaches of the future would be picked from the Consular Service. They would be at the centre of authority very largely. The principal Commercial Attachéin a country would have to collect all the information, and I sincerely trust it may be possible to get Consular fees, which would help to pay for that. He would have to collect all the information from the different Consular districts, and would have to be able to give a really good economic survey of the country as a whole and the knowledge of it to traders He would, in turn, have to be able to inspect the Consuls, and see that they were doing their duty. That, of course, applies purely to the normal period.
    We have to fill up the new posts before any organisation like that can be got into working order. For the purpose of filling the new posts I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no chance of any favouritism at all. Again, a Select Committee has been set up, partly representative of the Departments, partly from the Civil Service Commissioners, and partly composed of business men. Every single candidate for appointment goes before them before he can be recommended to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs for selection. I trust I have given the Committee such satisfaction on that point as they might wish. I can only say, as regards the publication of information, that, of course, the "Board of Trade Journal" is quite the best place for all information which shall be published to the world at large. It has lately been remodelled and brought out in what, is hoped, is a more attractive form; the contents have been remodelled as well. All that information will be given as widely as possible. It is hoped, in addition, to be able to give special Reports, some of which are needed immediately, and apart from the Report on the whole country for the year, which is not meant to give immediate information. In many cases the man of business will want immediate information, and that is to be dealt with quickly, either by letter or telegram sent out to the people on the
    1300
    special register which is kept for the purpose; thus we shall arrive at the matter by much quicker methods than either the Annual Report or publication in the "Board of Trade Journal."
    The question of language is, I can assure my hon. Friend, a matter of very great difficulty. At the same time, I hope before long to see what can be done by negotiation with representatives of groups in business and with the universities throughout the country, so to see whether we cannot get, instead of simply here a chair of Russian and there a chair of Spanish, to, at any rate, get the country adequately dealt with from the point of view of a proper education in modern languages. It is perfectly true that the knowledge of modern languages is hopelessly deficient in this country. One of the things most urgently needed is a knowledge, not only of French and German—which were mostly thought sufficient before the War—but of such languages as Spanish and Portuguese, in view of the great development of places like South America. It is not possible to set everything on foot at once, but I have already had informal conversations with the Minister of Education on the subject, and this is one of the matters which we want to pursue.
    There is only one other item with which I ought to deal, I think, and that is the particular question brought up by the hon. Member sitting just below the Gangway (Mr. Rendall). I am sorry that he and I quite definitely do not agree. The hon. Gentleman has made one or two statements. I put his words down. He referred to a pledge which had not been kept. I really definitely say that there is no foundation for that. There is no pledge which was not kept-absolutely none! What occurred was this: there is an item of information under Form K, which was started in the Foreign Trade Department, and is now being transferred from the Foreign Office to the Department of Overseas Trade. In the interview with the President of the Board of Trade I gather that my hon. Friend and some others pressed for the giving of certain information which the Board of Trade had to give to the Association of Trade Protection Societies. The President of the Board of Trade consented to it—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—then he was asked whether he would also supply them with information under what is called Form K. The reply of the President was that the matter was one for the Foreign

    1301
    Office, but he would ask them and hoped to obtain their consent. There were special difficulties and special reasons— which I really do not care to go into in detail, but which made it really difficult— and I do not think necessary—
    Mr. RENDALL: Were they made by the Foreign Office?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND:The Foreign Office were responsible for this information under Form K. The difficulties I do not think were known by the President of the Board of Trade at the time, and he made no specific pledge to give information which was really then in connection with a matter under the Foreign Office. My hon. Friend says that the result has been that the Chambers of Commerce have been detaching members from the trade protection societies on the ground that they alone can supply this information and the trade protection societies cannot. That is a serious charge, and I shall be glad if I can give my hon. Friend a specific answer to it. If he is satisfied, I shall be very pleased. It is also a serious charge to make against the Chambers of Commerce. The whole question—it is just as well to be perfectly definite and perfectly explicit—is that this information was distributed, it was said, to many associations of an entirely private nature. I do not think that Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of British Industries can really be described as associations of an entirely private nature. The information was distributed to them—for what reason? Because it was required to do two things. This was before I had anything to do with the Department: at the same time I fully concur in what was done before I had charge. It was desired to see that this information should be distributed as widely as possible, and that it should be given to those people whose principal object was pushing foreign trade I think anyone who is really acquainted with the commercial world would say that these two objects were the two most representative bodies. There was no favouritism.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is not the Federation of British Industries a new organisation?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is quite a new organisation, and very representative. They have as one of their principle objects the pushing of foreign trade. It would be very much simpler and very much easier to publish all this
    1302
    information straight off; but you have to draw the line somewhere. On the question of trade protection societies as compared with the Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of British Industries, one of the essential features of a trade protection society, as differentiated from a Chamber of Commerce or from the Federation of British Industries—I do not wish to derogate for a moment from the character of the first—is that it is largely engaged in status inquiries in connection with accounts. If a line was to be drawn at all it was surely to be drawn between people whose object is the general promotion of commerce and a body which acts for people for whom status inquiry is a matter of business guidance. I think, therefore, the principle is quite clear, and I see no reason whatsoever of any kind—
    Mr. RENDALL: The right hon. Gentleman says it is not a pledge, but the words I quoted from the President showed that he said Form K was issued by the Foreign Office. He was asked to see that Form K was supplied to a certain body, and the reply was that he would ask that Form K should be so supplied, and he added that he hoped to get the consent of the Foreign Office. When a Cabinet Minister, who is practically in control of the matter, and when, subsequently, the working of the Department is put under his control, says that, and later does not give Form K, it is surely as good as an undertaking or a pledge?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: But the matter was under the control of the Foreign Office.
    Mr. RENDALL: It is under their control now, apparently !
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The responsibility for Form K rests with the Foreign Office, and there the matter rests. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not quite satisfied with the explanation concerning one who was brought into the matter in the way the President of the Board of Trade was. Still, if there are amongst the members of the Trade Protection Societies—the bulk of whom, I think I may say so rightly, are retailers —a comparatively small proportion to whom this information would be of any use, we shall be quite glad to make arrangements to see that they get the information. That I shall be ready to

    1303
    try to do, but to press the matter as one of amour propre on behalf of the Trade Protection Societies seems a mistake, I am exceedingly sorry that the line has had to be drawn somewhere. In principle, I think, the line should be drawn where it is drawn. For my own part, I cannot see my way to depart from that position.
    Mr. LOUGH: The interesting speech to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman is one that ought to encourage the Committee to take the estimate of the new Department into consideration from the standpoint, at any rate, of economy. The estimate is not one calculated to ease the suspicion of those who may be afraid of some extravagance. We always hear my right hon. Friend who has just sat down with great delight, and I do not want to say anything which may appear to be unfair or hard criticism about him on his almost first appearance in this new Department, for, as I understand, he is Parliamentary Secretary to this extraordinary Department, which appears to be existing between two great Departments of the State—the Board of Trade on the one hand, and the Foreign Office on the other. The Estimates on the Paper before me show: Parliamentary Secretary (£2,000 per annum), proportion, £835; with a proportion of £500 (out of £1,200) for an officer termed a Comptroller-General. Subordinate clerical staff, messenger, charwoman, account for £350. As it appears to me, you have here an expenditure of £l,300, or thereabouts, to supervise £350. That is what I may call a good start.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps my right hon. Friend was not here when, at the beginning, I said that the office, in respect of which these estimates are submitted, would supervise the whole of the Commercial Attachéand Trade Commissioners' Services. Next year I hope it may be possible to set out the whole Service in detail, with the amounts for each individual officer. Subsequently, the whole would be set out so that they could come at one under review. I said that this deficient Supplementary Estimate would be open to criticism.
    Mr. LOUGH: I do not think the Supplementary Estimate is deficient. I think it is too extravagant. My hon. Friend does not reassure me by saying that next year we shall have an Estimate
    1304
    of all the salaries set out with the extent of the expenditure. I want to restrict the salaries and the expenditure to the narrowest limits consistent with efficiency instead of watching with any pleasure the growth of this extraordinary Department. I regret that I did not hear the beginning of this Debate, but I wish to express a doubt which exists in my mind. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) appears to have made particular inquiries about the status of the individuals appointed, and he has asked whether they were good and efficient men, and the answer which the hon. Gentleman has given appears quite satisfactory.
    Mr. HOGGE: No!
    6.0 P.M
    Mr. LOUGH: I am only stating my own view. The doubt in my mind is as to what we want them to do. This matter is very vague, and it. may lead to a gigantic expenditure. Already we have heard of thirteen appointments. First we get a Parliamentary Secretary with £2,000 a year, then a Controller at £1,200 a year, who controls nothing but an extremely small staff. We have also heard of thirteen appointments, some at £1,500, others at £1,100, £900, and £700 a year, and that is only a beginning. I want to know what is being done in foreign countries, such as South America and other places? This is really the the creation of a new Foreign Service altogether, and the duties have been left extremely vague. Take the question of foreign languages. If the merchants in this country want their staffs to be acquainted with a foreign language they must give that instruction here, and they must get their staffs educated in this country.
    Before this Department develops any further I think all this expenditure ought to be more carefully looked into. I could not quite make out whether the Commercial Attaché is going to be the superior of the Consul or merely an assists ant. Unless there are definite duties laid down I do not think there ought to be any more appointments. For instance, I would like to know if any new work has been developed in New Zealand, South Africa, and the Straits Settlements? I believe that all these appointments have been made in response to a well-intended clamour about the creation of a new Department, and now that it has been created with all these salaries, perhaps we may have an Estimate of £100 in connection with this matter.

    1305
    If these appointments are to go on over the whole world, when the expenditure of this country is on such a gigantic scale, we ought not to have such appointments made unless there is a definite necessity for it, and unless they are going to discharge some duties that will repay the large expenditure incurred. I do not wish to find fault with what has been suggested by my hon. Friend, but I hope he will not be hustled into making more appointments of this kind.
    Mr. KILEY: I would like to have a little more information about the Trade Commissioners. We have been told that sixteen of these appointments have been made, and that they are gentlemen who have had some commercial experience. T know one Commissioner who has had no business experience, and I know that he has sent back one or two admirable reports, as well written as any reports that could be obtained; but that is not what the Department has been set up for, or what the commercial community require, and I would like to have some assurance that in regard to future appointments they will be given to men who have had business experience and knowledge.
    Mr. JACOBSEN: I must say that I am rather disappointed with the appointments which have been made. I have myself been round the world seven or eight times, and with my experience, and after all the talk we have had about this new Department, I am sorry to see that you have gone back to the bad old system of getting men for these positions who are not the best we can get for those duties. I think the salaries are absurd, and the men obtained are not the type that are going to help us abroad. I know something about the countries where these men have been appointed, and I know many men there who have knowledge of the ins and outs of business, and who could supply us exactly with what we require. I am extremely sorry that it has been thought necessary to engage a type of men which is the wrong type. One of the gentlemen appointed is a chartered accountant. I have nothing to say against a chartered accountant, but when you send him abroad to take charge of our Consular service you will never get from him more than a superficial knowledge of commerce in that country.
    The men you employ ought to thoroughly understand all the various ins and outs of commerce in the country itself, and I do not think you are going to succeed in this
    1306
    business if you are going to appoint professional men from this country. It seems to me that commercial men should not rely too much on the Consular Service. Successful business can never be done unless Englishmen go out themselves and learn the conditions of the country. They may get a little useful help from the Consuls, but that will never take the place of personal work and investigation. We have heard a great deal about the marvellous commercial men sent out by Germany. I have met a great many of them abroad, but I have never met one whom I would like to employ. They generally speak four or five tongues, all of them extremely badly, but they do not do their business because they speak those tongues; they do business by means that most British firms would not employ. I thought this Department was going to be something new under my hon. Friend—that it was going to be a new conception; but I am profoundly disappointed that it appears to have gone upon the old lines of employing a man without any special qualifications for the work he has to do.
    Mr. C. PRICE: Can the man who has been appointed for South Africa speak Dutch?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, he cannot speak Dutch
    Mr. WATT: I was very pleased to hear the speech of the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote, and particularly his views about trade protection societies, and I was very sympathetic with the opinions which he put before the Committee on that subject. I understand from the hon. Gentleman's opening observations, in reply to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge),that a Foreign Intelligence Department is going to be set up, and that inquiries as to commercial status are going to be made throughout the world. I understand that, following upon the receipt of all that information, it is going to be handed over to the chambers of commerce, and to another institution called the Federation of Traders. I do not think the hon. Gentleman ought to have taken up that line, and he ought to have utilised the existing trade protection societies by giving them the information which he proposes to give to the chambers of commerce, for I believe they would have utilised that information in a much more thorough and businesslike fashion than the chambers of commerce.

