Sitting of 30 July 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Brentford Gas Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be committed.
Private Bills [Lords] (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Smith Estate Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): The promoters of the two Gas Bills on the Paper—[Gas Light and Coke Company Bill and South Shields Gas Bill]—have agreed to accept the Instruction which stands in my name, and I hope the House will now allow the remaining provisions of these Bills to go to the Committee.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to strike out the provisions whereby it is proposed to increase any statutory maximum price or to modify any existing statutory provisions as to the relation of price to dividend.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
South Shields Gas Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to strike out the provisions whereby it is proposed to increase any statutory maximum price or to modify existing statutory provisions as to the relation of price to dividend.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Rothesay Tramways (Amendment) Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

DEATHS FROM STARVATION OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 16th January, 1918; Mr. Stephen Walsh]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 96.]
MILITARY SERVICE (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 14, 1918).
Copy presented of Convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America respecting the liability to military service of British in the United States and of United States citizens in Great Britain. Signed at Washington, 3rd June, 1918. Ratifications exchanged at London, 30th July, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copies presented of Reports for 1917 on the Science Museum and on the Geological Survey and Museum of Practical Geology [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of Three Orders in Council, dated 19th July, 1918, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1918.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 19th July, 1918 (Provisional with respect to England, Wales, and Ireland), making further provision with respect to dates and forms for registration of Electors under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS, 1878 AND 1904.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dater 19th July, 1918, approving a new scale of Fees to be paid in respect of the verification and stamping of Weights, Measures, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
INLAND REVENUE.
Copy presented of Sixty-first Report of the Commissioners for year ended 31st March, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (WALES) (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 1st July, 1918, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributinos) Consolidated Regulations (Wales), 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Closing Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland:—
Urban district of Fermoy
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
Address for "Return of the Net Income and Expenditure of British India, under certain specified heads, for the three years from 1914–15 to 1916–17 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 90, of Session 1917).—[Sir H. Roberts.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      IRISH MACKEREL FISHERIES.
      Mr. BOLANDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can use his influence with the American Government to secure the withdrawal of the embargo on cured mackerel exported from Ireland to the United States, in view of the fact that the industry gives employ-men to fishermen and others on the West Coast of Ireland in the autumn months, that the trade has been in existence for a number of years, and that whilst there is a demand for this article of food in the United States there is practically no demand for it in the United Kingdom?
      The ASSISTANT SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): His Majesty's Government are already in communication with the United States Government, who are considering the question, and I have every hope that a favourable decision will soon be reached.
      Mr. BOLAND: Can he say whether it will be possible to indicate the nature of that decision in good time before the autumn mackerel season begins, which is very soon now?
      Lord R. CECIL: I will take care that the suggestion of the hon. Member is properly considered.

      HARVEST LABOUR (SOLDIERS).
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the recent stormy weather has materially increased the difficulty of securing the harvest; and whether, therefore, the Government will reconsider their decision and release for the period of the harvest the skilled agricultural workers called to the Colours in May and June last?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I regret that the decision cannot be reconsidered, but, as I explained in an answer to my right hon. Friend on the 9th instant, soldiers in command depots and hospitals are being granted agricultural furlough to assist in securing the harvest.
      Sir J. SPEAR: Cannot the matter be reconsidered with reference to all these men called up? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability, under the circumstances mentioned in the question, to liberate the men who are actual proprietors of farms, and let them go back during the harvest where there is no male person on the farm?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say more than I have said. It has been decided by the various Government Departments concerned and also by the War Cabinet.

      FEEDING-STUFFS.
      Colonel WEIGALLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any considered policy has been decided upon for the provision of feeding-stuffs and fertilisers for 1918–19; what amount of tonnage and finance has been allocated to linseed and cotton seed; and whether any approximate estimate can now be given as to the amount of oil cake available for distribution in the United Kingdom during the next six months?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): I have been asked to reply. The provision of an adequate supply of fertilisers and feeding-stuffs depends upon considerations of finance and tonnage, which cannot at present be stated definitely. It is hoped to maintain supplies of sulphate of ammonia and basic slag at last year's level, and to import an increased amount of phosphate rock. It is further hoped that it will be possible to distribute to farmers as much oil cake as
      208
      was distributed last winter, and it is believed that circumstances will render an increased amount of millers' offals available.
      Colonel WEIGALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me before the House rises as to oil cake?
      Major ASTOR: No time is being lost. There is constant consultation between the Departments concerned, and, in addition, representatives of the Allies, who are also concerned, are consulting at this moment.

      HAY.
      Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture the quantity of hay which it is estimated has been and will be lost in consequence of the shortage of farm labour; and whether the Government propose to allow any part of the corn harvest to be similarly wasted, or what steps they propose to take to meet the difficulty?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): I do not think that there is any evidence to prove that an appreciable quantity of hay has been lost, or will be lost, through labour shortage. The broken weather has increased the difficulties of hay-making, but the greater part of the crop was secured in excellent order before the weather broke. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the right hon. Member for the South Molton Division on the 1st of this month.

      PIG BREEDING.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is satisfied with the progress of pig breeding; what is the increase in the number of pigs during the last twelve months; and what are the difficulties that prevent a large development of this industry?
      Mr. PROTHERO: The Department's figures refer only to pigs on holdings of I acre and over in England and Wales. They show that, although there has been an estimated decrease in the number of pigs on such holdings from 1,919,000 on the 4th June, 1917, to about 1,695,000 on the 4th June last, there has been an estimated increase of 34,000 in the number of sows on such holdings between those dates. A considerable increase has also been effected, partly through the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for the East Grinstead

      209
      Division, in the number of pigs kept on allotments and on other holdings of less than 1 acre, by means of pig clubs and similar associations. To what extent further development can be pushed must depend wholly on the supply of feeding stuffs that can be assured to the keepers of pigs during the coming season.
      Sir R. COOPER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will answer the first part of the question, and at the same time will he say whether it is not the fact that the control of feeding-stuffs is under another Department, and that the country is suffering very much in consequence?
      Mr. PROTHERO: On the subject of the breeding of pigs, I am perfectly satisfied with the progress this industry is making. It is quite true that feeding-stuffs are under the control of another Department.
      Major E. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman now note the desirability, in conjunction with the Food Control, of making some statement to allay the apprehensions of a slump in pigs, which have arisen as the result of Mr. Hoover's recent speech?
      Mr. PROTHERO: I should like notice of that.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a big diminution in the number of pigs in Ireland owing to the shortage in the offals of wheat, and owing to the fact that the price of Indian meal, a substitute, is 33 per cent. higher than the home-grown feeding-stuffs, which would cost the farmer 2s. as against 4s. for Indian meal, and is it to be expected that the farmer will pay 4s. for a substitute for that which he can grow better at home for half the price?
      Mr. PROTHERO: I regret to say that I am aware that there is a decrease in the number of pigs in Ireland, and that it is in the main attributable to the shortage of feeding-stuffs. I am also aware of the disparity between the price of home-grown feeding-stuffs for pigs, which is obliged to go into bread, and the price of the substitute which the farmers are obliged to buy.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the controlled price of wheat, barley, and oats which farmers produce for the open market is only 2s.
      210
      per 14 lbs., as against 4s. for Indian meal—100 per cent. more than the cost of the farmer's home-grown feeding-stuffs?
      Mr. PROTHERO: That question should be addressed to the Ministry of Food.
      Mr. FLAVIN: You ought to have it in your own Department.

    RUSSIA.

      VLADIVOSTOCK GOVERNMENT.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has been made by this country or the Allies with the Regional Government of Vladivostock, Eastern Siberia, or any locality in the Far East of the former Russian Empire; and, if so, whether its terms or text can be made public?
      Lord R. CECIL: The answer is in the negative.
      Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is there any truth in the telegrams from Russia that His Majesty's Government have given a categorical assurance that the Allies have no intention of infringing the territorial integrity of Russia?
      Lord R. CECIL: I do not think that arises out of this question.

      MURMAN COAST.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the agreement entered into with the Regional Council of the Murman Coast implies the recognition of that council as a de facto and/or de jure Government with which the Allies or their country expects to maintain regular relations, or is made only for temporary or military purposes; and whether any other regional councils in Russia have been or will be treated with or recognised on similar lines?
      Lord R. CECIL: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given yesterday. I am not in a position to make any further statement in regard to the agreement.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      GERMAN EAST AFRICA.
      Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War for what reason the military European German subjects

      211
      taken prisoners of war during the operations in German East Africa have not been removed to India for internment in the same manner as the German residents in British East Africa were removed; how many of these Germans are there now in German East Africa, and what is going to be done with them; and how many German civilians are there now in German East Africa and what is being done with them?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: German combatant prisoners of war are transferred to Egypt for internment as opportunity offers. According to the latest information on the subject received in the War Office there were fifty-two German combatant prisoners of war in German East Africa, and presumably these were awaiting transfer to Egypt. The last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

      PRISONERS IN GERMANY (PAY).
      Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an interned prisoner of war in Germany can draw any portion of his pay; and, if so, can he allot any of it to his dependants?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The reply to both parts of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. A prisoner of war wishing to do either should communicate direct with his regimental paymaster.

      WOUNDED PRISONERS (CHEVRONS).
      Colonel Sir JAMES CRAIGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether steps have yet been taken to authorise the wearing of chevrons by officers and men who were taken prisoner by the enemy after being wounded?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Chevrons will be given to wounded prisoners of war.
      Sir J. CRAIG: Will the same privilege be extended to those who have escaped?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir.

    NEWS FOR TROOPS.
    General McCALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether
    212
    he is aware that British troops on most of the fronts depend mainly upon intercepted German wireless for their general home and foreign news; and whether steps will be taken to ensure that they receive their news through an equally efficient British service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have had special inquiry made with regard to this matter from the military authorities in France. English newspapers and the Continental edition of the "Daily Mail" are obtainable in towns behind the lines, and numbers of men take in the papers regularly. The Young Men's Christian Association provides newspapers in all their huts and the troops have their trench magazines. There are also the Divisional and Brigade Summaries which deal mainly with operations on the immediate fronts of the divisions and brigades concerned, and these are circulated to headquarters of battalions. The German wireless is not circulated to the troops. I am afraid that the preparation of a special news sheet to be issued to the troops in the trenches is not practicable, as it would entail the employment of a large staff, would consume a large amount of paper, and its distribution would be extremely difficult.
    General McCALMONT: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are several fronts besides the French Front, that this question particularly mentions the importance of those fronts, and that this matter is very important on such fronts as Palestine, where news arrives from German sources several days in advance of that from British sources, and very often leads to misunderstanding?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I may have misunderstood my hon. and gallant Friend's previous question in thinking that it dealt with the French Front. It was a supplementary question. I took the precaution to make inquiries in France. I shall be most happy to inquire about the other fronts.
    General McCALMONT: Will the right hon. Gentleman do so without my putting a question down?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly.

    MARINE LOSSES (DISCIPLINE OF TROOPS).
    General McCALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether

    213
    any arrangement exists under which a report on the discipline of the troops is obtained from the Admiralty in every case in which a ship carrying troops meets with disaster; if not, whether such reports will be called for in future; and whether he will state the number of officers and other ranks whose names have been brought to favourable notice in this connection and the number of cases in which they have been rewarded or mentioned in dispatches?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: A report in all such cases is furnished to the War Office by the officer commanding the troops; and it is therefore not necessary to take the action suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. As regards the last part of the question, these services have not been overlooked. A small committee is now considering the many reports which have been rendered in connection with the destruction of hospital ships, transports, and store ships by enemy action. The committee is co-ordinating a list of recommendations for reward and "mention," but it is not possible at the present time to give an estimate of the numbers. Very few rewards have been given so far for these services, as it is important that the various reports should be reviewed simultaneously in order that a standard of reward may be arrived at.
    General McCALMONT: Arising out of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, does he not think it would be better to get a report from the naval authorities in view of the fact that the commanding officer of troops is not likely to report any great deficiency or anything very complimentary regarding the troops under his charge?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think it is very desirable to get that, and I will bring it to notice.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      FIGHTING ZONE (AGE).
      Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether this country is putting men in the trenches at an earlier age than France or Italy?
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the age of the youngest soldiers sent to
      214
      the fighting zone by the French, Italian, and British military authorities respectively?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: In the case of France, the youngest class available for service in the trenches is the 1919 class. The average age of these men is just over nineteen years. In the case of Italy, lads of eighteen years of age were put in the trenches last year, and at present the 1900 class—lads of eighteen years of age—are under training. In the case of this country, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained on the 9th April last, it was found necessary, owing to the emergency, that lads of eighteen and a half years of age who are sufficiently trained should be sent to France.
      Mr. HARRIS: Am I to understand from that that as it was owing to an emergency now that the emergency has passed the Army Council and the Government are reconsidering their decision?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot, of course, admit that the emergency is pasted, but I may assure the House and my hon. Friend that this matter receives the gravest consideration.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Is the Army Council considering the opportunity, if it arises, of withdrawing these young lads of eighteen and a-half years from the fighting line?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly.
      Mr. HARRIS: Is not the fact that the French, who have many years' experience on this subject, do not send their young men until nineteen, a precedent to be followed, considering that the pressure is just as great on France as on England?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot add to the answer I have given.

      RECRUITING, IRELAND (KILKENNY CORPORATION).
      Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Kilkenny Corporation, at their weekly meeting on the 16th instant, refused to allow a letter from the Irish Recruiting Committee to be read; have other instances of this circular letter explaining the provisions of the recruiting scheme being not allowed to be read by local authorities occurred; and can he say what was contained in the circular letter to cause the action described?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am not aware of similar action by other local authorities. The circular letter expressed a desire to confer with the corporation as to the best methods of raising recruits by the voluntary system in Kilkenny.
      Major NEWMAN: Has this Irish committee got any official status or is it an amateur body?
      Mr. SHORTT: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means by an amateur body.
      Major NEWMAN: Has it got any official status? May I have an answer?
      Mr. SHORTT: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means.
      Major NEWMAN: Has this body been appointed by the Irish Government, by the War Office, or by any Government Department?[HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "What body?"]

      OLDER RECRUITS (TRAINING).
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what Regulations have been made in Army training camps as regards the men over forty-four years of age and graded 1 and 2 and called up under the last Act before the new Regulation of the National Service Department was issued that all such men should be graded B1 and B2, in brackets; whether he is aware that such men are being trained with younger Grade 1 men and think they may be sent to the front on emergency; and will he issue instructions forthwith that all such men over forty-four years of age who are now training as Grade 1 men shall have exactly the same treatment and training as all men who are now called up and are graded B1 and B2, in brackets?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Men called up who are over forty years of age, and are allotted to Infantry, are posted to battalions specially organised for their reception and kept together as far as practicable. They are trained on a special modified syllabus of training suitable for older men, and, as far as possible, trained by older non-commissioned officers. Instructions have already been issued that men enlisted subsequent to 18th April, 1918, who on the date of their enlistment
      216
      had attained the age of forty years and were graded Grade I, will now be categorised as B1.

      WANDSWORTH DETENTION BARRACKS.
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has received complaints as to brutality to military prisoners in Wandsworth Military Detention Barracks; and whether he will have inquiries made at once by an impartial person?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have received no complaints beyond a letter sent to me by my hon. and gallant Friend. In view of the fact that an impartial person visits the Detention Barracks once a week, as laid down in the Rules for Military Detention Barracks and Military Prisons, I do not think it is necessary for me to make any special inquiries.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it be possible to get permission to visit the prison?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I shall be glad—in fact, I have written to my hon. and gallant Friend—to arrange to take him over the place at any time fixed.

      INDUSTRY AND TRADE.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to call up British citizens up to the age of fifty-one for military service or work of national importance, and to leave aliens and enemy aliens free to seize the industry and trade of this country; and, if not, will he say how he proposes to deal with this problem?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. Baronet to the full statement which I made on behalf of the Government on Thursday, the 11th July.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (SUBSTITUTES).
      Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a petition signed by about 300 persons, chiefly women, offering themselves as substitutes, person for person, to take the place of men who are now suffering in prison for conscience sake; and, if so, whether he will consider the possibility of accepting the offer?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have received from the hon. Member the petition to which he refers. It is obviously impossible to comply with the request.

      FARMER CALLED UP.
      Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that Private Percy Read, No. 47442, 3rd Wilts Regiment, a married man with one child, farming 169 acres of land at Ashton Keynes, Cricklade, Wilts, has been called to the Colours; whether he is aware that this farmer has no responsible person except his wife to take charge of the farm; that he has 60 acres of haymaking and 20 acres of harvest to be done; that he has twenty-eight cows in milk, besides a variety of other cattle; and, in the interests of food production, will he say what steps he proposes to take to secure this man's release from military service until after the harvest?
      Mr. PROTHERO: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The man was called up for military service under the recent scheme requiring a certain quota from each county. In order to meet the demand other county executive committees were compelled to release for service men in a similar position. It is understood that none of the men thus called up can be released.
      Mr. TERRELL: Does that mean that there is no alternative but for this man to realise his stock and close his farm down?
      Mr. PROTHERO: I believe that every assistance will be rendered to him by the Agricultural Executive Committee of the county, who are aware of this case.
      Mr. TERRELL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nothing is being done?
      Mr. PROTHERO: I should like notice of that. It is not according to my information.

      ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
      Mr. TREVELYANasked the Minister of National Service whether a special tribunal for final appeal can be established for men engaged in one-man businesses of the same nature as the special tribunal for co-operative managers and officials?
      The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave on the 24th instant to the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydvil and Tower Hamlets, and on the 29th instant to the hon. Members for Devizes and Great Grimsby.

      CERTIFIED OCCUPATIONS.
      Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that, contrary to his instructions, men of the new military ages engaged in certified occupations in the woollen industry and complying with the conditions of List R 136 have been called-up for medical examination and consequently have had to apply to a local tribunal for exemption; whether, when temporary exemption has been granted, the obligation to join a Volunteer Training Corps has been imposed; and whether he will direct that men inadvertently called-up in this way should not be subject to military service or service with a Volunteer Training Corps so long as the current instructions remain in force?
      Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware that a certain number of men of the new military age, within the limits of the Certified Occupations List, have been called up for medical examination. This is due to the fact that many men failed correctly to register their occupation under the National Registration Acts. As a result it was not known that they were in fact within the list. I have no power to relieve a man of the obligation to volunteer service, which was imposed by Parliament. It is, however, open to men upon whom the obligation rests to apply to the tribunal for a variation of their certificate. With regard to cases of the type referred to by my hon. Friend, I shall be pleased to give general instructions to National Service representatives not to oppose the application for variation.

      INSTRUCTIONS (PUBLICATION).
      Mr. T. TAYLORasked the Minister of National Service whether he is willing that all instructions to National Service officers should be made public so that the rights of men liable to military service may be safeguarded against mistakes on the part of officials?
      Sir A. GEDDES: The rights of men liable to military service do not depend upon Departmental instructions, but are

      219
      governed by Statutes, by Orders in Council, and by Regulations, by Proclamations, and by Orders made under the Statutes, to all of which the utmost publicity is given. Officials at the local offices of the Ministry are always ready to answer any questions or to give advice to men who are in doubt as to their military position.
      Mr. TAYLOR: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman is quite agreeable to have all the Regulations addressed to the tribunals published?
      Sir A. GEDDES: That question does not lie with me, but, I believe, with the President of the Local Government Board. As a matter of fact, all the instructions are issued to the tribunals.
      Mr. KILEY: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to send a copy of these instructions he issues to his own staff to the chairmen of tribunals, so that they can work in conformity with the Department, whereas now tribunals find themselves sometimes in opposition to the Ministry of National Service, a circumstance which could be avoided if the suggestion were adopted of sending all Instructions to the chairmen?
      Sir A. GEDDES: As a matter of fact, a great many of the instructions issued by the Ministry of National Service are made available for the chairmen of tribunals.
      Mr. KILEY: I have never seen one myself.
      Sir A. GEDDES: At all events, the instructions issued to the representatives of the National Service Department go to the chairmen of tribunals, but a very large number of our instructions have no interest or bearing upon the work of the tribunals.

      VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
      Mr. T. TAYLORasked the Minister of National Service whether, in general, a man of forty-six years of age or over should not primâ facie be exempted from the Volunteer Training Corps condition?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): I have been asked to answer this question. There appears to be no reason why men of forty-six years of age should as a matter of course be relieved of the Volunteer obligation; each case must be considered on its merits.
      Mr. TAYLOR: Is not the object of releasing these men of forty-seven, forty-eight, and forty-nine that they shall be employed on work of national importance, and are not these men so heavily engaged during the day that to ask them, after their day's work, to go and drill is merely a farce?
      Mr. WALSH: Each case is considered on its merits.
      Mr. TAYLOR: Would not the recommendation of the President of the Local Government Board probably have some weight in preventing local tribunals imposing the duty of drilling upon men who have very little practical hope of ever being called up?
      Mr. WALSH: I have nothing to add to the last sentence.

      CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMISSION.
      Mr. TREVELYANasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Civil Liabilities Commissioners will take into consideraton, in view of the increased cost of living, the raising of the maximum allowance to all men who have to close down their business from £104 per annum to some higher figure, such as £180?
      Mr. WALSH: The Grants made by the Civil Liabilities Committee are made in respect of certain contractual obligations such as rent, interest, and instalments on purchases, insurance premiums, etc. and not in respect of maintenance. It does not seem to my right hon. Friend to be necessary to increase the Grants in view of the increased cost of living.
      Mr. KILEY: When the obligations exceed £104 per annum is the Civil Liabilities Commission authorised to increase the amount beyond £104?
      Mr. WALSH: It is perfectly true that the present maximum is £104 per annum, but I think it is within the competence of the Commission to increase that should the circumstances so warrant, although on that particular point I cannot give a definite answer.
      Mr. KILEY: They never increase it.