    1307
    They are not the people who represent the entire commerce of the country, and they only represent a section of our traders, and generally the most aristocratic section. Why the hon. Member should have chosen those bodies to carry out those duties I cannot understand. I hope the hon. Member will reconsider his decision. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has made a definite promise to reconsider his decision in regard to trade protection societies in order to see if he can utilise their services. I hope the information which he is going to give to the chambers of commerce will be given to the trade societies, because I feel sure that that would be for the benefit of the trade of the country.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY. — [18th FEBRUARY.]
  Postponed Resolutions further considered.
  Sixteenth Resolution,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not. exceeding £408,900), be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the, year ending on the 31st day of March. 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee (including Sundry Grants in Aid)."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. HOGGE: I want to ask for some information with regard to a point which has not yet been finally adjusted and which I was not able to raise on the Committee stage. I hope that the Controller of the Household will be able to deal with it. At present men who are insured under the national health insurance scheme are entitled, on account of their contributions to sanatorium treatment free. One finds, however, when a sailor is discharged from the Navy or a soldier is discharged from the Army afflicted with tuberculosis, and when he is placed in a sanatorium for treatment, that 7s. per week, or 1s. per day, is deducted for maintenance in the sanatorium from the pension at the highest disability rate of 27s. 6d. per week that he
  1308
  receives. It cannot be right that the soldier who prior to joining the Army and while in the Army, or the sailor who prior to joining the Navy or while in the Navy, paid sufficient contributions to establish his right to free treatment in a sanatorium, when placed there after discharge, should have deducted from his pension Is. per day for his maintenance in the hospital. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman on what grounds he justifies the position of the National Health Insurance Commissioners in depriving a sailor or a soldier who is insured— mark the words; I do not mean every case—of free treatment in a sanatorium simply because he has served in the Army or the Navy? I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman can answer the other point. It is really a question for the Pensions Minister. He makes the deduction from the man's pension, but it is the hon. Gentleman who ought to secure free treatment for the man. Under this heading a special Grant is made and an additional sum is required, and if there is not sufficient money I want to know why my hon. Friend cannot see that these men get the free treatment to which they are entitled.
  Sir E. CORNWALL Comptroller of the Household): I do not know that my hon. Friend is correct in placing the responsibility on the National Health Insurance Commissioners, because all we do under this Vote is to give to the insured soldier sanatorium treatment at once without the period of waiting which the ordinary civilian tuberculous person might have to undergo. That arrangement was made in 1915, and by the Act of 1917 we brought in the uninsured soldier. That needed more money than was available front the contributions which are allotted for the provision of treatment for tuberculous persons. We give the treatment free, and it is not our business to go beyond giving the treatment. We are only by this Vote provided with, facilities for giving the treatment promptly. That is our task, and that is why we ask for this money. More people now come under this special Grant than was estimated, and we therefore ask for more money. We shall have to ask for a great deal more for 1918–19, because there will be a much larger number than last year. With regard to the point why the Pensions Ministry deduct 1s. per day from the allowance of 27s. 6d. per week which they give pending the assessment of the pension payable to the soldier, I think my

  1309
  hon. Friend will see, and you, Mr. Speaker, would also rule, that I should not be in order in going into that now. It is a matter entirely for the Pensions Ministry. I have no authority whatever over the arrangements which they make with regard to the pension. I do not see how my hon. Friend, who knows so much about these things, can show that it comes within my province or under this Vote.
  Mr. HOGGE: My hon. Friend has just said that he, as Chairman of the National Health Insurance Commission, provides accommodation free for these men. That accommodation which he has provided free ought to be given free, but a fellow Minister in a neighbouring Department of the Government is charging the patient money for that free treatment. The hon. Gentleman ought to object to it very strongly.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: I do not think it is a case for one Department objecting to what another Department is doing.
  Mr. HOGGE: Surely
  Sir E. CORNWALL: There are a great many matters which the Pensions Ministry no doubt has to take into consideration. I am not acquainted with all the circumstances which govern their decision, and it is not for me either to blame them or to bestow praise with regard to the steps that they are taking. No doubt my hon. Friend will raise the matter at the proper time, but I do not think that it comes under this Vote.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I regret to have to intervene in this Debate, more particularly as my hon. Friend has given an unsatisfactory explanation on this point. It is quite clear that there may be a case for a deduction in the case of the uninsured soldier, because, after all, he has no contract with the National Health Insurance Commission. The insured soldier is in a different position. He was told a great many years ago that he was to get 9d. for 4d., and the 9d. was understood to cover sanatorium benefit. It is quite true, apart from this special Grant, for which there is a Supplementary Estimate here, that this sanatorium treatment would not have been available either for soldiers who are insured or for soldiers who are uninsured, but undoubtedly the contract made was that sanatorium benefit should be available. The National Health Insurance
  1310
  Commissioners have endeavoured to make it available to a larger extent than otherwise would have been possible, and, having made it available by means of a special Grant voted by Parliament, it is surely monstrous that another Minister should intervene and charge the soldier who is to benefit for that which he ought to get free.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: That is not my Department.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is very difficult in a case of this kind to separate the action of the Departments. I do not know whether this matter will be in order on the Pensions Vote. It seems to me that in all these eases it is a mutter of inter-departmental arrangement, and, if that is so, then surely we are entitled to make a protest against a charge being made for a service in respect of which Parliament is making a Grant. I hope, even if my hon. Friend is unable to do anything in the matter, that he will bring it to the attention of those who are in authority. I do not think that lie, in his position, is able to say to the Pensions Minister. "You have no right to make this deduction," but undoubtedly it is his duty, as representing the National Health Insurance Commission, and in a sense as the trustee for the insured persons, to enter a protest to the War Cabinet and to see, that an end is. speedily put to this strange procedure.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Seventeenth Resolution,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Payment of Grants towards the Cost of the Extension of Sanatorium Benefit to the Dependants of Insured persons under the National Insurance Act, 1911, and of the Treatment of Tuberculosis generally."
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Eighteenth Resolution,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Expenses of the Ministry of Munitions."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. PRINGLE: I do not desire on the Report stage of this Vote to raise any considerable question of policy, but to put a number of questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions which relate to some recent episodes and changes which have occurred in regard to his Department. On the Committee stage of this Vote we had a fairly extended discussion on the 12½per cent. increase which was granted by the Ministry of Munitions, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire Mr. Roch), owing to a protest made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes), is anxious to give the right hon. Gentleman an. opportunity once more of explaining his position on this very thorny subject. I am not going to deal with the grant of 12½ per cent. increase; I merely wish to deal with one of its by-products—that is, an incident which took place at Messrs. Beardmore's Works at Parkhead. There a number of workmen who were employed in various capacities made an application for the 12½per cent. bonus. They describe themselves as the Steam Hydraulic Enginemen's Society. These men intimated on the 1st February that unless the bonus were given to them they would cease working overtime or at weekends. As these are very important workers in connection with steel production the threat was a very serious one to the firm. I wish to call attention to the extraordinary procedure of the firm. On the 2nd February the firm locked all these men out. There were 1,500 who made the claim and these men were locked out on Sunday, 3rd February. Further, during the course of the week which began on that day, another 4,000 men were thrown out of employment owing to lack of material. This action on the part of the firm raises a very interesting question under the Munitions Act. We all remember than under Part I. of the original Munitions Act it was made an offence for workmen to go on strike and it was equally made an offence for employers to lock-out. That, of course, was represented as giving fair treatment to both sides, although it was well recognised that what the Government wished to do was to stop strikes, because under War conditions it was inconceivable that any employers should resort to the method of a
  1312
  lock-out. As a fact, both strike and lockout were made statutory offences. I desire to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether Messrs. Beardmore in taking this action had the authority of the Ministry of Munitions for so doing, and, if they had not that authority, whether they are not liable to a prosecution under the Munitions Act for delaying the production of munitions of war, and, if they are so liable, why no proceedings have been taken against them? I hope that my hon. Friend will be able quite briefly to give an answer to these questions. So far as matters of fact are concerned, I think I have given an accurate account of what has taken place.
  The other question to which I wish to draw the attention of the Department as the organisation of the Priority Department. I do not know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible for this Department. [understand it is his colleague the Financial Secretary, but I have no doubt that the question I am now putting and the considerations I shall advance will be reported to him when he comes to the House. I am not going to enter into the history of the Priority Department. I am told that, owing to several causes, very recently it was decided to adopt a scheme of reorganisation in that Department. It had become patent that the Department as it was organised was not discharging successfully the very difficult and onerous duties which were imposed upon it. That was not unnatural. Work which in the early stages of its existence could be discharged by a comparatively small Department had grown under the changed conditions to dealing with many, and possibly the majority, of the most important industries of the country. Not only had the Department to consider the allocation of materials, owing to difficulties in regard to labour, but as the shortage of raw material had become more and more prevalent it became necessary for this Department to give materials to, or to withhold them from, many contractors. It became necessary for them also to decide the order in which competing contractors were to receive their material. It is an open secret that in many purls of the country there was a great deal of dissatisfaction, owing to what was alleged to be the mismanagement of the Department. I do not desire on an occasion like this to deal with concrete instances, although concrete instances have been brought to my notice,

  1313
  but undoubtedly, certainly in regard to several of the main decisions which were given, priority was granted in some cases and withheld in others in a way which local manufacturers had great difficulty in understanding and which led them to entertain very strong feelings as to the methods which the Department pursued.
  I understand that to meet this dissatisfaction and discontent a scheme of reorganisation has been set up. Personally, I am not acquainted with the details of that scheme. The only thing I know for certain in connection with that scheme is that since it was adumbrated several of the most competent men in the Department have left, and whatever may be the merits of the scheme on paper, this, at least, is certain—that the new scheme is going to be carried out by a Department which, in respect of personnel, is certainly not so strong as it was formerly and as it was under the system against which so much dissatisfaction was expressed. When it is found that a change in organisation is going to lead to a depletion of the staff, and a depletion, too, which affects some of the most competent men in it, an explanation should be given. We are entitled to ask whether the Minister himself has made any independent inquiry into what is going on, and, if so, whether he is satisfied that the changes which are actually taking place are going to be adequate to enable the Department to discharge the onerous duties which fall upon it. I hope that when the Financial Secretary to the Ministry comes he will be able to make a general statement upon this question. Should he not be so able, it may be necessary for mg to raise this question once again on a more suitable opportunity—the Vote on Account will offer such an opportunity. In the hope that it may be unnecessary to enter into further controversy I am putting these general questions at this time in order to elicit a statement which may not make it desirable for me to intervene again in the matter on any subsequent occasion.
  Mr. ROCH: When this Supplementary Estimate was considered in Committee I did raise the question of the recent grant of the 12½per cent. bonus by the Ministry of Munitions, and I did it then in brief terms more for the purpose of getting a statement from the Ministry of Munitions to clear the air a little, rather than for the purpose of offering any substantial or detailed criticism upon it. Subsequently
  1314
  to that Debate my right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) wrote to me, I think a little reproachfully, expressing a wish that I had given him notice that I was going to raise this question, because he would have wished to intervene in the Debate had he known it was coming on. I would like to express my regret to him that I did not do so. I thought that as my question on the subject had been on the Paper for some time and as the Ministry of Munitions were well aware that the subject was going to be raised, a notification would have come from them. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman would like to intervene in this Debate and put his point of view, which is necessarily, he being a member of the War Cabinet, a broader view than that given on the last occasion by the representative of the Ministry of Munitions. In one way I almost regret that I did not raise the question, because the result of the speech of the representative of the Ministry of Munitions was that I was simply inundated with letters from all parts of the country, challenging in the most explicit way the accuracy of almost every statement that he made. First and foremost my hon. Friend told us that the cost of this was £14,000,000. I am told most explicitly that evidence has been given from his own Department that the cost will amount to £40,000,000. I hope that my right hon. Friend, who is a member of the War Cabinet, will offer a little more independent point of view than can be done by the Ministry of Munitions.
  My hon. Friend let fall one answer in that reply which I must confess astounded me and all my correspondents, because he said that the effect of this 12½ per cent. bonus had been apparently not to decrease production as was feared, but, according to his statement, it had actually increased it in the most incredible way. he will remember when he made the statement as to the increase in production, and gave figures which purported to prove it, I asked him whether he was comparing like with like. If he looks at those figures, in one case he will see he said there was an increase of 48 per cent. in production, comparing like with like. That seems to me an incredible statement, and one that must have been made in an unguarded moment without due consideration. In fact, the policy which has been adopted by the Ministry of Munitions subsequent to the 12½ per cent. is in itself a condemnation of the way in which the

  1315
  bonus was granted, because since the grant of the bonus they have had to give another bonus of 7½ per cent. to the piece workers, thus showing by their own action that the effect of their 12½ per cent. bonus was to cut into their piece-work rate to such an extent that they had to give an additional bonus of 7½per cent. to their piece-work rate. I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barnes) will tell us what consideration was given by the War Cabinet to this point. After all, the War Cabinet exists now as a super-national authority. The subordinate Ministers are now only subordinates, looking at things from a national view, not Departmental officials, and one would like to be assured that when a, question like the 12½ per cent. bonus is put before the Ministry of Munitions it is considered in the broadest possible aspect, because what the Munitions Department did not seem to consider, perhaps did not care to consider, was the effect of the bonus on almost every industry in the country. Whatever the cost may have been of the 12½per cent. bonus to those actually in the controlled establishments, the effect on every other industry was to add enormously to the cost of production. Its effect on the productive capacity of shipbuilding, one of the most vital things to the needs of the country at present, as I am assured by people who have the closest experience of this work, almost destroyed their piecework rates altogether, and, in fact, to produce a most unfortunate decrease in the shipbuilding capacity of this country. These are the general criticisms which I offer. I did not intend to raise the question again, because, unfortunately, it is over and done with. The evil that men do lives after them, unfortunately, and I only rise this afternoon to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity of giving what I hope will be the broader, the more super-national, view which is taken by the War Cabinet of these problems, and again I express my regret that I did not on the first occasion take an opportunity of doing so.
  Mr. BARNES: It is perfectly true that when I read the report of the proceedings here last week I felt-somewhat annoyed because my name came into the Debate, as, of course, it naturally would, and I wrote to the hon. Member, as he says, rather reproachfully stating my regret that he did not inform me that the question was coming on, and that if
  1316
  I had known it was coming on I should have made it my business to be here. I am much obliged to him for the opportunity he has given me now, and I am very glad to be able even now, hurriedly called upon as I am, to say a few words. The last time I spoke on the 12½per cent. from this Table I appeared in a white sheet. I said on that occasion that I had made a slip the night before at Glasgow. When I make a slip the best thing to do is to admit the fact straight away, which I did then. I have nothing to add now or to depart from in the statement made that day on the facts as I knew them that day, except that if I had waited a little longer and had fuller reports I should perhaps not have said what I did about the Press, which I regret, and probably I should have said something more about the Minister of Munitions. But on the facts as disclosed to me that day, I stand by what I said at this box, as from a certain date I was just as much concerned with the 12½ per cent. as the Minister of Munitions, and, therefore, I had no right to put the whole responsibility for it on his shoulders as apart from the rest of us. As far as the facts up to that date are concerned, I regret that it was not left there. I think it ought to have been left there, and I did what I could to have it left there. I will not go further into that unless there is occasion for it afterwards, but I want to emphasise it. I am sorry it was not left there. and I did what I could that it should be left there. It came up again last week, and certain statements were made. I feel very strongly on the matter, but I want to speak as far as I possibly can in a restrained manner, and therefore, if I do not say all I should like to say, do not think there is not a good deal more to be said.
  I want to make a comment or two on what was said last week under three heads. First of all, I should like to have had an opportunity of refreshing my mind by documents. I cannot do that and, therefore, I have to speak now from memory so far as I can bring the facts back to my mind. I want to say a word upon the coupling up of the 12½ per cent. with the Labour Unrest Commissions, which was done last week. The 12½per cent. had absolutely nothing to do with the Labour Unrest Commissions. I have a right to say that because the Labour Unrest Commissions were started out on their course by myself and reported to me when they came back, and I was in touch with