      LOCAL TRIBUNALS, SOUTH WALES.
      Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that a number of persons holding

      221
      pro-German views, well known locally as pacifists, who are openly opposed to winning the War, are sitting upon local tribunals in South Wales; if he is aware that loyal citizens are disgusted with this condition of things; and if he will at once make an order that only members who are prepared to swear their loyalty to King and country shall sit upon such tribunals?
      Mr. WALSH: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on the 24th inst. My right hon. Friend does not think that an order such as is suggested is required; but the hon. Member can rest satisfied that he will consider any case where good evidence is brought to his notice that a member of a tribunal is not being guided by full regard for the national interests at the present time.
      Mr. STANTON: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is disgraceful that people of this character should be allowed on these tribunals? We can already prove the cases. Apart from that, even if they were fair, we know their views outside.
      Mr. WALSH: I can only say it seems to me that the answer I have given is quite comprehensive: that if it is brought to my right hon. Friend's notice that a member of a tribunal is not being guided by full regard to the national interest at the present time, further action will be taken.
      Mr. STANTON: The hon. Gentleman has not replied to my question, which was whether such people should be allowed to sit on this tribunal unless they take the oath of allegiance to their king and country? I will put the question down again.

      PROTECTION OF BUSINESSES.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has considered the means by which the businesses of men who are called up for military service could be protected or maintained during their absence; and if he has taken any steps to encourage local authorities to set up committees of carefully selected residents to which these men might refer their difficulties, with the object of securing co-operation on the part of other men in the same businesses who are not serving their country?
      Mr. WALSH: The establishment of schemes for maintaining the businesses
      222
      of men who join the forces has received much attention from the Local Government Board, and excellent schemes have been adopted at a number of places. The best schemes are likely to be those which are managed by traders themselves, for they know exactly the difficulties to be overcome. I may also refer to the Circular issued in December last by the Board on the subject, of which I will forward the hon. Baronet a copy. My right hon. Friend is anxious to do all that he can to push schemes of this kind, and only yesterday held a conference with representatives of the London tribunals on the subject.

    ARMY OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).
    Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why an officer of the Old Army who retired some years ago with a small gratuity, and who afterwards came up to serve with the New Army, is thereby now deprived of two-thirds of the gratuity to which he would have been entitled if he had not previously served?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Regulations are precise, and were in force before the War.
    Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question why an officer should be penalised for serving again by having his gratuity cut down by 50 per cent.?
    Mr FORSTER: As I have told the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this was considered a very long time ago, after the South African War, I do not think there has been occasion to reconsider it since.

    OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS.
    Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will state how many civilians have been appointed to the Artists' Rifles Officers' Training Corps or the Inns of Courts Officers' Training Corps in answer to the advertisement recently appearing in the Irish newspapers for candidates to qualify for commissions?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that these particulars are not available, and to obtain them would throw an undue amount of labour upon an already over-worked

    223
    Department. In these circumstances, I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press for the information.
    Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: Do I understand from that answer that the qualification for a cadet has been withdrawn, and that no cadet is sent to a training battalion unless he has been to the front?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think so at all. I do not think that point arises out of the hon. and gallant Member's question, but I think the understanding is clearly, first, that preference will be given to a N.C.O. who has served in France, but exceptional circumstances do arise where a man need not be a N.C.O. or need not have served in France, and in those exceptional circumstances the man may be considered for an Officers' Training Corps.
    Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision of a short time ago in reply to a previous question, and also a letter I wrote on the 10th July, to which I have not received any reply?
    General McCALMONT: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that advertisements are appearing in the Irish papers to the effect that cadets can join without previous service, to the detriment of those who have already had to go into the ranks?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am aware that one or two advertisements, which my hon. and gallant Friend was good enough to send me, did appear in the Irish papers, but, I understand, without definite War Office authority. I understand these advertisements are not now given.
    General McCALMONT: I read one yesterday in an Irish paper.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will look into it.
    Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: By whose authority were they inserted?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have already said that, so far as I can find out, there was no definite authority.
    Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are withdrawn, as inflicting a great hardship—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting a very long way from the question on the Paper.

    DEMOBILISED OFFICERS (PAY).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any remedy has been found for the injustice done to officers who are temporarily demobilised on account of illness, and who are liable to be again summoned to military duty, but who meanwhile are left without pay and dependent either upon casual resources or the workhouse?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think the question is the same as that dealt with in my answer to the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire on the 27th June. If so, it is still under consideration.

    CHINESE LABOUR CORPS (SAVING OF WAGES).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that each coolie in the Chinese Labour Corps in France has now to carry on his person the wages he receives, and that the possession of such sums of loose money, in the aggregate considerable, tends to produce gambling and quarrelling and to prejudice the discipline and efficiency of the corps; and whether, in view of the above he will inaugurate a scheme, either through official or non-official sources, whereby members of the coolie corps can deposit any surplus money they may wish to save and so avoid the possibility of many Chinamen returning home perhaps penniless and disappointed after a long term of dangerous and useful service?
    Mr. FORSTER: A savings bank scheme for Chinese coolies in France has recently been established.
    Mr. STEWART: May I show the right hon. Gentleman a letter I have got which rather points that it is not quite adequate?
    Mr. FORSTER: Certainly; I shall be very glad to see it. I do not think it will impugn the accuracy of what I have just said.

    ROYAL DEFENCE CORPS (LIEUTENANTS).
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, as there is so little prospect of promotion for lieutenants serving in protection companies of the Royal Defence Corps and as

    225
    nearly the whole of these officers are gentlemen well advanced in years, he will, without any cost to the public, grant them the honorary rank of captain after three years' good and Continuous service as in the case of quartermasters and similar appointments or, as an alternative, grant them the substantive rank of captain, their pay, allowances, and duties remaining as at present?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid it is not practicable to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's question, as to do so would be unfair to officers in other arms of the Service who are serving in the trenches and elsewhere.

    SPECIAL MILITARY TRAINS (IRELAND).
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the number of special trains requisitioned for small parties of military in Ireland and the consequent waste of coal and material; and, seeing ordinary trains are sufficient for conveying these small military parties, what action he purposes taking in the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making inquiry, and will communicate with my hon. Friend in due course.
    Mr. NUGENT: May I ask whether special trains went every day last week to the Curragh with military parties, while at the same time the Tara Street baths and wash-houses in the city of Dublin had to be closed down through scarcity of coal?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Naturally I did not know that, but I have told my hon. Friend that I am making inquiries, and will communicate with him.

    SPECIAL RESERVE (COMPULSORY RETIREMENT).
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why officers under fifty-one years of age relinquishing the command of Special Reserve battalions are compulsorily retired and not placed on the Reserve of Officers; and whether, considering that commanding officers so retired are liable to be called up as private
    226
    soldiers, he will have this compulsory retirement of officers who have not reached the age limit put a stop to?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Under the Special Reserve Regulations, officers of the Special Reserve on vacating the command of their battalions should normally relinquish their commissions. They are now, however, being placed on the retired list instead of relinquishing their commissions. They are not liable for service in the ranks.
    Mr. REDDY: Will you get land for all these men?

    ARMY OFFICERS (APPLICATIONS FOR HOME SERVICE).
    Colonel Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked whether officers on the Staff who have served over two years in the East are allowed to apply for Home service; and, if so, whether regimental officers who have served over three years in the East may have the same privilege granted them?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: An officer may apply for service at home, but whether he can be spared or not depends on the needs of the Commander-in-Chief in the theatre of war concerned. A number of interchanges have been arranged during the past, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend will realise, it is not possible for any definite rule to be laid down.
    Sir R. BAKER: Does that apply equally to regimental officers or only to officers on the Staff?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It applies both to officers on the Staff and regimental officers.
    Major E. WOOD: Is it possible, as far as it can be managed, to extend this same privilege to non-commissioned officers and men who went out in 1914?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes; my hon. and gallant Friend will recollect there was almost a distinct pledge given in this House that that was to take place. Unfortunately, the trend of events altered that.
    Major WOOD: May we take it that, as soon as the military situation permits, it will be the intention of the Government and Commander-in-Chief to put that into effect?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly.

    ARMY OFFICERS' PROMOTION.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked how many officers of the rank of brigadier-general, colonel, or below have been given acting or substantive rank in the grades of major-general, lieutenant-general, and general outside the method of promotion by seniority during the War; and whether the Army Council are satisfied that the departure from the rule of seniority has greatly conduced to the efficiency of our Armies in the field?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The information asked for in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is not readily available, and its preparation would involve an undue amount of time and labour. As regards the last part of the question, the Army Council is satisfied that the system of promotion by selection to the ranks of major-general, lieutenant-general, and general referred to is essential to the efficiency of the Army.
    Commander BELLAIRS: May I assume from my right hon. Friend's answer, that the number is very considerable?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my hon. and gallant Friend may assume that.

    VENEREAL DISEASE.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the 6th April last Sir Reginald Brade wrote on behalf of the Army Council to the President of the National Union of Women Workers that under Regulation 40D, Defence of the Realm Act, it is necessary for the soldier concerned to give evidence in open Court against the woman; whether he is aware that in a large number of cases this has not been carried out; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The statement in the letter referred to contemplated the case in which a charge was laid against a woman by a soldier or sailor and in which, on the woman pleading not guilty, it would be impossible for the magistrate to convict without hearing the evidence of the soldier or sailor concerned. In this connection I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given him on the same subject by myself on 24th April and by the Home Secretary on 9th May, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Home Secretary whether he will issue instructions to chief constables that the consent which a woman is required to give before she is medically examined under Regulation 40D of the Defence of the Realm Act shall in all cases be given in writing?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is evidence now that a number of these women only give their consent to this examination because they do not know that they are entitled to refuse? This Regulation is being illegally administered, and will the right hon. Gentleman not, at any rate, introduce this safeguard to prevent that recurring?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right, because these officers are specially informed that they must get consent before an examination is made. I am quite sure that they carry out that Regulation.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: What evidence is there that they have obtained this consent?
    Sir G. CAVE: The statement of the officers themselves. They can be called before a magistrate and examined.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is it not a fact that a woman who objects would have to bring a case, and does he suggest that these women would actually bring their own case before the Court?
    Sir G. CAVE: That is not so. If any woman alleges that she has been examined without her consent I am sure that the magistrate would go into the case at once, send for the officer concerned, and ask him to give the facts.
    Mr. KING: In view of the delicate nature of this matter, will the Home Secretary assure us that the women's rights are explained to them by other women and not by police officers of the male sex; and is it not clear that a delicate matter of this kind should be explained and their rights stated by their own sex?
    Sir G. CAVE: I will certainly inquire about that point.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: If these women are examined without their consent, and they tell this to the magistrates, the

    229
    point I wish to make is that these women do not know when they go into the Court that they are entitled to this right.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now puting the same question.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: What is the objection to giving this consent in writing?
    Sir G. CAVE: It never has been done. Of course, the woman is asked quite plainly and clearly, "Do you consent?" and if she says "Yes," I do not think that it is necessary to ask for her consent in writing.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Would that not be a great safeguard?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not think so. I am sure that no doctor would examine a woman who has not consented.
    Mr. S. MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain this in his propaganda for the General Election, in order to secure numerous women's votes?

    COLOURED MEN (BRITISH FORCES).
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the recent French advance a large proportion of General Mangin's victorious army was composed of native Africans recruited from Senegal, Morocco, and Algeria; whether a great French coloured army is now being created; whether he is aware that Great Britain has reservoirs of coloured subjects anxious to take their places in the fighting line; and whether, in view of the success which France has achieved with coloured soldiers, he will recommend to the War Office that we should follow the French example of employing coloured fighting men in the firing line and thereby relieve in a large measure the shortage of skilled and other white labour in this country, and avoid the necessity oil calling up elderly men from business and trade occupations who in many instances are producers and taxpayers and substantial contributors to the Revenue?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend is under a slight misapprehension when he says that a large proportion of General Mangin's victorious army is composed of native Africans. As regards the latter part of the question, every endeavour has been, and is being, made to utilise coloured men for service. I am informed
    230
    that the number employed by the British Government is far greater than that employed by the French, and it is hoped that this number may be still further increased.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that these coloured soldiers of ours are employed in the front fighting line and not merely in Labour Battalions behind the line?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: They are employed in both capacities.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that no effort whatever has been made to recruit blacks in the Soudan?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know so much about the Soudan, but the figures of recruiting in other Protectorates are very remarkable.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not well known that Soudanese are the best fighting men?

    ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there is delay in supplying artificial limbs and surgical appliances to wounded and mutilated soldiers and sailors who have been discharged from service, thereby causing pain, suffering, and pecuniary loss which might be avoided; and, if there is no delay, can he explain the many complaints which are made by these gallant and suffering men?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): There has undoubtedly been delay in the past in supplying artificial limbs, owing mainly to the lack of accommodation. During the last two months additional limb-fitting hospitals have been opened at various centres in the United Kingdom, and the services of additional limb makers have been secured. The result will be an immediate reduction in the number of men waiting to be fitted.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman see that no further delay occurs with supplying these gallant men with all the appliances they require?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have already said that we hope to have further accommodation—no less than six limb-fitting hospitals.
    M. HOUSTON: You may want more?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We have two others in contemplation.

    CADETS (WEEK-END LEAVE).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked whether cadets in officers' training schools are now prohibited from travelling by train during their week-end leave; and, if so, why?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. This applies to all troops serving in the United Kingdom, and is not confined to cadets. It was found necessary, in order to relieve the congestion on the railways, to issue instructions that week-end leave should not be granted if it involved railway journeys on Saturdays, Sundays, or Mondays.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could not an exception be made in the case of cadets—of men of eighteen—preparing to go out for the first time?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand not, and that cadets cannot be specially treated. But in the case of cadets going out for the first time every precaution is taken that at least one leave is given before they go.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: As many of these young fellows are taken away from home for the first time in their lives, would it not be possible to give them these facilities, which would not amount to very much? Would my hon. Friend consider the advisability of reconsidering this question after the holidays?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am quite willing to reconsider it.

    GRATUITIES (RECOVERY).
    Mr. WILLIAM WATSONasked whether Army Council Instruction No. 808, of 18th May, 1917, is retrospective in its operation?
    Mr. FORSTER: The decision to recover gratuities already paid was retrospective.

    BRIGADIER-GENERAL ELLIOT.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Brigadier-General G. S.
    232
    Elliot was recently appointed by the War Office to a post of importance abroad; whether he is aware of the injury and financial loss inflicted upon this gallant officer by being relieved of his late command without either court-martial or exhaustive inquiry at which he was present; whether he is aware that Brigadier-General Elliot now ranks as a lieutenant-colonel, that he is a professional soldier who has given meritorious service in the Army and is dependent for his income upon his professional pay, that his being put on half-pay through no fault of his own for about eleven months has inflicted upon him a loss of pay amounting to over £600, and that now he is only receiving the pay of a lieutenant-colonel, which is considerably less than half that of a brigadier-general; and whether he can see his way to make up the financial loss occasioned to Brigadier-General Elliot, especially in view of the fact that during the time he was on half-pay from the War Office he was working for another Government Department without pay?
    Mr. FORSTER: Colonel G. S. Elliot now holds the rank of colonel, which is his substantive rank, and fills an appointment which carries the pay of lieutenant-colonel. I am afraid that I cannot adopt the suggestion in the last part of the question.
    Mr. HOUSTON: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give further and sympathetic consideration to this question, bearing in mind the peculiar circumstances under which General Elliot was relieved of his command, and the hardship inflicted?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have looked into the matter with every sympathy, but my hon. Friend will realise that in matters involving questions of pay we have to be very strict.

    CAPTAIN BOWEN-COULTHURST.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the precise conditions on which Captain Bowen-Coulthurst has been allowed to leave Broadmoor; and how many prisoners have been allowed to leave Broadmoor on the same conditions during the last four years?
    Sir G. CAVE: The conditions of Captain Bowen-Coulthurst's discharge from Broadmoor Asylum were: (1) That the

    233
    discharge was revocable at the pleasure of the Secretary of State; (2) that the patient should proceed to the house of a doctor whose name and address were specified, and should there remain under his care and supervision until he had the permission of the Secretary of State to leave; and (3) that he should return to Broadmoor or to other custody if required to do so by warrant of the Secretary of State. The number of patients conditionally released from Broadmoor in the last four years is ninety-nine. The conditions in most cases are substantially the same as in Captain Bowen-Coulthurst's case, except that the place of residence and the person who is to exercise supervision necessarily vary.
    Mr. KING: Can we be assured that the place specified is not in Ireland?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is not in Ireland.

    ALIENS.

      HOSPITAL MATRON.
      Colonel STAVELEY-HILLasked the Home Secretary whether an un-naturalised enemy alien, Helwig Batburg, is still employed as matron at the cottage hospital at Devizes, to the exclusion of capable British women; and, if so, when is it proposed to intern this person?
      Sir G. CAVE: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to him on the 19th June by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, to which I would only add that women are not interned in this country as prisoners of war, and that this woman's exemption from repatriation will come within the general review of exemptions which I announced on the 11th instant.
      Mr. KILBRIDE: Is it not the fact that the secretary to Major Edwardes, who was an Austrian lady, is now interned in this country as an enemy alien, and that she was arrested at Limerick Junction?
      Sir G. CAVE: If so, Sir, there must have been a special reference in her case: she was interned under Regulation 14B.
      Sir R. COOPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that people like this ought to be allowed to hold various positions which might be important?
      Sir G. CAVE: That is a matter for the committee of the hospital.

      BRITISH CITIZENSHIP.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if he is taking any steps to determine upon a national policy under which foreigners may receive the advantages of British citizenship after the War.
      Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. Baronet to the reply given yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division, which shows that we are taking steps in this direction.

      WATERWORKS (GERMAN VISITS).
      Mr. STANTONasked if the German named Saure is still permitted to visit the neighbourhood of our reservoir and waterworks at Hirwain and Penydaren, Glamorganshire; if he is still permitted to travel to and from London; if he will explain why any German is allowed to get near the people's water supplies; if he will see that this German is interned at once; and if he will make inquiries who the German is who lives at or near the Cardiff Waterworks, and lock him up for the safety of the people of Cardiff?
      Sir G. CAVE: If the hon. Member refers to the case of Francis Sauer, I understand that he severed his connection with the firm on whose business he used to visit Glamorganshire in September, 1916, and I have no information that he has travelled to Wales since, but I am making inquiries. If the hon. Member will give me further particulars about the case referred to in the last part of his question, I will have inquiries made about it also. All exemptions of alien enemies from internment are at once to be reviewed.

      ERNEST OTTO HERMANN STEIN.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked whether Ernest Otto Hermann Stein, of Gallen-berg, Barkfield Avenue, Freshfield, near Liverpool, was naturalised after the outbreak of war; and, if so, can he state the reasons for such naturalisation at that date?
      Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The certificate was granted on the 22nd October, 1914. As this case, together with those of all other certificates granted since the beginning of the War to persons of enemy nationality, will come under review of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill passes into law, I

      235
      think it is undesirable to make any further statement with regard to it at the present time.
      Mr. PENNEFATHHER: Would the right hon. Gentleman simply say whether this person was naturalised for reasons of national importance?
      Sir G. CAVE: I cannot say. It happened long before my time.

      WAR OFFICE CLERK (KRAHN).
      Sir R. COOPERasked if Krahn, who has been employed as a clerk under the War Office, was convicted at Birmingham in 1913, sentenced to five years' imprisonment and recommended for deportation; and, if so, can he say why this recommendation was not carried out?
      Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second that inquiries subsequent to this man's conviction showed that he was not an alien, but a British subject, born in London, and therefore could not be expelled from the United Kingdom.
      Sir R. COOPER: Does not the fact that this man was recommended for deportation indicate that he was not considered safe to be at large, especially in war time in a Government Department?
      Sir G. CAVE: You cannot expel a British subject at all.

      HOLZAPFELS, LIMITED.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether at any time the Board of Trade have advised the Admiralty or other Government Departments to discontinue transactions with Holzapfels, Limited; if so, whether the reasons for such advice were to any extent based on the conduct of Max Holzapfel or A. C. A. Holzapfel after they left this country in 1914; and, if so, will he state what that conduct was?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade if any of the principal share or debenture holders in Holzapfels, Limited, have any direct or indirect interests in any concerns carrying
      236
      on somewhat similar businesses abroad; and, if so, will he state the names of such concerns and where they are situated?
      Mr. WARDLE: Holzapfels, Limited, has not issued any debentures, and I am informed that none of the principal shareholders are beneficially interested in other concerns carrying on similar businesses abroad except to the extent of their interests as shareholders of Holzapfels, Limited.
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: Are we to understand that Holzapfels are themselves interested in other firms abroad?
      Mr. WARDLE: To a certain extent.
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: Can we have the names of those other firms abroad?
      Mr. WARDLE: Not without notice.
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: I will give notice.