  1317
  them right throughout, not only to the time they reported, but even after they reported, taking their advice; and I was also energetically urging the Departments concerned to do certain things which were recommended by those Labour Unrest Commissions, amongst them being food prices, better housing, improvement of the Compensation Act, better provision for sailors who had lost their effects, and so on. I was energetically pushing on the Department to make changes and improvements in these respects, but T. did absolutely nothing about the 12½ per cent. because I could see the red light. When the Labour Unrest Commissions reported, the matter of the 12½ per cent. was discussed. It was pointed out then what might take place and, therefore, I did nothing except that about the end of August, I think, some weeks after the Minister of Munitions made a speech on this floor, I referred in a letter to the Press to many topics, including all those I have mentioned, and amongst the rest I said this matter of the leaving certificates and the consequences thereof was being dealt with by a Committee. That is all I did in regard to the 12½ per cent.—that meagre reference in a letter to the Press—that, and nothing more. I am not responsible for having had to say it here because I tried to avert what was said last week, but it is right to myself that I should say that the 12½per cent. had nothing to do with the Labour Unrest Commissions so far as I am concerned, and the increase of wages for the time-workers was made as a consequence only of the promise made on this floor. I put in a memorandum to the Cabinet about the 9th or 11th October, in which the promise which was made here is mentioned in the first four paragraphs. The Cabinet, so far as I know, never had a word said to it; not a single one of the Committees which examined this question had ever a word said to it, as far as I know, about the Labour Unrest Commissions, and therefore, for anything I know, neither the Committee of the Cabinet nor the Cabinet itself ever heard of the Labour Unrest Commissions dealing with this matter. I hope I have made it clear that the 12½ per cent. arose out of a promise made on this floor, and nothing else so far as I am concerned.
  Mr. ROCH: I presume the right hon. Gentleman refers to the promise about the leaving certificates?
  Mr. BARNES: Certainly!
  Mr. ROCH: That did not include anything specific about the 12½per cent.
  Mr. BARNES: I did not say it did.
  Mr. PRINGLE: But the leaving certificates arose out of the Labour Commissions.
  Mr. BARNES: It may have done. My point is that a promise was made to give the rise in wages on this floor, and the Labour Commissions never mentioned that. The leaving certificates were a grievance of the skilled men, and the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) in the Debate of last August, after the Minister of Munitions had spoken, mentioned the skilled men's grievance, and that was the only mention made of it Therefore, we had it in our minds, but I did not deal with it for the very good reason that I could see it was going to raise trouble, and afterwards because I ascertained that it was in process of adjustment in quite a natural way. I put that to these people who were dealing with it, and that is the reason I did not deal with it.
  The next point I want to touch upon is the statement, also made last week by my genial colleague (Mr. Anderson), supported, I think, by the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle), that I, a Labour Member, had objected to an increase of wages.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No; I did not say that.
  Mr. BARNES: I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson) said it, but you supported it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: My point was quite different. You objected to working on a, time basis in spite of the fact that you yourself had taken a time job.
  Mr. BARNES: That is another matter altogether. I have nothing to retract in regard to that. Put in that bald way, I should say it is not true that I objected to a rise of wages. What I objected to was the introduction of a new principle in the adjustment of wages. Up to that time we had had bonuses given of the same amount, irrespective of the amount of a man's wages. If a man had £1 a week and the bonus amounted to £l a week, instead of getting £l he got £2. The man who had £2 before the War also got £l, and therefore he got a rise of 50 per cent. as against 100 per cent. in the other case. I believe that is a good principle, and I wanted to maintain it, because the cost of food having gone up, it is just as great a hardship to the man at the bottom as to the man at the top,

  1319
  and my objection to what was done was not because it was a rise of wages, but because it introduced a new principle. I do not think I need say any more about that.
  7.0 P.M
  Now about the cost. The hon. Member said he got a reply last week that the cost amounted to £14,000,000. Various estimates were made about the cost. I do not know what the cost was. When you come to consider cost only as measured by the increase of wages given to certain numbers of men, it may be figured in that way that £14,000,000 is the cost to the Munitions Department, but the Munitions Department, unfortunately, is looking only at a small area. The area concerned with the 12½ per cent. extends over the whole industrial horizon. I do not know what is the proportion of the munitions area to shipbuilding and other branches of work connected with the Government. I do not know what proportion munitions bear to the whole industrial activities of the country, but probably I should be right in saying that it is less than one-half. I do not know, but I should think it would be a good deal less than one-half, probably less than one quarter. The 12½per cent. does not only concern munitions, but every workshop from one end of the country to the other. The effect is not only giving £14,000,000 to munition workers, but it is giving money to others outside the munition shops, and affecting psychologically the people in the munition shops and everywhere else. The cost may be £14,000,000 or £40,000,000. My hon. Friend who has just spoken said it was £40,000,000. I do not know, but I think it is very likely it is the larger sum than the former, expressed merely as an increase in the wages of the people immediately concerned. But that is only a fragment of the cost, even if you take the £40,000,000. The cost is in the loss of output throughout the country. What was going on in all the shops during the latter part of last year? I know what was going on, and everybody who knows the workshops knows what was going on. The people were in a ferment. Instead of attending to their work they were talking about 12½ per cent. and 7½per cent. all the time. The cost is in the friction produced throughout the country by this industrial ferment. That is where the real cost comes in. I am glad
  1320
  to say that there is a very great improvement, consequent upon the principle having been given effect to, and that is the 7½per cent. being given to the pieceworker. I want to encourage the pieceworker. I have said often on platforms and in the Press, and I repeat it here, although I have got into trouble with my own fellow members about it, that if I had been a dictator during this War, I would have put everybody where possible on piece-work.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Even the War Cabinet.
  Mr. BARNES: Even the War Cabinet. But I said everybody where it was possible. If it were possible for the War Cabinet I would put them on piece-work. But there arc lots of people who cannot go on piece-work. The people whom the Minister of Munitions had in his mind last August could not work on piece-work because they are people supervising the work of others, and these are highly skilled men engaged in making jigs and gauges and other things which could not be done on piece-work. There are many others who could not be put on piece-work. Therefore, when I said I would put all the people possible on piece-work I meant those who are on repetition work who could possibly be put on piece-work. We decided about two months ago to give 7½per cent. to the piece-workers, thereby giving the same encouragement to pieceworkers as had already been given to time-workers. What had happened before that? Lots of people left piece-work to go on time-work. I do not blame them. I would have done the same thing myself. Supposing I had been on piece-work, and making 10 per cent. over my time rate of wages, and then somebody came along and said, "We will give the man who is working on time 12½ per cent. increase,'' leaving the other man on piece-work 2½per cent. behind the man on time work. Naturally the piece-worker was discouraged, and went on time-work. But ever since the 7½ per cent. was given to the piece-workers a better condition of things has come along, and we now find the shops to some extent settling down, and we are now going to see, I believe, in the near future something like normal, and, I would express the hope, something above normal, production. These are the three points I wish to speak upon. I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roch) for giving me an opportunity of doing so. I am

  1321
  afraid I have done so in a fragmentary, ragged sort of way, because I have been speaking without the papers before me, and entirely from memory.
  In conclusion, may I just put out an appeal? So far as my words can reach these men in the shops, may I put out an appeal to them to help us to win this War by putting their backs into their work? That is what we want. Last month, instead of a certain number of ships being turned out from the shipbuilding yards in this country, we had less than half that number. I think I am within the mark in saying that less than half of the estimate of last mouth was actually turned out. This month, so far as I have been able to ascertain, the position will be no better. America has failed us so far as shipbuilding is concerned; therefore, this is a very serious matter. It did not come within the ambit of the Debate here last week, because you were only considering munition shops. But even of more importance than munition shops are the shipyards of this country. In fact, the winning of this War very largely depends upon the output of ships, and we shall have to turn out ships in much larger numbers than we have turned them out so far if we are going to get through the trouble during the next few months. Therefore, so far as my words can reach the workmen throughout the length and breadth of this country, I would urge them in justice to themselves, in justice to their mates in the trenches, and in justice to this Old Country, which, with all its faults, has stood in the forefront of freedom up to now and in times gone by—I would appeal to them to put their backs into their work and to turn out ships and ships and ships in ever greater quantities, so that, as I have said, we can do our duty to the men who are fighting so valiantly for us on all the fronts, and who are fighting for us and not getting £6 or £8 or £10 a week. I know what I am laying myself open to from my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) and others. It will be said that I have taken a good job and that my position has improved as a result of the War. That is the sort of thing that is being said. [An HON. MEMBER: NO, no!"] It was said last week. The hon. Member for North-West Lanark said so.
  Mr. PRINGLEindicated dissent.
  Mr. BARNES: I have been reminded of this elsewhere. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, nothing would please me better personally
  1322
  than if I could get back into a back seat to-morrow. I never sought the position I am in, but while I am in it I am going to do the best I can, not to shout with the biggest crowd, but to appeal to the best instincts of the British working people throughout the length and breadth of the country. I believe now that if the working people of this country only knew what was due from them, if they only knew the difficulties of our men in the trenches, if they only knew the need there is for ships, and the output of all sorts of things at this moment, then, instead of being concerned, as they are very much concerned just now, in talking of all sorts of things, of philosophical affairs, Bolshevism, syndicalism, and various other things, all very interesting in their way—I wish to goodness the time had come when we could discuss them in calmer surroundings—I say the first duty of every man who loves his country and his kind is to work as hard as he can to turn out as much as he can, and to see to it that this fight for freedom by his country and by his mates is fought to a successful finish.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: I think every hon. Member is delighted with the speech of my right hon. Friend, and we can only hope that the effect throughout the country will be a much greater effort in the matter of work. I am perfectly sure that in almost every industry it is possible to get a greater output than we are obtaining at the present time, and that the step which was taken in granting the 12½ per cent. increase has not been in the direction of giving a greater output. It has simply meant more money to spend-This action was taken in disregard of the advice which was given by one of the great organisations which advised the Minister of Munitions in connection with the matter. This organisation, the Engineering Employers' Federation, advised that in any increase that was granted to the men it should be made a condition of the granting of the advance that greater output was to be obtained. If that had been done, instead of our losing as we are by the advance—for I think we are getting very little, if any, more output from any of the factories—we should have got greater output, and might have saved a large sum of money. It was stated that the advance was only going to cost £14,000,000, but that is only looking at it from the munitions point of view. Other estimates were made, and one of these estimates which I had occasion to repeat,

  1323
  and I do not think it was ever denied, was in the neighbourhood of £140,000,000. This advance has spread over every class of manufacture in the country. Every trade, one after the other, is demanding more and more money, and, instead of getting greater output, the result will be that the cost of every commodity must advance, because obviously as you increase the cost of labour the cost of the article that labour produces must increase with it. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in his estimate that the cost of this increase to the country is far more than £14,000,000 or even £40,000,000. I believe it is some colossal figure, in the neighbourhood of £140,000,000, or possibly even more than that.
  It was obvious that as you increased time rates so you would have to increase piece-work rates, and now the advance has been made on piece-work rate. That was a necessary consequence, but it does not follow that if the piece-work rates are increased that under the present system of work you would get anything in the nature of increased output. My right hon. Friend referred to men quitting piecework jobs in order to work on daytime jobs. It frequently happens that a man is on a piece job where he can hardly make his daytime rate, and the result is he asks to be transferred to day-work, particularly when day-work is being paid at the present rates. I am sorry I had not the opportunity of being present in the earlier part of the Debate, but I wish to take the opportunity of stating that a great deal which has been done by the Minister of Munitions in connection with this increase has been done most recklessly and without due regard to the interests of the nation as a whole. It has absolutely unsettled the manufacturing trade from one end of the country to the other. It is perfectly true that the Government has promised to refund to manufacturers the excess cost of labour, but you cannot ascertain it—it is so mixed, so involved. This increased cost will ultimately find its way on to the goods. A great deal of it will be lost to the State in the form of reduced Excess Profits Tax, and a great deal more will be lost in the form of reduced dividends. It has been a heavy blow to the manufacturing industries of the country.
  The Ministry of Munitions are very much to blame for the way in which they
  1324
  have acted without consulting both parties to the transaction. I agree that it is necessary to consult labour, but it is equally necessary to consult employers, and it is a very bad thing for the country to find a Department of State butting in between employers and their workpeople and taking a line of their one. There has never been a time when employers as a whole were on better terms with their workpeople, but constant irritation is caused by this interference by the Ministry of Munitions. They seem to wish to run the whole trade of the country in their own way. Unless a change is made in this practice we shall find advance after advance being granted to labour, irrespective of the merits of the demand. I think that in many cases an increase was merited in the case of the highly skilled time-workers who, say, were engaged on making jigs and tools— work which could not be done by piece-work—-and who were getting less than the semi-skilled pieceworkers. But that ought to have been dealt with. A great mistake has been made, endless confusion has been caused, and I am certain that we shall find, when the accounts are sorted out, if ever they can be sorted out, that this advance is costing not only the State, from the point of view of the Ministry of Munitions, but the country as a whole, this huge sum of money.
  Colonel Sir C. SEELY: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Munitions to the question which was raised earlier this afternoon of the closing of a certain number of works and the dispersal of a certain number of persons on account of the conclusion of contracts. He stated this afternoon that most of these persons were only on a week's notice. I f that is the case it is very important fur him to see that care is taken that no hardship is caused to these persons in those circumstances. I can quite understand that it may be more convenient both to the Minister of Munitions and to the workpeople themselves that the normal notice should be only a week, because in the cases of individual people leaving a week's notice may be quite sufficient, and at the present time any one, or two, or even a moderate number of persons leaving their work, can find no difficulty in getting other sources of employment. But when anything like the number mentioned to-day of 8,000 persons is suddenly thrown out of work it must cause dislocation in the