      ADOLPH SGONINA, CARDIFF.
      Sir JOSEPH WALTONasked the Home Secretary (1) whether Adolph Sgonina, of Cardiff, manager of the Flottman Engineering Company, Limited, an unaturalised enemy alien, was exempted from internment at the request of certain officials of the Ministry of Munitions; if so, what are their names and the grounds on which the application was made; whether Adolph Sgonina was permitted to retain possession of a considerable sum of money; and, if so, can he state the amount; and (2) whether Adolph Sgonina, an unnaturalised alien enemy, and his two sons, Adolph and Charles Sgonina, both of military age, are in residence in Holly Bush Road, Cardiff, in a house overlooking a large stretch of the Bristol Channel, from whence it would be the simplest possible matter to carry on signalling, even as far as the English and Welsh Grounds Lightship, from whence a German has just been expelled at the instigation of the Seamen's Federation; and whether he will take immediate steps to have these men interned?
      Sir G. CAVE: This man was exempted from internment in 1915, in view of official representations from the Ministry of Munitions to the effect that his services were indispensable for the supply of certain special instruments or tools required in connection with the production of munitions. These representations were made with the personal approval of the

      237
      Minister. I am informed that he does not reside in Allansbank Road, as stated, and that, while it may be possible to see the Bristol Channel from his house, it is not the case that it overlooks a large stretch of the Channel. One son who is of military age is, like his father, engaged on munitions work. There are two other sons under eighteen. I have no information as to the money in his possession. The exemptions granted to this man and his family will be reviewed by the Advisory Committee.
      Sir J. WALTON: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this enemy alien is superintending the manufacture of gauges upon the absolute accuracy of which depends the accuracy of guns and shells, and is he of the opinion that such a person ought to occupy a position of the sort?
      Sir G. CAVE: That may be true, but this man was allowed to do the work two years ago at the urgent request of the Ministry of Munitions, and it will be for the Minister to justify his retention when the case goes before the Committee.
      Mr. S. MacNEILL: In view of cases like this, may I ask whether German is the common language at the Ministry of Munitions?
      Sir J. WALTONasked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to reconsider the question of continuing the exemption from internment of the five un-naturalised enemy aliens employed as managers in controlled works of the Ministry of Munitions?
      Sir G. CAVE: These eases will be reconsidered by the Advisory Committee at once.

    ASYLUM CASE.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary why M. B., who was remanded on 24th May to Holloway Prison, was not transferred to the infirmary ward instead of being forcibly fed by wardresses for five days and kept in a padded cell; what are the names of the two magistrates and two doctors on whose authority she was certified on 29th May; is she still at Goodmayes Asylum and still refusing food; and is she proved, by Section 74 of the Lunacy Act, to be dangerous and unfit to be at large, or on what ground has she not yet been released from detention?
    Sir G. CAVE: There is no power to transfer a prisoner while in prison on remand to the infirmary ward. The prisoner must be brought again before the justices unless certified insane and removed to an asylum, and this last course is never taken if it can be avoided, as it removes an untried prisoner from the cognisance of the Court. I have no knowledge of the case after the woman was handed over to the relieving officer, except that she was certified insane and removed to an asylum under the Act of 1890 in the usual way. The question of her discharge is one for the asylum authorities.
    Mr. KING: Has she passed now entirely out of the control of the Home Office into that of the asylum authorities?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir.

    OIL BORING, UNITED KINGDOM.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether the firm of S. Pearson and Sons have offered to place the whole of their geological and oil expert staff gratuitously at the disposal of the Government; whether Messrs. Pearson anticipate to strike oil within six months in this country at the rate of tens of thousands of tons of oil per annum; whether the whole of Messrs. Pearson's staff are ready at once to commence operations; whether the sole cause of the delay to commence boring is the failure of the Government to introduce legislation to enable Messrs. Pearson to conserve the oil for the nation by the most profitable methods; and, if so, whether such legislation will at once be passed to secure in Britain a motive power for the British Navy?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Messrs. S. Pearson and Sons have made an offer substantially to the effect stated in the question, and I understand that their staff are ready to commence operations, but the firm are desirous that before actual boring is commenced a Bill should be introduced for restricting indiscriminate boring for oil. An endeavour has been made to settle a Bill which could be passed by general agreement, and I hope that such a Bill may be introduced this week.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May we take it it will be passed before the House adjourns?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have said, it is hoped that such a Bill will have general agreement; if so, and there is any chance of passing it it will be passed. If it is not passed, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the question will be dealt with in another way.
    Major WOOD: Are we to understand from that that it is proposed to confer a monopoly upon this firm?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. Messrs. Pearson in this matter are acting as the agents of the Government; but the difficulty raised by the hon. Gentleman is a real one, and I am not sure, if the Bill is not passed, that it will be easy to make arrangements with the firm. However, Lord Cowdray is anxious to help the Government, and I feel certain that in some way or another he will make arrangements.

    Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Miinster if he intends to consider the charge made against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire by the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch, or does he intend to make an official inquiry into the allegation that has been made, in view of the conflicting statements that have been made on the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative. Let me say further that in my deliberate opinion there is nothing in this case which reflects in any way upon the honour of my right hon. Friend.
    Sir R. COOPER: May I ask if it is not a fact that there is no evidence whatever forthcoming to show that the right hon. Gentleman has not made a large profit out of the privilege he enjoyed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can only repeat what I said in my answer, that I have looked into the facts of this case, and I say openly that, in my opinion, the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing that might not have been done by any hon. Member of the House, including myself.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does not all this fuss arise because the right hon. Gentleman in question has a wife who was kind enough to visit a German prisoner?
    Sir R. COOPER: Is it not the fact that this question was put down before anything was known of that case?

    IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the large collection of artistic and literary material acquired through public funds by the War Aims Committee will be transferred hereafter to the Imperial War Museum to complete the national records of the War; (2) whether the pictures and other literary and artistic material for propaganda purposes acquired with public money by the Ministry of Information will be hereafter transferred to the Imperial War Museum for the national collection?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: With my hon. Friend's permission I will answer together this question and the next. The collections referred to are the property of the Government, and the question of their disposition has not yet been decided, but will be considered in due course.
    Mr. MALCOLM: In view of the great artistic and literary value of many of these pictures, will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider the claims of the Imperial War Museum as a permanent institution to have the ultimate custody of this collection?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; I shall see that that is considered.
    Colonel ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will he see that Scotland gets its fair share?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall in a moderate degree consider the interests of Scotland.
    Mr. KING: Is it the case that this property has been acquired by the Ministry of Information—that point was not answered?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe it has been acquired by that Department.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will he see that these memorials which relate to particular localities are assigned to those localities and not locked up in this war museum?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that I should require more knowledge of this subject than I possess to answer that question.

    NATIONAL MARITIME BOARD (OFFICERS PAY).
    Mr. PETOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether the difficulty with regard to the acceptance of the decision of the National Maritime Board on the question of pay of officers in the case of railway owned transports by the Railway Executive Committee has been overcome; and whether these officers will now receive the rates of pay settled by the National Maritime Board?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): My horn Friend is no doubt aware of the reply given yesterday to a similar question by the President of the Board of Trade to the effect that instructions have now been issued for a beginning rate of pay and increments to be given to the officers in question, equal, on the average and on the whole, to those laid down by the National Maritime Board for merchant ships.
    The rates so paid will be retrospective to the 6th October, 1917, as in the case of other determinations of the Board. I understand that the details in connection with the increments have still to be worked out, but it is anticipated that these details can be readily adjusted.
    Mr. STEWART: What does the hon. Member mean by "on the average and on the whole"—is it not the same thing?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: That expression arises out of the fact that the Railway Executive Committee desire to make an adjustment to adjust the tonnage and the seniority of their officers, and they desire to make plain the rates of pay.

    NETTING SEASON.
    Sir JOHN BARRANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the advance of the netting season, he can now announce the steps decided on for an extension of this season in the early future in different localities?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): I am in consultation with the Fishery Board for Scotland and the Food Ministry in this matter. I am aware of the importance of an early decision, and hope to intimate one shortly.
    Mr. GULLAND: Will it be intimated before the House rises?
    Mr. CLYDE: I should hope so.

    COAL (MINERS' SUPPLIES).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether coal miners and their families are to be rationed in regard to the amount of coal they consume in the same way as the public generally; and, if not, will he state the maximum weight of coal which may be supplied to a coal-miner's family, and how that compares with the ration allowance to other families, not being coal miners, of an equal number of persons?
    Mr. WARDLE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Free or cheap coal for miners in many cases forms part of the remuneration of the men. With regard to the second part, no data are at present available, but the allowances to miners will vary in accordance with the practice which is in existence at the present time and which has obtained in the past at each colliery. A miner's fire has to be maintained practically continuously, for the following reasons:

    1. Members of the same household engaged in the mines frequently work on different shifts.

    2. The necessity for drying damp clothes, and washing purposes.

    HOUSEHOLDERS (EVICTIONS).
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the number of evictions taking place or being threatened from houses not covered by existing emergency legislation; and whether he proposes to introduce a further Bill this Session extending the scope of the present law and dealing with difficulties which have arisen in its administration?
    Mr. WALSH: My right hon. Friend has been made aware of a certain number of cases of the kind referred to, but he cannot promise to introduce further legislation on the subject.

    NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
    Henry Strother Cautley, Esquire, for the County of Sussex (Northern or East Grinstead Division).
    Major-General John Humphry Davidson, C.B., D.S.O., for the County of Hants (Southern or Fareham Division).

    BILL PRESENTED.
    PUBLIC HEALTH (BORROWING POWERS) (IRELAND) BILL,—"to extend the borrowing powers of district councils under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1917," presented by Mr. SHORTT; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Amendments to—

    Scarisbrick Estate Bill [Lords],

    County of London Electric Supply Bill [Lords],

    Nelson Corporation Water Bill [Lords],

    Sligo Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

    Amendment to the Amendments to—
    Small Holding Colonies (Amendment) Bill, without Amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to
    [Income Tax Bill [Lords.]

    INCOME TAX BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: From the Order Paper to-day it appears that the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Information, the Foreign Office, and the Colonial Office Votes are put down before the Navy Votes. The arrangement which I believe was made with general consent was that we should have a general discussion on the Shipbuilding Vote to-day. I would ask the Leader of the House if it will be possible to have a discussion on these other Votes on the Report stage?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This looks rather mysterious, but it is an arrangement made by my Noble Friend (Lord Edmund Talbot), and I think I can explain it. It is to carry out the general agreement come to on Friday. These Votes have to be put down to-day in order that they may be taken first to-morrow. I believe that they will be taken without discussion to-day, and then to-morrow the business should be in the following order: First, Board of Trade; second, Ministry of Information—
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: No!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Third, Foreign Office; and fourth, Colonial Office. Today—I think this was part of the agreement—we intend to take the Secret Service Vote as the Second Order.
  Mr. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Standing Order which prevents us taking the Ministry of Information Vote, which is a new Service, under the Closure Rule? I, for one, certainly strongly object to the Ministry of Information Vote being taken in this way. A full day ought to be given to that important Service.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the hon. Member knows that in this matter I am trying to do what is most convenient to the House as a whole. The Vote cannot be taken to-morrow except by special Resolution, and the Resolution to do that is down in my name on the Paper to-day.
  Mr. DILLON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you whether a special Resolution can be passed if any single Member objects to it, in view of the
  266
  fact that it repeals a privilege secured by a Standing Order, on which we had many long Debates when the new arrangements for discussing Supply were under consideration? Can that privilege be withdrawn from us by a bare majority on a special Resolution?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is open to the House at any time to pass a Resolution which will suspend the Standing Order or alter it. We did that two or three times last week. Almost every day last week we suspended the Eleven o'Clock Rule.
  Mr. DILLON: I assume that the Motion is open to discussion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Oh, certainly.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, as respects this day's Sitting, paragraph 7 of the Standing Order No. 15 shall have effect as if Eleven of the clock were substituted therein for Ten of the clock; that, notwithstanding anything in that Standing Order, Supplementary Estimates for new Services may be considered in Committee of Supply; and that Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, to omit the words "that, notwithstanding anything in that Standing Order, Supplementary Estimates for new Services may be considered in Committee of Supply; and that Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."
  I wish to appeal to the Leader of the House to omit these words so that the effect of the Motion will be that we shall extend till eleven o'clock the falling of the guillotine on the last day for the Committee stage of Supply. By omitting the words which I propose to leave out it will mean that the Supplementary Estimates, and especially the Vote for the Ministry of Information will stand over till after the Recess, or possibly some day may be found next week. I think there will be one spare day next week, in any case. The case that I specially lay stress upon is that we have this new service, the Ministry of Information, in the Supplementary Estimates. It is specially provided in Standing Order 15, paragraph 3, that no new service shall be included in a guillotine Motion. It is perfectly obvious that if there is a case where a Vote might be fairly discussed before the Vote of the House is taken upon it, on the question

  267
  being put from the Chair, it is that of a new service. There is a special reason in this case why the Vote should be delayed. The Committee of National Expenditure have had an inquiry into the Ministry of Information. It has, I understand, only this week, probably to-day, sent in its Report upon this Ministry. In two or three days we shall be in possession of the published Report of the Committee of National Expenditure on this Vote, and surely if there is an absurd thing that we could do, it would be to pass the Vote under the guillotine, and then a few days afterwards have a full account of the operations of this Ministry and its expenditure delivered into our hands.
  The public service will in no way suffer by delaying this Vote. The Vote being taken is only a Token Vote; therefore there will be no restriction on the power of the Ministry in regard to the spending of money. It could very well continue for the next two or three months, which may be taken up by the Recess. I understand we are to have on our return after the Recess a few days only. I suppose we shall assemble for a short time before the General Election, but there will be time for this Vote to be taken. The Ministry of Information is evidently a Ministry of which the full extent of its operations is not yet known. Only to-day we were informed for the first time that large acquisitions of property are being made by this Ministry for the purpose of a national war museum. I am entirely in favour of a national war museum, but I am not at all convinced that the right people to buy objects and select exhibits for the national war museum are the people who have been set up for the purpose of disseminating pamphlets and leaflets and holding War Aims meetings, and doing other things. Therefore, this is not within their special province. A good deal more might be said on the point. The House wants to go into this matter fairly fully, and the general feeling is that the rights of Parliament over the expenditure of money should be retained even in war-time, and there can be no obvious interest in passing over this Vote without discussion. Under these circumstances I think I am entitled to make a strong representation to the Leader of the House that he should accede to my appeal.
  Sir F. BANBURY: As I understand the effect of this Motion, it is threefold. First of all, it allows three services to be taken
  268
  to-day, and it also allows ordinary business of the House to be taken before eleven o'clock. The effect of this Resolution is that the Committee stage on the new services might be taken under the guillotine. Then we might have a discussion on the new services on the Report stage to-morrow. I think the Committee stage of the new service should be fully discussed, and that it should not be under the guillotine. Last year a similar Motion to this was made, and a new service, which contained the salary of my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), was kept out. I would suggest that some such course ought to be taken to-day. I do not think that a new service should be guillotined, as this might be if this Resolution is passed.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for North Somerset and supported by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City should commend itself to the Government. The Ministry of Information is one of the new Departments which, I think, require very close attention from this House. It is not only a Department dealing with propaganda in enemy and neutral countries, but it has very important operations which it performs in this country, operations which are not only concerned with the dissemination of information, but which I have ground for believing are also concerned with spying upon our own fellow subjects. I think this variety of operations makes it absolutely essential for this House to insist upon a plain account of these operations being given before even a Token Vote is granted. This is not the only consideration which ought to influence the Government. We know that a Select Committee of this House on expenditure has made an exhaustive inquiry into this Department, that the Report on that Department is now ready, that it is on the eve of publication, and that if this Vote is taken under the guillotine tonight the House will be voting money for a Department, upon which one of its own Committees has reported, in total ignorance of the effect of that Report. Obviously I think it is unreasonable for the Government to ask for the Vote under these circumstances. I suggest that there can be no grounds of urgency which require the Vote to be taken now. My right hon. Friend has referred to the action taken by the Government last year

  269
  in relation to a similar Vote, when a postponement took place. I suggest that a similar course should be adopted now. It is true that, according to common rumour and common knowledge, we are to have a very brief sitting when we reassemble in October, prior to a useful operation for the purpose of this House, namely, an appeal to the constituencies. I suggest to the Government that the interval might be sufficiently prolonged in order to enable the House to examine this very important expenditure of public money, which I think might possibly turn out to be an object lesson very useful to the new electors. Upon all these grounds I appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Members who have addressed the House are pushing an open door so far as I am concerned. A number of points have been raised which have no bearing upon our discussion, and the only one to which I would refer is the statement made by the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) that he has reason to believe that there is to be an appeal to the electors in October.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Not so early as that. November.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: All I can say is that the hon. Member is better informed as to the future than I am. That is a subject in regard to which as a Government we have never had any discussion, and therefore we have not made up our minds.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Have you applied to the Ministry of Information?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware that they control the policy of the Government. If such a policy had been decided upon I do not think that I should be ignorant of such a policy. As regards the question raised by the Amendment those hon. Members who were present last Friday know that I made an offer to do it in the way which is down on the Paper or in the way suggested by the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Somerset. I am quite willing to take either way. We have no wish one way or the other. Since Friday we have tried to find out what really was the desire of the House in this matter, and I understood that the general feeling, in spite of what has been said, was that we ought to have some discussion on this Vote before the Adjournment. So far as the Government
  270
  is concerned we do not wish to shirk discussion on the assumption that this is a troublesome Vote; but we wish that the desire of the House should be carried out. I tried to find out what was the desire of the House, and my Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot) consulted the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Gulland). I know no better way of trying to find out what is the view of the House. Everyone who has been a Member of this House for any length of time knows that when the Government has made an arrangement of that kind with my right hon. Friend, the Government is hardly free to go back on their own arrangement. I do not wish in the least to influence opinion, but my view is that this Vote should be postponed, and if the right hon. Gentleman offers no objection I should be perfectly ready to take that course.
  Mr. GULLAND: The right hon. Gentleman has described quite correctly what took place on Friday. There was a number of Members in this House who wished the matters to come on before the Adjournment. I submitted it again to them and they agreed with me that it would be best to bring it on before the Adjournment. If it was brought on in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow, the first business discussed would be the question of the coal control. That is a very important subject, but still I do not imagine that it would take more than a few hours, and I think that there would still probably be considerable time left to-morrow for a discussion on the Vote for the Ministry of Information. That, of course, is included in the Consolidated Fund Bill, and there would also be an opportunity on the Second Reading and on the Third Reading of that Bill, and also on the Vote of Credit, because this is only a token Vote, and therefore if time were not found before that it could come up on the Vote of Credit. Therefore, I confess that I thought, in agreeing to this other plan, that I was doing the best I could for those who really wished a discussion on this Vote. If my right hon. Friend leaves it over until the autumn one does not know what would happen, or in what way an opportunity would arise. Personally I do not care, but I think that the course the Government have suggested would give the fullest opportunity for discussion.
  Mr. DILLON: The Leader of the House ought to consult also some representatives of independent opposition in this House. I would be very glad indeed if an opportunity could be afforded to discuss this all-important Vote before the Recess. Every man who has any prolonged experience of the operation of discussions under the closure motions, knows perfectly well that unless a subject is the first Order there is no security whatever that it will be discussed. Therefore I most earnestly press the Leader of the House to postpone the discussion on this important Vote until the sitting in October. This Vote is undoubtedly a new Service. I would go so far as to submit that it is not fair play, and it is hardly good faith that, when a concession is made under the Standing Orders after prolonged Debate to certain Members of the House with regard to these new services, at a moment's notice, by a Resolution passed by a bare majority, that right should be robbed from them. It is perfectly manifest that if that practice is taken as a precedent the Standing Orders are absolutely valueless. What, in the name of common sense or justice or fair play, is the use of having prolonged debate on Standing Orders which curtail the liberties of this House, and getting concessions, and then having the Government putting down a special Resolution withdrawing these concessions until the end of the Session? It is a perfect mockery and absurdity. Therefore I maintain that if any considerable body of Members—I mean even ten, or fifteen, or twenty—object to the passing of a special Resolution like this, curtailing the liberties of the House under Standing Orders regulating discussion in Supply, they are entitled to object, and it is not for the Leader of the House to use his majority, even with the assent of the Whip of the Opposition, to deprive those Members of their hard-won rights.
  I myself took a very leading part in winning that right. I remember well that it was largely owing to our action that we obtained this right when we were fighting against this Closure Resolution in Supply, a Resolution which, I may remark, has had the most disastrous results in destroying the control of the House over expenditure of public money, and has cost the country millions in waste. But the reason why I appeal strongly to the Leader of the House to give a full opportunity for discussing this question is that
  272
  it is a question which interests the public outside very much indeed. The general body of the public do not understand what are the scope and sphere and power of the new Department called the Ministry of Information. I do not pretend to understand it myself, and I do not believe that ten Members of the House understand it. We want to know what are its functions, what are the Departments which the Ministry of Information controls? We want to hear from the Government a full statement of the public grounds connected with the safety of the State which justify the institution of such a Department at all. A Ministry of Information is in itself a most invidious institution. It bears in the minds of some Members a likeness to, and it conveys a disagreeable reminiscence of, Bismarck's Reptile Press Fund. We want to know whether the Ministry of Information has anything to do with propaganda. What are the relations between the Ministry of Information and propaganda? We are the victims now of one of the most abominable pieces of propaganda that were ever instituted.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are not now discussing the Ministry of Information. We are only discussing the time when a debate on that subject should be taken.
  Mr. DILLON: I am only explaining why we are so anxious that the Leader of the House should not use his majority to curtail the rights of Members of the House, and I am speaking for at least sixty Members of the House when I ask him not to use his majorities to rob us of a right conferred upon us by Standing Orders of the House.
  Major E. WOOD: I think that there is a general desire in the House to have an opportunity of discussing this Vote. As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House hopes, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries anticipates, that under the existing arrangement this opportunity will occur to-morrow afternoon. If, however, it does not occur, then, as I understand, we shall not have a further opportunity of discussing it. That, I think, would be unfortunate. Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman could not act on the suggestion advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)—namely, to divide this Vote into two portions, so that if we