  1325
  immediate neighbourhood, which, unless care is taken, will produce a considerable amount of hardship.
  I would suggest that in cases of that kind the persons who are going to leave should have at last a month or six weeks' full notice, and not only general notice that so many thousand persons in a particular shop are going to be dismissed, but that, the actual individual people who will have to leave should be given a full month's or six weeks' notice in order to enable them to find work in another place. If it is thought not desirable for financial reasons to give that notice, then some special consideration should be given to them, and they should have a month or a fortnight, or there should be some sort of bonus, or an arrangement for railway fares, so as to enable them to live for a time until they find other work, and, if necessary, to go to some other place. Of course, I know that the right hon. Gentleman is thoroughly acquainted with the matter, and I am sure that he will consider it. I dare say that he is well aware of the difficulty that will arise. By far the best way of dealing with the matter is to allow the persons themselves full and ample time in which, knowing what will happen, they may find some other work, and, if necessary, may go to other districts. This is all the more important, because a considerable number of the persons, I understand, are girls, and one does not want girls to be thrown suddenly on their beam-ends, it may be, some distance from their own homes. I. trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give us a distinct assurance that he will not only consider the matter himself, but that all those concerned in different parts of the country will take steps to secure that none of these people, many of whom have come forward with considerable patriotism to assist their country in difficult circumstances, shall be allowed to be changed in circumstances which will subject them to inconvenience, or loss, or even discomfort.
  Sir F. BAN BURY: It was brought to my notice yesterday that at a certain Petty Sessional Court a man was summoned for damages, who stated that he was a turner employed at munition works in Coventry. He was asked what he earned, and he admitted that he was earning £5 15s. a week. I do not know how much more he earned, but that was his admission. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider that £5 15s.
  1326
  a week is a very extravagant sum to pay a turner in munition works? If these enormous sums are paid, it is not surprising that the expenditure of the country is rising in the way which it is. There can be no question about the accuracy of this, because the man admitted it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look into the matter, and see whether or not the money of the country is not being wasted in an unnecessary way.
  Mr. WATT: The right hon. Member for Blackfriars this afternoon made a most interesting statement dealing with the question of the 12½ per cent. bonus I would like to ask him four questions in reference to that bonus. When the. 12½ per cent. bonus was first mooted, did he support it in the War Cabinet? Was a Committee of two, consisting of himself and Lord Milner, appointed to consider and decide the matter? Did that Committee report to the War Cabinet in favour of the 12½ per cent.? And thereupon did the War Cabinet adopt it? In order to have a fair discussion of the controversy in this House it is necessary to have enlightenment on these points, and I am certain that my right hon. Friend will explain openly, as he always does in these matters, what was the line of action which he took on the question of the 12½ per cent.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): Before I deal with what many Members will regard as the most interesting part of the discussion, there are one or two points to which I must refer. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark asked some questions about a strike or lock-out affecting a certain firm. In these matters there is very often a conflict of opinion as to whether a strike or a lock-out exists. That was the position here. The firm stated that it was a strike, and the men said that it was in fact a lock-out. The material fact at this moment is that the dispute has been settled to the satisfaction of all parties. In the circumstances I hope that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press the matter further. Then the organisation of the Priority Department under the Ministry was referred to by my hon. Friend. That Department has only come under my care within the last few days. Some reorganisation has taken place which will bring it more immediately under my purview. I will take particular note of the criticism made by

  1327
  my hon. Friend, and will see how far it is possible to meet it, so far as that criticism is reasonable. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke criticised the statement which I made in the House last week as to the cost of the 12½ per cent. bonus, and suggested that I conveyed the impression that the cost of the whole ramifications of this 12½ per cent. was £14,000,000.
  Mr. ROCH: I never suggested that at all. I said that it ought to have been taken into consideration in adopting that policy. What I suggested was that the £14,000,000 does not cover the pieceworkers.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I made it quite clear that the £14,000,000 referred in fact to the time-workers paid by the Ministry of Munitions and also those paid by the Admiralty, but does not include the 7½per cent. which has been paid to pieceworkers under the direction of the Ministry of Labour. My speech was strictly accurate in terms. I did not intend to leave, and I do not think that I left on the House the impression that the £14,000,000 covered the whole cost of the ramifications of the scheme.
  Mr. ROCH: I never suggested that the hon. Gentleman conveyed that.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I said at the time that I stood by the figure which I gave, and I still stand by it. There was one other point raised by my hon. Friend as to the increase of production. He conveyed that in the speech which I made last week I had told the House that there was an enormous increase since the granting of the 12½ per cent. Here is what I said:
  "My hon. Friend asked what effect this 12½per cent. bonus had had on the production in which the Ministry is particularly interested. It is always difficult to attribute a particular effect to a particular cause. Still, I can make this statement, that the last half-year's output, when the 12½ per cent. bonus was operative over a portion of that period, showed an increase."
  I then went on to give the percentage of increases to which my hon. Friend referred, and I wound up by saying,
  "If you take these increases over that period in conjunction with what I have said as to the present position, which must be shown in the increased production, I think it is clear that whatever the effect the 12½ per cent. bonus has had, you cannot say it has interfered with production." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Monday, 18th February, 1918; cols. 553 and 554
  1328
  That is a statement which, I think, accurately describes the situation, and I do not see that it can be more accurately described. So far as criticism of its accuracy is concerned. I think it has broken down. I stand by what I said. My right hon. Friend opposite called my attention to the case of a turner who was earning £5 15s. a week in Coventry.
  Sir F. BANBURY: He admitted it.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not think that there is necessarily anything vicious in a man working hard at piece-work, as this man probably was, and earning large wages. On the contrary, I welcome it. If this £5 15s. was the result of increased production by the man's putting his back into his work, I am very glad that the employer, as often has happened in. the past, did not cut down the man's rates. I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's criticism in, this particular case until I know more of the facts, but if this is a case of a man on piece-work— and in all probability it is—the fact of his earning a large sum may be a proper recognition of his increased production, and the increased energy he has put into his work. If my right hon. Friend will give me further particulars of the case I will examine into it. My hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Chippenham, stated that, in connection with the 12½ per cent., the Ministry consulted one side only. He will allow me respectfully to differ from him. The same consultation took place with the employers as took place with the trade unions. The hon. Member said that my right hon. Friend the Minister did not accept the view of the employers; but, where you have a composite Committee representative of various interests the Ministry cannot, of necessity, accept the view of every interest in that Committee. The thing is obviously impossible. All that can be asked is that a Minister in the position of my right hon. Friend shall see that every interest properly concerned is consulted. He cannot give an undertaking that the views of every interest necessarily shall be taken.
  I want to refer to what was said by the hon. Baronet below the Gangway. I have had to answer a question in this House this afternoon with regard to the discharges of women munition workers,

  1329
  and my hon. friend has pressed me again particularly about the possibility of giving increased notice to these women. I would like to point out that this is really among the most serious work which the labour side of the Ministry has to do. It is real and serious work to endeavour to meet all these great human problems which must necessarily arise out of the decisions that have to be taken by the Minister—curtailment of programme or increase of programme. I would like to say that the problem is one which, in my view, cannot be dealt with entirely on economic lines. I am afraid that statement will not meet with the approval of financial authorities like my right hon. Friend opposite. He would take the view that in any limitation of our programme we should see that the limited production is continued in those factories where production can be most cheaply turned out. That is a view one would wish to take, a policy one would wish to adopt. But I do not believe it is the policy that any man, in these grave times, and having the responsibility which my. right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions, would care to enforce rigidly throughout the whole of this country. There are other considerations, besides the consideration of cheap production. In time of war the country cannot afford to have large numbers of unemployed and discontented people, if there are any means by which that can be avoided. It might prove to be far more expensive than if you decided to distribute your production over the whole country in such a. way as best to meet the social difficulties which may arise as the result of your decisions. Here are some of the considerations you have to bear in mind. In the limitation of your programme, is it not of importance that you should say that if a certain number of men or women have to be discharged, they shall be discharged in those areas where there is the best opportunity of alternative employment? That is a relevant consideration I submit. It is also a relevant consideration that if you have to limit your programme with the result of a large number of discharges, those discharges should take place in your most congested areas, so as to relieve the pressure on your housing problem. You cannot, in fact, deal with this practical problem merely from the economic point of view.
  1330
  You cannot deal with it exclusively from the point of view of financial considerations. In answer to a question put to me this afternoon, I said that sympathetic consideration would be given to the proposal to give free railway passage to those women who wanted to return to their homes. If I used the term, "sympathetic consideration," instead of giving a distinct undertaking, it is because the Ministry of Munitions is not a free agent—that is to say, there are other interests in the State, and other Departments to consult. But when I use the phrase "sympathetic consideration," I mean it to convey that the Government do view this as a problem which cannot be looked at exclusively from the financial point of view, and that these women have a good claim for particular consideration. I did not want to commit the Government further than I am entitled to do when I said ' sympathetic consideration "; on the other hand, I did not mean it to be an empty phrase. We have got to deal with all these very difficult problems by a number of ameliorative measures. I hope we shall be able, in some cases, to extend the time of contract. For instance, where the contract provides for the production of a million shells over six months, it could be arranged for the production of a million shells over twelve months, and so reduce to some extent, where practicable, the; amount of unemployment that otherwise would be caused. You can also abolish overtime and Sunday labour, and abolish night shifts in some cases. I do not think it would be desirable in every case to do any or all of these things. But in certain circumstances any or all of them may be with advantage used in order to reduce distress that otherwise might be caused by a too rigid reduction in your programme. It is especially necessary so to carry out this policy, so to carry out the reduction of your programme, as to give the earliest opportunity to those discharged to get other forms of National Service. The whole of the machinery of the Government is being used in order to see that is done. The House must remember that any decisions which are taken now in this connection may have very far reaching effects. If I do not go so far as many Members of the House wish me to go, it is because I have in mind that decisions taken now, in connection with this,

  1331
  which I may describe as limited and experimental demobilisation, might carry us very far when the time of real demobilisation comes.
  In regard to the question of longer notice being given, so far as that is a practical proposal, we are doing all we can in the Ministry to have it made effective. But you cannot, I think, lay down a hard and fast rule. If it is required that employers shall give four weeks' or six weeks' notice to their workpeople, then that must be a mutual obligation, and the employer may require that any of his people desiring to leave him must give him a month or six weeks' notice. I am not at all sure that the Labour organisations in this country would welcome a proposal of that kind. So far as it is practicable we will do everything possible to give the longest notice that can be given, and further than that I do not think it is desirable that I should go. The discharges so far have particularly affected women. I do not think any man in the country has done more to express the public sense of gratitude for the work of the women than I have done. Nobody appreciates it more than I do; nobody has had greater opportunities than I have had of seeing to what extent the magnificent women munition workers of this land have enabled us to resist the overwhelming onslaught by Germany upon this country. They have in a very real sense saved this country. They have armed our men; they have helped to make our Armies the best equipped Armies fighting in this great struggle. I should be the last man, by a soulless application of our policy, to do anything to put hardships upon these women. I recognise that it is because of the splendid work they have done our reserves of ammunition are so enormous we can face this necessary reduction forced upon us by the limitation of material without fear as to its military effect. So far as I am able to influence the policy of the Ministry it will not be guided exclusively by financial considerations in dealing with this problem. We certainly shall not forget the debt of gratitude we owe to the women munition workers of this country.
  My last observation will be in regard to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes). I stand in a difficult position.
  1332
  I think it was Hamlet who asked pity for the man who stood between the incensed points of mighty opposites. It is due from me to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions, who is not in this country at the moment, but is serving the Army in France in connection with the production of one of the most important essentials of war—it is due from me to him to say that in the various steps in regard to the 12½per cent. bonus there was consultation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars has admitted, he and Lord Milner were appointed by the War Cabinet to inquire as to the application of this 12½per cent. bonus. My right hon. Friend said so in his remarks here to-night, and that was one of the most material facts in his speech. I stated last week that I had no admiration for the secrecy with which it was attempted to surround Departmental decisions. You cannot expect to have absolute unity of view on any great questions of policy. There was never any doubt about the fact that various members of the Government did not take the same view in regard to the 12½ per cent. bonus. But what about it? For my part, I do not suppose you are ever going to get a Coalition worth its salt of which the members do not on many questions disagree with one another. So long as the disagreement is expressed in tolerant terms, and with due regard to the loyalty which one member of the Government owes to another, there is no harm done. But there may be a great deal of good in letting the public know that this hugger-mugger idea that no two members of the same Government must differ, but that they must all entertain the same view in regard to policy, does not apply to this Government. My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that, as far as he is concerned, he does not intend to be bound down by any such rigid uniformity of view. I think the attitude to be adopted by members of the Government on these questions was well summed up by the apostle St. Paul, who said—I am not quite certain that I am quoting the exact words—
  Mr. PRINGLE: They should be, "All things to all men."
  Mr. KELLAWAY: No. In things essential, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things—charity. I listened with a cer-