  273
  secure a debate on this subject to-morrow we shall not wish to exercise our right to debate the other portion of it in the autumn, while if we were not able to secure a debate on it to-morrow we should have a second chance of getting that debate in the autumn? It is not only hon. Members from Ireland or hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side who are anxious to have this matter debated. A great many people in the country are anxious to have the Ministry of Information discussed. I can imagine no one thing which aggravates the feelings of a great many people more than the idea that, whether by accident or by design, something is being smuggled through without discussion. Therefore I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will meet the general wish of the House, so that if we do not secure a debate tomorrow there shall be a guarantee that we shall be able to secure one in the autumn.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have made inquiry, and I believe that this goes into the Consolidated Fund Bill, and therefore it will not be possible to introduce a Supplementary Estimate in the autumn. With your permission, I should like to say a word on the subject again. I think that it is a perfectly open question, which is the better method from the point of view of those who desire discussion. It is obvious on the one hand that if the Amendment of the Member for North Somerset were adopted there is a possibility that the matter might be shut out in the autumn and never be properly discussed. On the other hand, it is possible that the discussion on the Coal Vote to-morrow might take so long and circumstances might be such that it would be impossible to justify us in taking steps to secure time, and that there might not be a discussion to-morrow. I do not feel myself that there is the smallest danger of that. And I would point out, as regards the general principles to which the hon. Member for Mayo has referred, that the object of that Standing Order was clearly to prevent a new Vote going through under the guillotine without a discussion.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I point out that the effect of abrogating Standing Orders in this case would be far greater than in an ordinary case. This Ministry, unlike every other Ministry, has been constituted without special legislation. We
  274
  have had no means whatever of discussing it. It has been constituted under a most objectionable system of legislation by reference. The Government have had power to create a new service, and I would ask them to consider that point.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That does not touch the question. What we are debating is the best method of securing a discussion. The object of the Standing Order was to prevent a new service going through by the guillotine without discussion. Therefore the whole question now is whether the method proposed by the hon. Member for Somerset or the other one is the better for securing a discussion on that point. So far as I am concerned, and so far as the Government is concerned, there is something to be said on both sides, and we are perfectly willing to adopt either course. But I may point out, as regards what was said by the hon. Member for Mayo, that, when this question was discussed by the few Members who were present at the time, I gathered—and I hope that the hon. Member will not think that I am misrepresenting him—that what he was chiefly interested in was the Secret Service, and that he did not attach importance to any other. In the circumstances I took the ordinary channel open to me to try to find out what was the desire of the House in this matter.
  Mr. PRINGLE: We are always here.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In that particular case the hon. Member was not here.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I was not, but the other Members in this part of the House were.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I did my best to try to find out what was the wish of the House, and nobody knows better than the hon. Member for Mayo that when a bargain is made it must be kept, and that equally applies to the Government as well as to others. I made a definite understanding with my right hon. Friend. I am not at all sure that he is not right, and that this is not the best method of getting a discussion, and nothing has happened to convince me that it is not in itself a wise course. I must press it to a Division unless my right hon. Friend himself, after this discussion, thinks that some other course would be better in the interests of a discussion.
  Mr. HOLT: I very much appreciate the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, but I would ask him whether there is not a

  275
  third alternative, and whether it would not be possible to take the Committee stage of the Vote for the Ministry of Information, not to-day, but between the Second and Third Beading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and then take the remaining stages in the autumn Session. That would give a discussion which I think very important and would be a most convenient time.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That really is impossible. It will be difficult enough to get through the business that is inevitably in front of us, and I am quite sure that that course is impossible.
  Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he appealed to the Front Bench opposite to find out what the Government should do. There is no use going to the Front Opposition Bench to get information as to what the House wants. May I suggest that we can raise this matter, if we like, either on the Vote of Credit or on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and we can retain the Vote in our hands by carrying it over to the autumn and resuming the discussion then if we choose. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will induce his recalcitrant supporter the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Gulland) to waive the suggestion that he has made across the Table on behalf of whatever opposition he represents officially in the House and to come into line with his Leader.
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: Might I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the great importance of this matter, no longer to bind the Leader of the House to the undertaking he has given. It is quite clear that many of us wish to have a considerable discussion on the point. This Ministry has never been discussed at all, not even upon the Statute by which it ought to have been created. Under these circumstances, I do say that the use of a special rule for the temporary suspension of the Standing Order is scarcely in accordance with the practice of this House. The Minister of Information is a great Minister with a great office established without one word of comment or explanation, whereas in ordinary times it would have taken an Act of Parliament, every letter and syllable of which would have been discussed. That is the way that the Government act under the present circumstances.
  276
  A Minister is created by prerogative through a wretched system of legislation by reference passed by Members without having the slightest idea what it involves.
  Mr. GULLAND: It is my earnest desire to have the fullest possible discussion regarding the Ministry of Information at the earliest possible moment, but I have no personal interest in the matter, and since the right hon. Gentleman puts it to me in that way I will certainly release him from his bargain and will be only too glad if he accepts the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King). I do hope, however, that before we adjourn there will be some discussion of this matter and that Members will be quite free to speak about it on the Vote of Credit or on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Leave that to us.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, "That, as respects this day's Sitting, paragraph? of Standing Order No. 15 shall have effect as if Eleven of the clock were substituted therein for Ten of the clock."

  IRISH MEMBERS:
    QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

      POLICE PERMITS.
      Mr. DILLON: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to raise a question of privilege. I do not know whether it has come to your knowledge that, since we were last in attendance on this House, a new Regulation has been made by which Irish Members of Parliament are no longer allowed to discharge their duties in the House except they go to a police officer and obtain a police permit. Before leaving Dublin I was obliged to go down to the police office and obtain a permit, which I have here in my pocket. The Chief Secretary raised rather a quibble last night when he said that these police permits were not necessary in order to attend. But they are really necessary to attend, because the information conveyed to us was that unless we obtained these permits, a copy of one of which I hold in my hand, we would not be allowed to return. Of course, no Irish Member of Parliament would come to attend to his duties

      277
      if he was to be interned in England for the rest of his natural life. I consider that to be a mere quibble and an evasion, and I am perfectly correct, therefore, in stating that it is impossible for us under the new Regulation to attend to our duties in this House except by the permission of the Dublin police officer. I have here two specimens of the permits issued to the Irish Members, of which there are sixty in possession of my hon. Friends around me. My hon. Friend the Member for Donegal was obliged to go and get his photograph taken. That was the Regulation when he applied for his permit. But when I applied for mine I was informed that the Government had changed the Regulation, and the new Regulation was that after the name of the Member should be inserted in red ink "Member of Parliament." That was the substitute for the photograph. The permit is signed by the Commissioner of Police for the City of Dublin. I submit that that is an outrageous and unparalleled interference with the liberty of Members of this House.
      It is perfectly competent for Mr. Johnson, the Dublin Commissioner of Police, to refuse a permit, and if it was thought a close Division was coming on, and it was not in the interests of the Government that the Irish Members should be in their places, it would be perfectly easy for the Police Commissioner in Dublin, under the direction of the Executive, to refuse the permits, and in that way it is one of the most astonishing invasions of the privileges of this House that I have ever known. Has it ever been on record that the Members of this House were not to be allowed to attend without the permission of police officers? I do not believe in the whole history of the House of Commons such a thing ha® been attempted. It is perfectly plain that this proceeding was of so shocking a nature that some person in a high position intervened. Some influence must have been brought to bear, because several of my colleagues, when they got their permits, were obliged to get their photographs in the ordinary way common with passports, and without which a passport is of no avail. If you do not have your photograph on a passport, of what use is the passport? But evidently some high official, I do not know who, intervened, shocked by this transaction, and we were informed that we did not need to have our photographs. Consequently we got our passports with
      278
      only the red ink statement that we were Members of Parliament. What use is that except as a mere insult and as a means of preventing us from attending the House of Commons? There is no other purpose in it. I might hand the permit to anyone else if I were so disposed, and anyone else might be described as a Member of Parliament, unless we were all known, as we are, to the officials on the boats and on the railway. Therefore, when the photograph is removed, it is a wanton, insulting provision, having no object in the world except to enable the Executive Government to prevent us coming to this House if they so desire. There is no pretence of necessity for the security of the State. Either it is a silly insult or it is an attempt on the part of the Executive to invest itself with the power of controlling Divisions in this House, and preventing Members of Parliament attending. That is the first point I wanted to raise.
      The second point is this: Under another Regulation we are prohibited from addressing our constituents in Ireland unless we go to a police officer and obtain a permit. That is an unparalleled thing even in the history of Ireland. In the course of all the wild agitation which prevailed in the 'eighties, when I was frequently in prison myself, when we had very lively times in Ireland, and when coercion was in full swing, nothing of the kind was ever attempted. Each meeting that took place was dealt with on the merits, and only when information was sworn by police or magistrates that the meeting was likely to be of a seditious or violent character was any attempt made to interfere with it. The new Regulation means that no Irish Member can now address his constituents unless he goes to a police office and obtains the permit of a policeman. That is an intolerable thing. It is an abrogation of all liberty. But it is also an invasion of the privileges of this House. I have not the slightest intention, nor have any of my colleagues, of asking the permission of a policeman to address our constituents, and I submit that I am entitled to move the following Resolutions. First,
      "That the denial of the right of Members of this House to attend to their duties in Parliament without the permission of a police officer constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House."
      And, second,
      "That the denial of the right of Member of this House in Ireland to address their constituents