  1333
  tain amount of regret to one or two things which fell from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes), but I also listened with great admiration to the spirit which animated him and which to some extent rather obscured in his own mind the effect on outside opinion of what he was saying. The substantial fact remains that this 12½ per cent. bonus in its application was entrusted by the War Cabinet to my right hon, Friend and to Lord Milner to deal with. My right hon. Friend and I do not agree. Perhaps that is not so important as the consideration of my right hon. Friend's disagreement with the Minister of Munitions. But when the industrial history of this country during the War comes to be written I am not afraid of being held as one of those responsible for the 12½per cent. bonus and its application. I stand by what I said at this box last week in regard to it. You have to take a long view in these matters. You have to forget the irritation and ferment, as it were, which bubbled up at one time and appeared to obscure the horizon. Bearing that in mind, I think the ultimate verdict will be that it was a wise act of policy. I, for one, though I was not intimately concerned in the application of the 12½per cent. bonus, do not regret the decision of the Government to apply it. I am sorry my right hon. Friend felt it necessary to make the observations he did. I am not criticising him for it. Anyone who listened to him must have seen he was moved by a very deep feeling on this question. But in the future, looking back on all that has taken place, and comparing the industrial situation to-day with what it was during the engineers' strike, I am certain that this 12½ per cent. bonus will be regarded in the future as a wise act of policy.
  Mr. BARNES: With the permission of the House, I would like to reply to three definite questions which have been addressed to me by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt). The first question was, "Did I support the 12½ per cent. bonus when it was first mooted by the War Cabinet? "The short answer to that question would be, "No, I did not." But I do not want my hon. Friend to go away with an incomplete answer which would not be fair either to him or myself, and the question does not admit of being answered in a short way. As a matter of fact, the 12½per cent. was scarcely thought of when the
  1334
  question was first mooted in the war Cabinet. It was dealt with in the report of a committee that had gone exhaustively into the question and had brought up, I think, three separate plans. One of these, I remember quite well, was marked "C," and it involved giving an advance of wages to a very small number of men. I forget the number, but I know the proposal embraced only those men whom my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions had in his mind a couple of months earlier when he spoke on this matter. He wanted to give a rise of wages to those people who did not work piece-work and who were supervising other people who were making more money than themselves. This particular report "C" included only those people. It was difficult to grade them, because one class merged into another and it was found necessary to include some others. I supported that particular scheme when it was first mooted at the Cabinet, and under that scheme the 12½ per cent. did not apply at all. I hope I have given an answer to that question. It is "No," with the qualifications I have mentioned. The second question was whether I was appointed along with Lord Milner to consider and decide the question. The answer to that is, "Yes, I was," and on the very day that the War Cabinet appointed us we had a meeting, at which were present all those who we thought were best qualified to guide the Government in this matter, because they were dealing with the question from day to day, and their words ought to be taken as a guidance by us. We held the meeting the same afternoon, and as a result Lord Milner and I, having heard all the evidence, were persuaded that on the whole the 12½per cent. should be given to a very much larger number of men than was included in the smaller proposal. In view of the advice tendered us and in the hope of saving future trouble we decided on the 12½ per cent. being given to a larger number of workmen than was proposed under the smaller scheme. The other question was, "Did your Committee of two report in favour of paying it? "That question I have already answered. I should like to say this in conclusion. I want to support what has fallen from my hon. Friend who spoke last. We did take into consultation all those who we felt ought to be consulted, all the parties concerned. We got the advice of those best qualified to give advice. I am not blaming my right hon. Friend at all, but I

  1335
  repeat we got the best advice we could and acted on it, and from the time it became a matter of collective responsibility I was just as much responsible as my hon. Friend was.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Twentieth Resolution,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Shipping."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  8.0 P.M
  Mr. PRINGLE: This is a very important Vote, and there are one or two questions upon which I should like to get some explanation, especially in view of the growing gravity of the shipping position —a gravity emphasised in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) this evening, and also by the statement of the War Cabinet appearing in the Press on Monday morning, to the effect that ships in the Trans-Atlantic trade were to be devoted exclusively to the. carrying of troops. In view of that statement, I wish to know whether it is the case that in recent months there has been a diversion of certain ships going from our shipping ports to American ports to Newfoundland ports, and whether it was for the purpose of taking the pulp of the Anglo-Newfoundland Trust to America for the benefit of American publishers; also whether, in view of the situation created by the recent decision of the Shipping Controller, the Government intend to adhere to this method of dealing with the ships? I put this question because the whole matter has been ventilated in the Canadian Press, and there have been references to certain business arrangements whereby this pulp, which used to come to the United Kingdom, is made available for the United States. Some suggestions have been made regarding the motives underlying this policy. I make no suggestion. On the other hand, I think it important, seeing that this matter has been discussed in the Press of one of our most important
  1336
  Dominions, that we should receive a statement upon it from the representative of the Shipping Controller here as to whether the facts are as I have put them to my hon. Friend, and whether, in view of the changed conditions, it is the intention of the Shipping Controller to continue to divert ships for this purpose. I understand the delay involved in this diversion amounts to something like seven days, and if it is as long as that it is obviously a matter of importance.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend has not given me notice on this particular point, because it obviously relates to particular shipments as to which I could have very readily made inquiry if he had given me notice. I can only say that I have no knowledge what ever of such diversions. As I understand it, the allegation to which my hon. Friend referred is that ships were specially diverted to go to Newfoundland to obtain paper material, or paper —
  Mr. PRINGLE: Pulp
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY —pulp for this company. I can only assure my hon. Friend that, to the best of my knowledge and belief at this moment, that allegation is absolutely untrue; but, as he has raised the point, I will take care very specially to investigate it, and I will communicate the result of the inquiry to him personally, or, if he will put a question on the Paper, I shall be very pleased to answer him in the frankest possible manner. I can say at once that the statement with which he began his remarks, that the Government is giving priority to food, is well known, and I think that will enable him by itself to attach proper importance to the other matter to which he referred.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but this arrangement was made before the arrangement for priority of food—at least, so it was alleged by the Canadian Press. The arrangement was made some time ago, and, so far as I could gather, the statement was made on behalf of the company mentioned that the arrangement was actually in operation, and the secretary of the company admitted that the delay amounted to seven days.
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I will repeat the promise I have made to investigate very carefully indeed that subject, and I

  1337
  can also promise very faithfully that if it is found to have any truth whatever in it the practice will be stopped.
  Question pat, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY [25th FEBRUARY].

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1918–19
    Resolution reported,
    1. "That a number of Land Forces (including Air Force), not exceeding 5,000,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919."
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not think it is quite in accordance with the traditions of this House to take the Report of the Vote for the men of the Army without a representative of the War Office being present. In those circumstances, I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    Major DAVIES: I should like to call attention to certain questions because, although they have been alluded to in preceding Debates, the replies from the representative of the War Office have not been of such a character as to give any promise of reform in these matters in the future. I should like first to draw the attention of the House to the fact that some time ago a Committee of Inquiry was appointed to inquire into the administration of the Royal Army Medical Corps in France, and I understand that the terms of reference to this Committee when it was appointed included also the administration of the Army Medical Service in this country as well as in France. We all know that there is a very serious dearth of medical men to meet the civilian needs as well as the needs of the Army, and although the House desires, no doubt, as we all desire, that the requirements of the Army should have the first call on the services of the medical men of this country, we have a right to know that the services
    1338
    of these medical men are being used to the fullest and best advantage in the Army Medical Service. There have been numerous complaints that these services were not being utilised to the best purpose and extent, and consequently this Committee of Inquiry was appointed which included my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh University (Sir W. Cheyne); it was sent on a pilgrimage to France, it returned some months ago, five months ago it reported to the War Office, and repeated requests were made that this Report should be given to the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise on this Vote; it arises on the Medical Vote.
    Major DAVIES: I am sorry I am not in order in dealing with that matter, but I should like to refer to another matter to which I called the attention of my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary yesterday, and that was with regard to the appointment of duly qualified legal officers—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise upon this Vote. This Vote relates to the number of men.
    Captain CARR—GOMM: With regard to the pay of the men, I wish to ask
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not for the pay of the men.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution reported,
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919."
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Captain CARR—GOMM: I wish to ask a question with regard to officers and men when on leave in this country. They have, of course, to find their own food during the period which is specified on their leave warrant. Owing to the state of affairs with regard to food at the present moment, these men whom the War Office are sending now from war areas have been in some difficulty, and I desire that my hon. Friend should put himself in touch with the necessary Department in order to clear up this

    1339
    difficulty, because I think it is a very serious one at the present time. I asked a question about it at Question Time, and since then I have heard one or two facts which call for somewhat urgent steps to meet this special contingency. The last information I had was that the leave warrant, as issued to the men, is sufficient for thorn to obtain their meat or their sugar. On the other hand, if that is so, I am sure that all the difficulties which this other Department had, if I may say so, put in the way of these men at the present moment, are removed. If a man has a leave warrant in this country he can go and get his meals at a club or restaurant or he can get his food from a shop. If the War Office can arrange with the Food Ministry for the leave warrant to be sufficient for their purpose, then the matter would be at an end, but this Food Ministry has issued certain Regulations which make it incumbent on these men—and I think the War Office should note this —to go to the local authorities and draw an emergency card. In the case of these men, as my hon. Friend who has been instrumental in obtaining leave for them during the last year knows, although their time is longer than it was formerly, it is considerably prescribed at the present time, and they do not want to spend a long time waiting at these offices. In addition to this fact, one must remember that a considerable number of these men have never before been in London or the other big cities to which they come for leave, and they do not know their way about there for obtaining these facilities which have been arranged by the Food Ministry. I think the War Office should take this matter up very urgently and quickly, and I suggest that they should see that this leave warrant which everyone gets when he comes on leave is sufficient to obtain for him the meals necessary to sustain life when he comes for leave. I would especially ask my hon. Friend to see this matter put through without any further delay, in view of the uncertainty and difficulties entailed on the men concerned.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is very doubtful whether this can be raised on this Vote at all. This only deals with the pay of the men, and the point does not seem to be relevant to that pay. It seems to me either to be a criticism of the Food Controller's office or a criticism of the administration
    1340
    of the War Office. If it is the former, it would not be under the War Office Estimate at all, and, if it is the latter, it would not come on this Vote.
    Mr. RENDALL: I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that the pay is what the soldier has to live on, and if Regulations are made so that the pay is valueless it would seem to be in order to raise the question if it could be shown that the pay is no use for the purpose of supporting life unless new Regulations are made by the War Office.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    AIR FORCE ESTIMATES, 1918–19.
    Resolutions reported,

    3. "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 1,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland at Home and Abroad during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919."

    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Air Force at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919."

    Resolutions agreed to.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  I think I can explain the circumstances of this Bill in a very few words. This is a Bill which docs not deal with the ordinary trustee savings banks, but with what is called the special investment departments of those savings banks. The special investment departments as they at present exist, numbering something like forty—five throughout England and Scotland, were sanctioned by Statute under the Savings Bank Act of 1863, and they were devised to give benefits to those members of savings banks who wished to get a somewhat better return than they could under the savings banks. These branches are quite independent of the savings bank branches. Their position is somewhat peculiar. Though the State exercises a supervisory authority, it has

  1341
  no liability for their financial condition. The accounts are kept entirely separate from those of the savings banks, and, beyond the supervisory authority which the State exercises in the way of demanding returns to be sent to the National Debt Commissioners and so forth, it has no real liability concerning them, and if, owing to any circumstance, these investment departments become insolvent, no claim lies against the State on behalf of those departments. There is one difficulty that has been evident for some time in the conduct of these institutions. They are in a certain sense banking institutions in that they take money from people, and people have the power of withdrawing their money, and the institution is supposed to be responsible for being able to repay them on very short notice. But the safeguards that exist in the case of banks do not exist in the case of these special investment departments, because the essence of banking is to keep a sufficient amount of your securities liquid so that you may at any time meet calls made upon you. In addition, there is the further safeguard in the uncalled capital of banks which is always much greater in amount than that which has been paid up by the shareholders of the bank. Therefore it follows with institutions of this kind if the management are not extremely careful to avoid that most perilous trap of banking, namely, borrowing their money from the people short and lending their money on long terms, that in times of financial stringency this must happen, that securities will depreciate in price, and that though the institution may be solvent in the long run, yet it may find itself practically insolvent at the moment, because it cannot lay its hands on the funds that it requires in the event of a run being made upon it.
  This state of affairs actually threatened soon after the outbreak of war, and, indeed, before the War, in one or two cases, there were investment departments of savings banks that would not have been solvent had there been a run upon them. The Treasury was, therefore, approached by some of these institutions, and a strong Committee was set up. Mr. Montague Norman, recently elected Deputy—Governor of the Bank of England, was chairman of that Committee, and the whole position was very carefully investigated. They made a Report, with recommendations, and their recommendations
  1342
  are embodied in this Bill, to which I ask the House to give a Second Reading, after consultation with the institutions in question. What we want to secure is that the whole strength of the savings banks shall be brought to bear to secure the solvency of any one of them that may have to be tided over a critical time. To effect this, Clause 1 places the special investment departments under the control of the National Debt Commissioners, whose consent is required as regards investments, changes in the rate of interest allowed to depositors and management expenses, and investments must be repayable within three years. The recommendation of that Committee was, indeed, more stringent. It was that repayment should be effected within one year, but we finally decided to meet the views of some of the committees of those banks which approached us with the representation to extend the term from one year to throe. Clause 2 provides for a guarantee fund against deficiencies, and this guarantee fund we secure by taking power to use reserves of all the trustee savings banks carrying on special investment departments and certain surplus assets of the closed banks now in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, and it settles how, in a case of deficiency, this fund is to be drawn upon. Clause 3 deals with minor points, one of which will have an interest for the House, because it settles a matter which has long been the subject of dispute. There exists a considerable sum of money, something like £100,000, which represents a surplus fund that arose before the year 1880, and this surplus fund has, up to now, been in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, who have not been obliged to pay any interest upon it. In Clause 3 we are agreed, as I think is only fair, that for the future this sum shall be chargeable with interest. The effect of the Bill, therefore, will guarantee any deficient bank by the strength of all the trustee savings banks which have special investment departments, and it secures in the management greater caution in the future. We hope that when this Bill becomes law we shall make the position of depositors in the special investment departments absolutely secure, and I feel confident that the House will recognise how desirable it is at the present time to remove what has been proved to be a small weakness in the

  1343
  general financial stability of the country as a whole. I hope that with these few words of explanation the House will consent to give to this Bill a Second Reading, and I shall be very pleased, when the Bill gets into Committee, to deal, so far as I am able, with any objections on points of detail which may be offered to the scheme.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. J. Hope.]
  Remaining Order read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTy—sPEAKER (Mr. Whitley), 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 Twenty—six minutes after Eight o'clock

WAR.
  OFFICERS' CHILDREN (ALLOWANCES).
  OFFICERS' CHILDREN (ALLOWANCES).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  SEED FOR SPRINGS SOWING.
  SEED FOR SPRINGS SOWING.
  POULTRY KEEPING.
  POULTRY KEEPING.
  PRIVATE SHIPYARDS (MANPOWER).
  PRIVATE SHIPYARDS (MANPOWER).
  COLLISION (FISHERMEN'S LOSS).
  COLLISION (FISHERMEN'S LOSS).
  ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (DISTRIBUTION).
  ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (DISTRIBUTION).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (TAILORING INSTRUCTION).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (TAILORING INSTRUCTION).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  EXEMPTION APPLICATION, GLASGOW.
  EXEMPTION APPLICATION, GLASGOW.
  KELP BURNER, ORKNEY.
  KELP BURNER, ORKNEY.
  WINE CONSUMPTION (1917).
  WINE CONSUMPTION (1917).
  BREWING INDUSTRY (RAILWAY TRAFFIC).
  BREWING INDUSTRY (RAILWAY TRAFFIC).
  INSURANCE AGENTS (REMUNERATION).
  INSURANCE AGENTS (REMUNERATION).
  RESTRICTED EXPORTS (COTTON GOODS).
  RESTRICTED EXPORTS (COTTON GOODS).
VISCOUNT NORTHCLIFFE.
Alfred Charles William, Baron Northcliffe, having been created Viscount Northcliffe of St. Peter, in the County of Kent—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD CAWLEY.
The Right Honourable Sir Frederick Cawley, Baronet, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, having been created Baron Cawley of Prestwich, in the County Palatine of Lancaster Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

ETTLINGER AND COMPANY.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM had the following Question on the Paper
To ask His Majesty's Government—(1) Whether the firm of Ettlinger and Company, which was precluded from trading in India in 1916, has obtained through the medium of the Baluchistan Mining Company a monopoly of the supply of Indian chrome ore for Europe, excluding the United Kingdom; (2) Whether this firm is permitted to hold a large consignment of chrome ore at Calcutta; (3) Whether this firm of naturalised Germans, having obtained a decree severing its connection with Beer. Sondheimer and Company, of Frankfort, in October last, is now free to trade as a British firm.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have twice drawn attention to the operations of Messrs. Ettlinger and Company in connection with manganese in India. On the first occasion my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for India said that he was informed that this firm had no connection with the firm of Schroeder and Schmidt, which was about to he closed: but six months later in July, 1916—he stated that it had been discovered that "the manganese business of Schroeder and Schmidt had been largely financed by Ettlinger and Company." My noble friend also said—
"Recent investigations regarding the character of Ettlinger and Company had brought out the fact that before the war close relations existed
100
between this firm and Beer. Sondheimer and Company, of Frankfort... Accordingly, after consultation with the Government of India, it was decided to issue orders terminating their [that is, Ettlinger's] business in India."
The noble Lord further said that the Government of India were issuing two Ordinances which would give them all the powers required in cases where "a firm's business was being carried on before the war for the benefit of enemy interests, and is likely to be resumed on similar lines after the war."
The winding-up of the business Of Schroeder and Schmidt took a long time; and what apparently happened is that Ettlinger and Company took over the manganese from Schroeder and Schmidt and sold it to the Carlton Iron Company, who sold it to munition factories, but, as the noble Lord said, not to the Ministry of Munitions. As the very close connection of Ettlinger with Schroeder and Schmidt and also with Beer, Sondheimer and Company had been established, and as the Government of India had ample powers, it is difficult to understand how Ettlinger was able to obtain what is really a monopoly of the chrome of India for the European market. Chrome is a very important ore. It is found, I believe, only in India, in Rhodesia, in New Caledonia, and, I think, quite recently in Canada. After the war there will he a great demand for chrome, and, if my information is correct, Ettlinger and Company will be the source of supplies for our European Allies as well as for Germany. Quite a short time ago there was a consignment of 1,600 tons of ore from the Singbhum Chromite Company, stored at the Kidderpur Docks, Calcutta, which was the property of Ettlinger and Company; and I am told that Ettlinger refused the vendor's offer to buy it back. In theory, of course, the Ettlinger business in India had been closed; but it was held there that, as the contract of sale was made in London, this ore did not come under the control of the Indian authorities.
Now, surely this is a very instructive and illuminating case. We have a German firm, "A," which was trading in manganese and in other commodities in India. It was ordered to close, but the liquidation took a very long time and was not really accomplished until the Chamber of Commerce of Upper India had made some very strong remonstrances. It was then discovered—as I pointed out in your Lordship's House

101
in January, 1916—that firm "A" was being financed by another German firm, "B," in London, and that this firm "B," was also in close partnership with another German firm, "C," in Frankfort. Nevertheless, firm "B" seems to have been permitted to carry on its operations in India and to have obtained a privileged position as regards dealing with Indian chrome ore. More than that, firm "B" seems to have been allowed to purchase a large amount of Indian chrome because the contract was made in London and not in India. That clearly shows the protean-like character of German activities. If checked in one case and in one form, they immediately reappear in some other place and form.
I turn to my third question. In October last, more than three years after the outbreak of war, an undefended action was brought in the King's Bench Division by Messrs. Ettlinger to dissolve a contract between them and Beer. Sondheimer and Company, of Frankfort. The contract was made in the German language; it was to be construed under German law, and the place of jurisdiction was to be Frankfort. The Court dissolved that contract as from August 4, 1914, and I suppose it could have taken no other course, because it would be evidently impossible for funds to pass from Ettlinger to Beer, Sondheimer, or vice versa, during the period of the war. But what would happen when peace comes? The contract may then come before the German Courts, and it is by no means certain that the German Courts will recognise the release given by the British Court. I understand that Ettlinger and Company have large contracts for the delivery of manganese ore after the war, and that these contracts, which were entered into in 1914, contain it proviso that they shall not be vitiated by the outbreak of war, but merely be suspended. I hope the Board of Trade will be able to say that these contracts have by this time been cancelled. More than this, in 1914 Schroeder and Schmidt, Ettlinger, and Beer, Sondheimer—the firms I have called "A," "B," and "C"—were all partners in the Nord-Deutscher Hütte Gesellschaft, of Bremen, and I hope the Board of Trade will be able to say that this partnership has also been cancelled.
In these cases we seem to have had a little light thrown upon the proceedings of the great Frankfort combine, which had
102
before the war obtained a deadly grip upon the metal market of the world. Professor Liefmann, of Freiburg, in an article written before the war, explained part of the modus operandi of this combine, but, of course, he did not tell the whole story. The aim was to obtain control of firms, and of prices, which is, of course, most important, and to obtain that control with no more participation of German capital than was necessary for that purpose. As Professor Liefmann very artlessly pointed out, "if such a participation takes the form of a control of the foreign undertakings, the financial and economic management is guaranteed by the home [that is, the German] firm, in spite of the apparent independence of the foreign firm." The "apparent independence" of the foreign firm seems to have misled our authorities in this and some other cases. Professor Liefmann explained the complex system of banks and interlocking directorships by which this huge machine was directed from central sources, and he gave the names of the principal firms involved. The most important of them are the two Merton firms, of which the London Merton was acting as Metal Broker to His Majesty's Government even after the outbreak of war. The next in importance, he tells us, were Beer, Sondheimer and Company, and Aaron Hirsch and Company. Now Beer, Sondheimer and Company have been blacklisted in America, Ina they have an alter ego there in the Minerals Separation North America Corporation, of New York, which is now trying to hamper the mining industry at Cobalt, in Canada, by raising claims for infringement of very doubtful patent rights. In London Beer, Sondheimer and Company were represented by Ettlinger and Company, who seem to have been at least very useful tentacles of the German octopus; and my Question is whether this firm now ranks as a British concern, and whether it can fortify its position and restore its German connections after the war.
Trade with Germany must be resumed in due time, and I believe it will have to be resumed, but this kind of peaceful penetration, which we were told by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, was for the benefit, of mankind, must be finally stopped. It was directed to obtain economic control of British resources for the benefit of Germany, and was most carefully designed to hamper us in war, and it has so hampered us. If it had gone on for another twenty years, I think most of our great industries

103
would have fallen under German domination. I feel that we must make certain that this dangerous influence shall cease in the future, and I am sure the Board of Trade is doing all it can in that direction; but I am not certain that it is a match for the extraordinary artfulness of the Germans. We have heard much of the "Hidden Hand" during this war. There is not one Hidden Hand, but there are many, and I believe they belong chiefly to persons who are deriving advantage from this system of peaceful penetration, and who are very much afraid that the advantages which they now possess may cease when the war ends. I hope that your Lordships will pardon me for detaining the House so long, but I venture to think that the public importance of these matters is some justification. I beg to put my Question.
LORD HYLTON: MY Lords, before I attempt to answer the Question on the Paper, I should like to express the thanks of the House to the noble Lord for having once more directed our attention to what he very justly describes as the protean character of German, semi-German, and naturalised German activities in this country, and perhaps your Lordships will agree with me that the speech of the noble Lord is one that fully justifies the passage into law of the Non-ferrous Metals Act, which has taken place during the last few weeks.
The particular company to whose activities the noble Lord has directed attention this afternoon belongs to two individuals—a Mr. Ettlinger and a Mr. Bernstein, both of German origin, but both naturalised British subjects. One was naturalised on February 3, 1888, and the other on July 23, 1903. This firm has carried on business for some years at Finsbury Court, in the City of London, as merchants; and it had branch offices, as the noble Lord has pointed out, in Bombay and other places in India, where it had a German as manager. With regard to its business in India, the India Office is better informed than the Board of Trade can be, and I think the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for India dealt on a previous occasion with the affairs of Ettlinger and Company as far as India is concerned.
In Finsbury Court the firm of Ettlinger employs a staff—not a very numerous one; I am told not exceeding ten in number—but it is perhaps a rather surprising fact that
104
one of the number is a German subject, and I am told of military age, but he has not been interned because of ill-health. Another member of the staff is a Swiss subject. Your Lordships will remember that the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916, received the Royal Assent in January, I believe, of that year. Very soon after the passing of that Act—I think as early as February, 1916—the business of Ettlinger was investigated by officials of the Board of Trade, but no circumstance was disclosed which gave the Board of Trade power at that time, and no circumstance has been since disclosed which would give the Board of Trade power at any time, to wind up the business under that Act on the ground that it was "carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit of enemy subjects." Those of your Lordships who are acquainted with the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916, will know that that is the only ground on which the business could be wound up. Accordingly, the business continues under supervision, and I am informed that one of the Board of Trade inspectors visits the offices of Messrs. Ettlinger very frequently. It is the fact, as my noble friend Lord Sydenham quite correctly stated just now, that before the war this firm of Ettlinger had very intimate relations with a firm at Frankfort named Beer, Sondheimer and Company with regard to minerals connected with the iron and steel industries, and on June 6, 1912, Messrs. Ettlinger signed an agreement with Beer, Sondheimer and Company for carrying on a portion of the London business and I think possibly the Indian business, though I am not quite sure of that, but at all events as regards 35 per cent. of the London business—on joint account with Beer, Sondheimer and Company. But this agreement was terminated ipso facto by the outbreak of war, for such is the legal effect of the war on a contract of that kind.
The answers to the specific Questions put by my noble friend are as follows. In his first question the noble Lord asks "whether the firm of Ettlinger and Company, which was precluded from trading in India in 1916, has obtained through the medium of the Baluchistan Mining Company a monopoly of the supply of Indian chrome ore for Europe, excluding the United Kingdom." The answer is that the firm of Ettlinger and Company have not obtained through the medium of the

105
Baluchistan Mining Company a monopoly of the supply of Indian chrome ore for Europe, excluding the United Kingdom. Early in the year 1916, before this firm was precluded from trading in India, they bought certain Indian chrome ore in the London market through London brokers, but no purchase of Indian chrome ore has been made by the firm since they were precluded from trading in India. The firm have an agreement for the sole agency for the sale of certain Rhodesian chrome ore in France and Switzerland, and I believe the noble Lord is perfectly accurate in stating that this chrome ore is exceedingly valuable material, especially in time of war, because it is used for hardening armour plates. As I say, they have an agreement for the sole agency for the sale of certain Rhodesian chrome ore in France and Switzerland, but owing to the supplies having been requisitioned by the Government the firm are not now supplying ore in France and Switzerland under the agreement.
The noble Lord asks, in the second place, "whether this firm is permitted to hold a large consignment of chrome ore at Calcutta." The firm do not now hold any consignment of chrome ore at Calcutta. Part of the chrome ore purchased in 1916 on the London market was retained at Calcutta owing to the difficulty of obtaining freight, but this was sold to a London firm, an English firm, on January 30 of this year, and it awaits shipment at the direction of the purchasers. Messrs. Ettlinger and Company have no further control over this ore.
As regards the third Question—"whether this firm of naturalised Germans, having obtained a decree severing its connection with Beer, Sondheimer and Company, of Frankfort, in October last, is now free to trade as a British firm"—it is a fact, as the noble Lord stated, that Messrs. Ettlinger and Company applied to the High Court one day in October last for a declaration that the agreement with Beer, Sondheimer and Company, which has already been referred to, had been terminated by the outbreak of war, and such declaration was made by the High Court. This order was merely declaratory of the effect of the war on the agreement with Beer, Sondheimer and Company, which was terminated by the outbreak of the war and not by the order of the Court.
I think that in the course of his speech the noble Lord referred to some doubt in
106
his mind as to whether there was in existence in the year 1914 between Messrs. Ettlinger and Company and some German firms any contract as to the delivery of manganese ore, with a suspensory clause in the event of war. The Board of Trade is not aware that any such contract was in existence at that period or at any other period. I have endeavoured as well as I can to answer the Questions placed on the Paper by the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I think the House is indebted to my noble friend below the gangway for raising this question, which is obviously one of real importance; and it is useful to draw a distinction between the class of case into which inquiries of this kind ought to be not merely made but continued, and the general idea of stopping for ever all German trade, with which some minds are impregnated. My noble friend said that the time would come when trade would have to be resumed with Germany. I entirely agree. That undoubtedly is so. But there is all the more reason for keeping careful watch, both now and in time to come after the war, on trade in certain specific articles which, as the noble Lord opposite has said, have in the past been made subjects of special attack by those who have attempted to promote the German system of penetration. Chrome ore is undoubtedly one of these subjects, manganese is another, and the great steel-hardening product, nickel, is a third; these are the three main steel-hardening products, apart from the rare metals which are used in small quantities for hardening special qualities of steel. I confess that it has always been something of a puzzle to me how Germany, in the absence certainly of two of those articles——a complete absence of manganese and chrome, and a great diminution in the supply of nickel, of which some is, no doubt, obtained from Scandinavia—has been able to maintain the great output of steel for guns and for defensive purposes throughout these three years of war. There must have been enormous stocks of these materials laid down in Germany in anticipation of war, in order to enable that vast output of steel to go on, as it has, throughout all these years. It is only one more instance of the careful preparations for war which Germany had indulged in for years past. On the whole I consider—and I think my noble friend will consider—that the replies made by the noble Lord

107
who represents the Treasury are not unsatisfactory, but this is evidently a case in which continued watchfulness with regard to the supply of chrome from India will be necessary, not only now, but for many years to come. There is only one observation which was made by the noble Lord with which I venture, respectfully, to differ. He instanced this as an example of the valuable operation of the Nonferrous Metals Act which we passed through the House the other day.
LORD HYLTON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess, but I did not say that, because that Act has not come into operation. I only ventured to suggest that the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Sydenham) bringing out the protean activities of the Germans in these trades was, in my humble opinion, a justification for the passage of that Act.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I hope I did not misrepresent my noble friend in any way. Of course, it is not true that any of these proceedings were a result of that Act. The point on which I wish to lay emphasis is this, that it is, I think, an exemplification of what I ventured to say when that Bill was under discussion—as to what it is important to do in order to check these illicit proceedings namely, to keep a tight hold on the sources of supply rather than on the particular operations of the metal market in London, which was all that the Non-ferrous Metal Bill, as it then was, contemplated. This is one of those cases where, though not a monopoly, yet a very large part of the sources of supply, are within the British Empire, largely in India, to some extent in Rhodesia, and to some extent in Canada. That ought to give us in the future all the requisite control over the supply of this supremely important, article, and I am glad that my noble friend below the gangway has raised this question, if only to give us an opportunity of expressing that view.
LORD SYDENHAM: I beg to thank the noble Lord for his very full reply. I hope I have understood exactly what he said. I gather from him that this firm has continued its operations, but under supervision, and that it is possible that it may be developed in some further direction, still under the close supervision of the Board of Trade.
LORD HYLTON: I do not know whether it can be developed or not.
LORD SYDENHAM: The instance I gave seemed to show that a developing process was going on. The noble Lord spoke of the contract of 1913 as having been automatically terminated. I am not quite clear whether that automatic termination will not mean that it will be automatically revived when the war ends.
LORD HYLTON: I think that may be so.
LORD SYDENHAM: I am not quite clear, if that contract was terminated automatically, whether it was necessary to bring the case into the King's Bench Division. I think the noble Lord has made it quite clear that Ettlinger's have not obtained a monopoly over the supply of Indian chrome, but they seem to have obtained a monopoly over the chrome of Rhodesia.
LORD HYLTON: I think they have a monopoly of agency in Rhodesia; but, as I pointed out, or endeavoured to point out, whatever monopoly they had was quite inoperative because the Government had requisitioned chrome ore.
LORD SYDENHAM: It is undesirable that a monopoly of Rhodesian ore, which, after all, is British, should pass to this distinctly German firm. I understand that the consignment at Calcutta, which Ettlinger held for some months, has now passed out of his hands. I do not think the noble Lord made it quite clear why he was allowed to purchase such a large amount, and why his business in India had not been finally put an end to. I take it, therefore, we may assume that no more chrome or manganese can be purchased by this firm.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, on this subject it might well be worth while making further inquiries as to the manner in which we can best defeat the peaceful penetration of Germany. The only nation, since 1886, that has been able successfully to defeat the peaceful penetration of Germany is Japan, and it may be worth while investigating minutely the manner in which she has frustrated German peaceful penetration.

SMALL HOLDINGS.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Notice on the Paper
To call attention to the unsatisfied demand for small holdings and the refusal of the Government to enable county councils to provide them, and to naive "That in view of the large and increasing demand for land for small holdings, it is desirable that the Government should modify their present policy so as to meet the large and growing demand for land on the part of discharged soldiers and others."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Motion on the Paper at the request of the County Councils Association, who feel very strongly on the matter. Your Lordships will notice that I call attention to the unsatisfied demand for small holdings and the refusal of the Government to enable county councils to provide them, and then move a Resolution on these points.
It rests with me, very shortly, to go into the history of the refusal of the Government to put the county councils in funds in order to enable them to carry out their duties under the Small Holdings Act, which I think every member of this House who is a member of a county council will admit has been a great success. As regards the first action of the Board of Agriculture, in December, 1914, they sent out a circular to county councils telling them that it was necessary for the conservation of the resources of the Public Works Loan Commissioners and for assistance to local authorities for relief and other works of employment, that there should be no lending by the Public Works Loan Commissioners of any money to county councils for small holdings. They also went further and said that these small holding loans could not be provided owing to the necessity of providing for unemployment. As your Lordships are well aware, instead of there being any unemployment it has been the other way—half a dozen masters running after one man—and there has not been any unemployment in this country since the war began. We know that a large sum of money raised by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for unemployment has never had to be used for that purpose, although a large amount was used to make up deficiencies in providing for the relief of relatives of soldiers.
As regards the circular itself, it really falls to the the ground, because the reason given for not allowing time Public Works Loans Commissioners to make advances for small holdings has never occurred. It has never been necessary to advance any money for works owing to want of employment, and as we are told now, even after the end of the war there will be no difficulty in finding employment. No doubt there will be a great boom in trade for some time immediately after the close of war in order to make good the great loss that has been suffered from the suspension of ordinary commercial business, and from those undertakings and manufactures which have been idle except as producers of war material. The circular went on to urge the county councils to obtain land upon lease. Those of us who are members of county councils know how very difficult it is to obtain land upon lease. A good many landowners do not care to let land upon lease, and those who do generally do so either at a very high rent, or the land that they let is land which has been derelict and requires a large amount of money to be spent upon it for equipment in order to make it of use to small holders. It requires sub-division, fencing, buildings, and the like. Therefore, if the county councils cannot borrow money it is quite useless for them to take any land of that sort, because they cannot equip it.
In addition to the large unsatisfied demand for small holdings—and there was a large demand even before the war, and that demand has, of course, during the last two or three years increased, and would have been even larger had it not been found that it was impossible for county councils to buy land for small holdings—we have to remember that there will be in future a very large demand from discharged soldiers and sailors when demobilisation takes place. Even now, there is a demand from those men who are discharged owing to ill-health, but who are, nevertheless, quite fit to undertake the cultivation of a small holding.
A deputation went to the President of the Local Government Board in April last from the County Councils Association. They pointed out that the reasons given in December, 1914, for withholding loans had entirely failed. I think that I shall have the agreement of the noble Duke, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, that a quite fair statement as regards the reason given in 1914 was that

111
the money would be wanted for unemployment. Certainly no money has been used for unemployment. The county councils further pointed out by their deputation that unless borrowing powers were given at once to county councils for the settlement of discharged soldiers and sailors on the land in accordance with the Report of the Departmental Committee of the Board of Agriculture, it would be impossible to meet that demand. The House will see that it is very essential, if the county councils are to be prepared and ready to meet this demand when demobilisation comes, that they should be able to look ahead and buy land when the opportunity occurs. This very deputation pointed out to the Board of Agriculture that many favourable chances of acquiring land at reasonable prices had been lost. Mr. Prothero, in reply, stated that he was in accord with the views of the County Councils Association, and said that he would press the Treasury to relax their restrictions. Unfortunately, nothing has happened as the result of the endeavours of Mr. Prothero. I feel perfectly certain that Mr. Prothero in this matter is doing everything he can, and is in sympathy with the creation of small holdings. Any failure that there may have been is not due to want of sympathy on his part but to inability to press the Treasury sufficiently to make them yield.
There is another thing which is rather curious, and one which, perhaps, the noble Duke can explain. A deputation also went from the British Empire Lands Settlement Committee. The Report of that Committee, in clause 14, page 3, states—
"The experimental scheme is on a very small scale, and it is not expected that under the present conditions it would be self-supporting. We are informed, however, by the Board of Agriculture that they have in view proposals for obtaining land for the settlement of ex-Service men on a large scale."
It would be interesting if the noble Duke would tell the House what is the exact meaning of that statement made in the Departmental Committee's Report. Upon the Empire Settlement Committee, curiously enough, there was no representative of the County Councils Association, nor was there any person representing a county council called as a witness, although the Committee dealt with matters connected with home settlement as well as settlement within the Empire overseas.
I noticed the other day a statement in
112
The Times, in which the British Empire Lands Settlement League said this—
"For the purpose of home settlement the Government should acquire land as far as possible in each county, and discharged sailors and soldiers should be installed thereon at the earliest opportunity; and the Government should deal with the whole subject as a national and Imperial question."
I notice that this had the support of a large number of Members of Parliament sitting on both sides in another place.
There was another deputation November, 1917, to the Board of Agriculture from the County Councils Association to discuss the prohibition of loans to county councils, and the Empire Settlement Committee's Report was discussed. The President of the Board of Agriculture told this deputation that he had no desire to interfere with the duties of county councils to provide small holdings, and that he was in favour of county council administration except in regard to State Colonies, which would only deal with a very small part of the demand. One would imagine from this that the Board of Agriculture would then have taken some steps to remove the prohibition under which county councils are suffering. Until that prohibition is removed, as the noble Duke perfectly well knows, it will be impossible for county councils to prepare effectively for this great demand, either for civilians or for soldiers and sailors.
The Board of Agriculture, on January 14 last, sent out another circular. They are very fond of sending out circulars, but nothing seems to come out of them. This circular stated that the Treasury had arrived at a general conclusion that it would be impracticable during the war and for some time after to provide capital for the purpose of small holdings, but that Mr. Prothero had other proposals under consideration which, if carried into effect, would enable the acquisition of land for small holdings to be proceeded with. I venture to ask the noble Duke whether he will tell the House what that scheme is which is under the consideration of the President of the Board of Agriculture. Does it mean that the Board of Agriculture is to be the small holdings authority in every county, as suggested by the Empire League, and which has the support of so many members of the House of Commons?
Another suggestion has also been made. I would ask the noble Duke whether there

113
is another alternative in contemplation. It is only a rumour that I have heard, but it is this—that it is the view of the Board of Agriculture that it may be desirable to take the question of small holdings out of the hands of the county councils and put it into the hands of the county war executive committees. We are given to understand that these committees will come to an end at the close of the war, but that the Board of Agriculture, which appoints them and whose servants they are, desire to maintain them as a useful means of communication with each county. The County Councils Association itself took no part in relation to that circular. I suppose that they were really tired of continually asking questions and getting no satisfactory replies.
The clerk of the Bedford County Council wrote, in reply to this circular, drawing attention to the fact that the Board of Agriculture had expressed no opinion as to borrowing from private persons. He inquired whether the proposals under consideration related to the acquisition of land by the Government or by the county councils. On January 23, 1918, the Board of Agriculture, in their reply, merely said that their proposals were not sufficiently advanced to enable the Board to make any definite pronouncement in respect to them. Yet Mr. Prothero at the end of last year had said that they were under consideration. They made no reply as regards loans from private individuals. I should have thought, even if the Public Works Loans Commissioners were not allowed to make any loans for such a good purpose, it might be desirable for the county councils to borrow sums of money from private individuals at such a rate of interest as would make it possible to acquire land for small holdings, or certainly for equipment—because that is also an important matter. There is no reason for standing in the way of county councils raising money in that way. The clerk wrote again, and the reply received from the Board of Agriculture was that they had consulted with the Local Government Board, who refused to give their assent, because the Treasury view was that it was undesirable even that county councils should be allowed to borrow from private individuals. It seems a curious position. Here is a public body wishing to provide small holdings not only for civilians but also for men demobilised from the Army, and for soldiers and sailors who are discharged through no fault of their own. You would not think there
114
could be a better purpose for which to raise money. Also it is a purpose which is to a large extent remunerative, because in many cases a small holder is able, by means of intensive cultivation, to produce as much as or more than the big holder.
On behalf of the County Councils Association, I must say that they feel rather aggrieved be the way in which they have been treated in this matter, and they wish to have some very clear and definite statement from the Board of Agriculture to-day. I do not think I can do better, to show what the feeling of the County Councils Association is, than conclude by reading to your Lordships a resolution passed recently by the Association—
"The Association is strongly of opinion that any scheme for the provision of small holdings for ex-Service men (other than Under the State Colony scheme) should be undertaken by county councils; further, that it is essential that the existing restrictions on their action in acquiring land under the Small Holdings Act should at once be withdrawn, as opportunities of acquiring suitable land at reasonable prices are being continually lost, and the value of land is rapidly going up; also that the Public Works Loans Commissioners should be authorised to issue loans to county councils for the purpose; and that this view should continue to he pressed upon the Board of Agriculture."
Moved to resolve, That in view of the large and increasing demand for land for small holdings, it is desirable that the Government should modify their present policy so as to meet the large and growing demand for land on the part of discharged soldiers and others.— (Lord Strachie.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord for having brought tins subject to the attention of the House. I know well that it is a matter of great concern and deep interest to every member of your Lordships' House that a greater number of our fellow-citizens should be placed on the soil in such a condition and in such a position that they can earn a decent and respectable livelihood. I cannot quarrel with the account which the noble Lord has given of the different interviews between the Association and the President of the Board of Agriculture. He gave your Lordships a very accurate and careful résumé of those various meetings, and I should like also to assure the noble Lord that he was perfectly justified in saving

115
that Mr. Prothero, the President of the Board of Agriculture, gave his warmest sympathy to the views and ideas expressed by the County Councils Association.
I need hardly remind the House that there are two kinds of applicants for small holdings. There is the man who before the war was either an enterprising man in commerce or a successful agricultural labourer. We have to-day the ex-Service man who has fought for his country and is anxious to acquire some stake and holding in the country for which he has fought. I can assure the noble Lord that the Board of Agriculture are fully alive to the situation, and that they have given this matter very serious consideration and earnest thought. But may I point out that there are a great number of difficulties in our way? The noble Lord rather passed them over, and did not feel disposed to examine them very closely. In the first place, we are confronted with the difficulty of money. Money is dear, and the rate of interest is very high. Money is required for war expenses, and any funds which are diverted for social purposes or for ameliorating the lot of our fellow-citizens must in some small degree diminish the sum-total of money available for the prosecution of the war. It is quite true that the sum required for carrying on the extension of the Small Holdings Act is infinitesimal compared with the sum-total that we are spending a day. But at the same time the noble Lord will possibly agree with me that at the present juncture it is vital that all the funds at the disposal of the nation should be employed for the prosecution of the war. Then I think the noble Lord will also agree that to-day the cost to the small holder himself is quite out of proportion to what it was before the war. I suppose that the cost of equipment for himself alone has gone up, in round figures, nearly 100 per cent.
May I remind the House, since the noble Lord alluded to the Small Holdings Act, of what the Board of Agriculture spent during the years from 1908, when the Small Holdings Act came into force, down to 1914, just before the war, and of what has been achieved. The Board of Agriculture acquired, in round figures, 200,000 acres of land; 140,000 acres were purchased, and 60,000 acres hired. Some 14,000 men were placed on the soil. The average cost of the land was £32 an acre, and the average rental was 25s. an acre. I certainly desire
116
to associate myself with the noble Lord when he said that he thought the Small Holdings Act had been a success; and I am bound to say I think that all those who, like the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Harcourt), were associated with the passing of the Act, may congratulate themselves upon the fruitful result of their efforts.
It was the hope of the Board at one time that they would be able to continue this work. It involved an expenditure of £1,500,000 a year and the acquisition of some 30,000 acres of land. But for reasons which I have already explained to the noble Lord and some of which he himself has already laid before the House, the Treasury have been unable to accede to the request of the county councils to allow them to borrow money from the Public Works Loans Commissioners during the period of the war.
I have dealt with the civil applicants who were able to get small holdings under the Act. Let me pass to the consideration of those whom we might call the military applicants. It is within the recollection of the House that the Small Holdings Colonies Act was passed in 1916. Under that Act the Board of Agriculture were entitled to acquire 6,000 acres of land for the purpose of putting upon it ex-Service men. The Board did acquire the 6,000 acres to which they were entitled, and the result of their administration during the year 1916–17 will be laid on the Table in the course of a few days. But, in connection with this existing scheme under the Small Holdings Colonies Act of 1916, the Government hope to introduce legislation at an early date with a view to extending that Act. I hope I have made myself clear to the noble Lord. The Government were entitled to acquire land to the extent of 6,000 acres, but it is proposed to extend the principle of the Act of 1916 by which that was done. That is the real point of the speech of the noble Lord. He wanted to know—as a result of a discussion with the Empire Settlement Committee, and other information which he read to your Lordships, either from the Press or from meetings between various associations and the President of the Board of Agriculture—whether the Government had any further plan in view. My reply is that the Board of Agriculture have had the question of land settlement for ex-Service men under their consideration. They have prepared a comprehensive scheme for the acquisition

117
of land, which scheme is now being discussed with the Ministry of Reconstruction prior to submission to the members of the War Cabinet. The noble Lord asked me whether I could give him any detailed statement in connection with that scheme. I am sure that on consideration he will see that, until a scheme of such magnitude is laid before the members of the War Cabinet for their consideration, it would be better for me not to attempt to disclose any of its details.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Strachie has brought this matter before your Lordships' House. I can understand that the noble Duke who represents the Board of Agriculture has answered under some difficulty; because the Board of Agriculture has of course, had to submit this scheme to the Treasury for their sanction, and it has at the present moment, apparently, a scheme which is being considered by the Minister of Reconstruction, and probably will then have to be considered by the Treasury, and eventually have to go to the War Cabinet.
Let me remind your Lordships what the history of this question is. When the war broke out a very gallant member of your Lordships' House—the late Lord Lucas—was President of the Board of Agriculture. At some early period of the war he saw what an important question this matter of the provision of small holdings for demobilised sailors and soldiers was going to be, and he appointed a very strong Departmental Committee, over which Sir Harry Verney presided. That Committee presented its Report a few days after I had had the honour of becoming President of the Board of Agriculture, in 1915. That Committee recommended three things. It recommended an experiment in what are called "colonies"—a small experiment of three colonies of ex-seamen or ex-soldiers. It recommended a large expenditure by the Board of Agriculture in the settlement of demobilised sailors and soldiers on the land, in addition to the colonies. Further, it recommended in the strongest way that the county councils should be furnished with funds to enable them to meet the demands in their counties that would come upon them from all quarters, and particularly from demobilised sailors and soldiers after the war to provide them with small holdings.
The only action that has been taken on
118
that Report was that action taken by Parliament on the Small Holdings Colonies Bill; and the noble Duke has told us that there is in contemplation an extension of that scheme. I am very glad to hear it. But I want to draw your Lordships' attention—and through Parliament the attention of the public—to the fact that there is too great a delay, a dangerous delay in my judgment, in dealing with this matter. I understand the position of the Treasury. The noble Duke told us and we all know without his telling us—that the attitude of the Treasury is naturally that of "no expenditure at the present moment, if we can help, it, on any scheme, however good, that is not directly connected with the prosecution of the war." This is exactly one of those eases in which that natural attitude of the Treasury, if not overruled by the War Cabinet, is going to lead to disaster. I use that word advisedly.
What is the position? It was my business when I was at the Board of Agriculture to try and ascertain what the views of the men in the Fleet and in the Army were on this subject; and since I have been out of office I have continued to do what I could to ascertain what those opinions were. I am now going to tell your Lordships what the position is as I understand it. How many demobilised seamen or soldiers will wish to go on the land nobody can tell. Some people think a good many; others think a few. I do not know. Nobody can know at present. In such units as a test has been carried out, I believe something like 17 per cent, of the men have expressed their intention of going on the land—men who were not on the land before. But that is evidently a calculation on which no firm estimate can be based; therefore I do not pretend to say what proportion of these men really will, in the last resort, determine to make a settlement on the land in order to try and make their livelihood out of it. I say that the sentiment in the Fleet and in the Army on this subject is extraordinarily strong. What is running through their minds is this—and it is not only the men who for the moment think of going upon the land; this sentiment is shared by all the men who have no idea of going on the land at all—their attitude is this." We have saved the land. At the present moment we do not consider that Parliament gives us sufficient access to the land, and we are going to claim as our right an access to the land." That

119
feeling is held with vehemence both in the Fleet and in the Army; and I want to say here—as I know I can—to the men of the Fleet and of the Army that they are going to meet with no opposition from the landowners of this country.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Quite the contrary. The landowners of this country yield to nobody in their admiration of what these men have done. They admit the justice of this aspiration, and, so far as in them lies, they will do all they can to assist the Government to give access to the land to all the men who bona fide mean to make that their occupation in life.
The question is, What is Parliament going to do to give this access to the land to the men, where it does not exist now? The colony plan is one means of access. We have already discussed that, and I will not say any more about it. The noble Duke has told us that the Board of Agriculture has a further scheme in view. We shall be able to pronounce upon that when we are told what it is. But the best means of all of giving access to the land is through the operation of the county councils. In each county you have an experienced committee which knows how to deal with this matter, a committee that has been anxious all through the war to make preparation for the demand which it knows is coming directly the war is over. We all know that land has been changing hands freely during the war. Every county council will tell you that over and over again they have had a chance of acquiring suitable land for this purpose but have not been able to take any steps towards that end because the Treasury will not allow them to spend any money in this way. That is where I say the action of the Treasury, if wholly intelligible, is really constituting a public danger; because if nothing is done by the end of the war it will be too late to do anything properly. The demand may be very large; the county councils will be told at time last moment by a reluctant Treasury that they may spend the money, but all the opportunities of acquiring land may have passed by, and they will have great difficulty in acquiring compulsorily land which a few months before they could have acquired voluntarily.
Just think what will be the feelings of these men, who know that this question
120
has been before Parliament and the Cabinet for four years, when they come back from the war and find that nothing has been done. The situation will be lamentable; and your Lordships know that there are in this country men—I hope not a great number, but still there are men and very active men—of what I might term the Bolshevik frame of mind, who will do all they can to use this position in order to excite the feelings of the demobilised soldiers and sailors, and who will say, "This is all you have to expect from society as it exists at present," and "This is the gratitude you have for saving England and Scotland; Parliament during all these years has made no provision for your access to the land." I sincerely hope that the President of the Board of Agriculture will take this matter straight to the War Cabinet, that he will not allow the Department to be blocked by the Treasury, but will support the county councils, because whatever the Board of Agriculture may do I believe it can be better done by the county councils.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I am speaking on the Motion before the House to begin with, and I wish to express my regret that I was prevented from being here in time to listen to the whole of this debate, because many years ago I was the author of a Bill for dealing with the question of small holdings. Unhappily that measure was, brought to a rapid termination, because very shortly after it came into operation the Conservative Government went out of office. The object of that measure was to provide small ownerships; in other words, to try to restore something in the nature of the peasantry that used to exist in this country many years ago. There was no class which at one time flourished more than they did. They were described on one occasion by Mr. Bright as "men who tilled the land and owned the land they tilled," and in many parts of England, especially, in the county in which I lived for so many years, there were thousands of these small freeholders, all flourishing, all farming admirably well; but when the time of the great depression came, they were the first to suffer. They had no landlord to fall back upon, and the mortgagees enforced their interests ten times more harshly than the landlords ever thought of doing their rents. Consequently, in a great measure these men have disappeared.

121
I share entirely the anxiety of my noble friend to see small holdings provided for the men who are coming back from the war, or for others who may desire to have holdings in the land; but whatever the measures are, I do hope that the question of ownership will not be lost sight of. I have the most profound belief that this is the way to re-establish a peasantry, in this country. It is quite true that the Bill which I carried had only a short time for operation, because the new Government which came in at once passed another measure, the principle of which was that small holdings should be held by people as tenants under the county councils. I do not believe for a moment that the soldiers coming back from the war will be altogether satisfied with that position. I think that what they will desire to become is the owners of the land. On those lines I sincerely hope it will be done. I fully agree with my noble friend that this is a question which cannot be overlooked, and that it ought to be part of the policy of whatever Party may be in power when the war is over.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE MINISTRY OF FOOD.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN rose to call attention to the following statements by the Controller of Food in his speech in the House of Lords on February 19 last—
"I have no close estimate of what the food consumption would amount to in value for the whole country, but it probably exceeds £700,000,000, or at the rate of over £60,000,000 a month. … It is hoped—and I trust this is not merely the expression of a pious wish—that all direct and indirect administrative costs will be covered by margins received in connection with the sale of commodities";
and to ask the Controller of Food the following questions: Is it intended that the cost of administration is to fall on the producer of food either imported or home grown, and what share would fall on the producer of home-grown food; and, if not, by whom is the cost of administration to be borne.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am sorry to intrude again so soon upon your Lordships' attention, but I can relieve your Lordships by saying at once that I do not rise for the purpose of initiating a debate. What I want, rather, is some explanation from the noble Lord of the statements which he made the other day in
122
reply to questions from myself. I am sorry to say that I hear so deficiently very often that I was not able to follow exactly what he said, and it was only when I saw it in print afterwards that I thought that in some respects it required further explanation. I have set out in my Notice on the Paper the statement which the noble Lord made, and I think there will be a natural desire on the part of most people to know precisely what it means.
Under these proposals, are the Government themselves to be engaged in trade? Are they to purchase commodities in the first place, and then re-sell them? Is that the way in which these margins of profit which are to cover the whole administration of £700,000,000 worth of food, the cost of which in itself must be something almost fabulous—is that how it is to be done? If it is not, then I should be very glad to hear an explanation from the Food Controller. I own that at present I feel very much in the dark upon the question that I have put to the noble Lord. I can hardly understand on what ground, with anything approaching to fairness, the cost can fall upon the producer of home-grown food. It seems to me that that would only be an instance of imposing on the food producer an amount of heavy taxation which is not borne by any other class of the community. It is upon that point, and upon the remaining part of the Question that I have put to him, that I desire information. As I say, I have not raised the matter for the purpose of initiating a debate, and therefore I have expressly omitted the ordinary Motion for Papers. I shall be grateful to the noble Lord if he will give me some reply which will enable us to understand exactly what this new and very large and important proposal of the Government really means.
THE FOOD CONTROLLER (LORD RHONDDA): My Lords, the noble Viscount is, I think, unduly suspicious. I did not intend to convey the impression that I propose to make any charge at all upon the producer, and I should hardly have thought there was anything in my reference last Wednesday to what may be called the marginal cost of distribution which could lead the noble Viscount to suspect that I cherished any design against the agricultural producer. The Ministry of Food has now become the purchaser, on behalf of the nation, of the vast majority of our imported foodstuffs. The cost, insurance, and freight of these commodities, and to

123
some extent the expenses of their distribution to the retail traders, constitute in the first instance a charge upon the Ministry of Food. The incidence of this charge follows the ordinary economic rule, that all expenses paid by the merchant on and after importation are added by him to the price of the commodity, and are thus eventually paid by the consumer and not the producer. The same rule applies to the marketing of home produce. Beyond the expenses involved in the preliminaries of sale, which have always formed part of the cost of production, it is not intended that any cost of administration shall fall on the producer of food either imported or homegrown.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: May I ask a further question? Perhaps I did not sufficiently explain myself. Is it a fact that the marginal profits are to arise as regards home-grown food from this—that the Controller is to purchase from the producer the home-grown food at a price less than that which he is able to obtain in the market afterwards?
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I understand that meat imported from Australia and elsewhere is sold here at the full maximum price, which leaves a large margin of profit, I suppose, to the Department of the Food Controller. There is also, of course, the question of wool, which is rather analogous. I see that the noble
124
Lord shakes his head. He does not know anything about wool. I heard to-day that there is a large margin of profit on imported meat, even after paying all the charges to which he referred, when he sells at the price at which the meat is sold in this country. I presume that there is some profit which does accrue to the Government at the cost no doubt of the consumer.
LORD RHONDDA: My Lords, I do not know that there will be any profit. I have already explained to the noble Viscount and to the House that the price paid for any commodity is based upon the cost of production plus a reasonable pre-war profit. I do not know that I can give the noble Viscount any further information Whether there will be a profit on the sale I do not yet know. The noble Lord opposite stated that we were purchasing certain important articles and making a profit on them. He did not name any article, except wool. As the noble Lord knows, wool is entirely outside the scope of the functions of the Ministry of Food. It is very possible later on—I hope so—that there may be a profit made out of the price fixed for some imported food commodities, and, if so, it will go partly, I should assume, to provide the expenses of administration and possibly to meet the loss that may be made on other commodities.
House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.