      279
      without the permission of a police officer constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House."
      Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the Order of which the hon. Members complain is now some two months old. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think it was brought to my attention certainly six weeks ago, if not more. Therefore the hon. Member will be out of time, because it is only open to him to interrupt the ordinary business of the House upon some matter urgently arising; the matter should be brought before the House without delay. I am bound to rule that he is out of time. I do not say it cannot be raised, but it cannot be raised as a matter of privilege, so as to intervene before the ordinary business of the day.
      Mr. DILLON: Before you give a final decision I should like to submit that it has only recently been brought to our notice. It is not a rule which was publicly placarded in the newspapers or of which notice was given, and it came by surprise upon me when I proposed to attend to my ordinary duties in the House, and I was informed that I could not come without a permit. Therefore, in so far as it affects Irish Members it is quite a recent matter.
      Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Does not the matter of privilege arise the moment it is violated in the person of a Single Member? I only knew very slightly about this rule, and I determined that I would disobey it. I crossed over from Ireland without a passport. I said I would do it, and I did it, and if I had been refused I should have telegraphed to you, Sir, complaining of it as a breach of privilege. Now that I am here I understand—this only occurred the day before yesterday—that I could not return home without arming myself with this permit. I then went to a police-officer. I was unknown to the police. I was sent to Downing Street to get a permit. I think that constitutes a great breach of privilege. The essence of the privilege of Parliament is the privilege, unless one is arrested on a criminal charge, of going to and returning from this House. My home is the place I go to and the place from which I leave. Therefore, I should be obstructed, without getting this permit, from going to my home, and so the authorities told me at Holyhead. That constitutes a continuing breach of privilege, and I submit that it is a perfect infamy that I
      280
      should be, in my attendance and service in this House, at the behest of a policeman, or even the Chief Secretary.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I do not express any opinion with regard to what the hon. Member has said, but I remember perfectly well that one of the hon. Member's colleagues called my attention to the matter, and if my recollection be not at fault I think it was before Whitsuntide and, therefore, it was known to the hon. Member's colleagues. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, it may have been just after Whitsuntide—I am not quite sure—but it was several weeks ago.
      4.0 P.M.
      Mr. JOYCE: I wish to make a personal explanation. I was the Member of the House who came to you and made the complaint. On the 5th June I was here in London on business of national importance with the Ministry of Shipping, and the representative of the Ministry of Shipping will bear me out in that. I found that difficulties would arise when I was going back, and I thought that the proper person to come to in order to see that the privileges of Members of Parliament were preserved in my case was you. I did see you, and if you remember I explained the whole case to you. I went to the Foreign Office and demanded a passport and I forced the Foreign Office to give me one without a photo- graph. I made my complaint to you. You informed me you would see the Leader of the House on this matter, and you wrote me on the 7th June—I received the letter at home on the 8th—stating that the matter had been gone into and that photographs in the cases of Members of Parliament would not be required thereafter. Really I was the person who brought this to your notice early in June, and I claim that I had a perfect right to do so. I fought my corner and I won.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I am obliged to the hon. Member, but does that not confirm my recollection that it was nearly two months ago?
      Mr. DEVLIN: On the question of privilege which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) you have stated that this Order was issued by the Government and was in the knowledge of Members of this House for a considerable period, and that that,

      281
      therefore, justifies you in refusing to take any notice of it now. I am speaking here as a Member of this House irrespective of party considerations. I speak as a representative of an Irish constituency, and I Bay that I knew nothing whatever about this Order being issued until I was told three days before I was leaving to come to this House. I was then informed that it would be necessary for me to secure a passport in order to attend to my Parliamentary duties. Not only was I told that, but I was also informed that I would have to lodge my application as it would require three days or more for the police authorities to make up their minds as to whether or not they would grant the passport. With all respect to the Chair, I do not think that this is a small matter. It is a matter which vitally touches the very fundamental position of this House of Commons as the elected assembly of the nation. I want to say this: Suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) suddenly laid his plans to steal a march on the Government in order to put out the Coalition. I would not be able to come over here to save the Government because it would take three days for the police to make up their minds whether they would issue me a passport. This is not a matter for levity; it is a question which vitally touches the dignity, honour and representative character of every Member of the House of Commons. I may say I am very sorry now that I applied for the passport. If I have to go back I do not intend to apply for another. I will come here to the House of Commons and demand that I be allowed to go back to Ireland when and if I choose, and I shall thus be able to raise this great constitutional question whether, when a Member comes to Parliament, he is to be interned here in England and not to be allowed to go back to his home. I do not know what has got hold of Members of this House. They seem to be afraid of their own shadows. I notice that even at this minute they are disappearing from this Chamber one by one. My second point is this. I propose to address my Constituents very soon. I want to know whether I am to be compelled to go to the police and ask them for leave to do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary last night invited us to join with him in securing
      282
      recruits for the Army, yet at the same moment, before I can address potential recruits, I must go to the Irish police and ask leave to address my Constituents. The whole thing is an outrage upon the freedom not only of Ireland but of every Member of Parliament, and I appeal to the House of Commons not to tolerate this foul outrage inflicted by a callous party Government.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I think hon. Members are getting very far from the point. The only question for me to decide is whether there has been delay. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Members, it came to the notice of some of the hon. Member's colleagues almost two months ago, and I am bound under these circumstances to hold that there has been delay in bringing it forward.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Not by us.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The matter can be brought forward, but not at this time, so as to intervene between the House and the business set down for consideration.
      Mr. DILLON: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance—
      Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. I wish to address you on this point as to whether, when an alleged breach of privilege has taken place against the person of an individual Member of this House he is debarred raising the question by reason of the knowledge of another person. Is it not only the knowledge of the individual Member himself which determines whether or not there has been a breach of privilege?
      Mr. SPEAKER: But it was a matter of common knowledge. It wag brought to my attention, and it was brought to the attention of other Members of the House two months ago. I must, therefore, hold that there has been delay.
      Mr. BRADY: May I point out that I left one of my colleagues on the wharf when I was coming away on Sunday and he was not aware of this Order?
      Mr. SPEAKER: It does not follow that everybody knew it, but the matter was known, and it was brought to my notice. With regard to the Motion of the hon.

      283
      Member for East Mayo, I must remind him that he is precluded from bringing it forward, because to-day is the penultimate day of Supply.
      Mr. DILLON: I give notice I will take the earliest opportunity of raising the whole question.
      Sir R. COOPER: Is it the fact that Irish Members before they return home next Monday will have to get the permission of a police officer, and, if so, will not that constitute a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know anything about that.
      Mr. PRINGLE: It is a matter of common knowledge.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I do not pronounce upon that. It is no part of my duty to do so. I have already explained what is my opinion.
      Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: My hon. Friend raised a second point of privilege in reference to the right we claim to address our Constituents without police permission. We say that the Order in that respect constitutes a gross breach of privilege, and we ask to be allowed to move that it does so constitute a breach of privilege. Let me add that in the whole history of Ireland such an Order has never even been mooted from the time of Charles I. onward.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I do not protest against any statements the hon. Members have made. I only say they ought to have been brought forward at the earliest opportunity, and they were not so brought forward.
      Mr. DILLON: With regard to the second point raised by my hon. and learned Friend, may I suggest it has been brought forward at the earliest possible moment. The Proclamation was only issued a few days ago, and this is the earliest opportunity of bringing it up.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Members came to the House last week.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Some of us.
      Mr. SPEAKER: And they should have raised it on their return. That was the proper opportunity.

  SUPPLY.— [19TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    The CHAIRMAN: In view of the decision just taken by the House, I think the proper course for me will be to read the Vote for the Ministry of Information, which comes second, and for it then to be withdrawn. I understand the other Votes are to be taken formally, in order that they may come first on the list to-morrow, and that we shall proceed with the effective Vote, which is the Shipbuilding Vote.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.— [Progress.]
    BOARD OF TRADE.
    Resolved,
    8. "That a sum, not exceeding £180,253, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."—[NOTE.—£200,000 has been voted on account.]

    MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, 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, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Information."
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move "That the Motion be withdrawn."
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    FOREIGN OFFICE.
    Resolved,
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £35,547, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—[NOTE.—£30,000 has been voted on account.]

    COLONIAL OFFICE.
    Resolved,
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £31,626, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration."—[NOTE.—£27,000 has been voted on account.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES.

    SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC.—PERSONNEL.
    STATEMENT BY SIR E. GEDDES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, 8. Sec. 1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919."
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Eric Geddes): In asking the Committee to sanction the expenditure under the head of Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates, I would like, in the first place, to make a brief but general review of the War situation which preponderatingly affects our building programme. A year ago the ruthless and unrestricted submarine war upon which the enemy based such high hopes was at its height. A year ago the net loss of Allied and neutral tonnage which we were forced to contemplate was in the neighbourhood of 550,000 gross tons per month. We were not destroying then the submarine as fast as the enemy was building it, and our merchant shipyards were short of men and materials. Of this 550,000 tons net loss in merchant shipping per month, some 400,000 tons was the British deficit, and that was the situation which we had to face. Every yard that could take on naval work had by then been put on to naval shipbuilding. No one could say what the success of the measures, many of which were in an embryo state, would be in meeting the enemy's attack. Gradually during the past twelve months the position has changed in many directions. Instead of losing tonnage, the world's net result in the last quarter, namely, the quarter ending
    286
    30th June, has been a gain of roughly 100,000 tons per month on the average, and the Allied and neutral world was as well off on 30th June, 1918, as it was on the 1st January, 1918, so that for the first half of this year we and the Allies did not go gack at all on account of the enemy's depredations on mercantile shipping, and that includes ordinary marine risks. This result has, of course, been obtained in two ways—reduced sinkings and increased buildings—and the reduced sinkings have been arrived at by a greater productive effort devoted to warships and small craft of an anti-submarine character. In this result that I have given to the Committee there is nothing included for commandeered or acquired tonnage. It is a clean balance between the loss and the building.
    A year ago we were faced with a situation which up to that time was considered by many almost inconceivable and insoluble. Our available mercantile marine power was being sunk at a rate which would soon have brought us to the point of inability to continue the War, and we were without tried and recognised means of combating it. We had, therefore, to provide for a building programme of antisubmarine craft, mines, and other appliances, and of merchant ships on a very increased scale. The total net increase of labour in the last twelve months in firms engaged in the shipbuilding industries, shipyards, and marine engineering works is roughly 35,000. The original demand put forward a year ago was for an additional 80,000 men, part of whom were to be skilled, but, owing to events on the Western Front last autumn and in the early part of this year, and owing also to the great demands for technical staff for the Air Force and for the Army, it has been impossible—and the Committee, I think, will readily understand the point—to obtain the proper quota of skilled men by withdrawal from the Army. The number of additional men put into the shipyards has not so much been limited by the numbers of unskilled men available as by the lack of the skilled men necessary to make them useful; and it may be taken as a general state of affairs obtaining throughout the whole country in the shipbuilding industry that unskilled men have been freely offered to the shipyards which they have been unable to absorb because of the lack of skilled men. Extensive dilution has not been possible because of the conditions under which the work is carried out, the methods in force, the lay out of

    287
    the yards, the customs of the industry, and, generally speaking, the absence of pneumatic riveting for whole construction. The national shipyards and the fabricated ship employ methods adapted to give quick results with the minimum of skilled labour. The Committee, I am sure, does not need to be reminded that at the present time it is only possible to obtain additional men for any one class of work by taking them from some other work of national importance, and to-day, although shipbuilding stands first in order of priority for unskilled labour, it is the lack of skilled labour in the country, or of those who can be spared from the Army, which is the limiting factor in the number of men put into the shipyards.
    5.0 P.M.
    Last year, when we found that we were short of steel, steps were taken to provide it, but it was towards the end of the year before the yards had plenty of steel, and were really in a position to absorb men. Unskilled and semi-skilled men were put into the yards, and then we found that the skilled men could not be obtained in sufficient numbers to man the existing yards. Events have occurred in the War which have changed the whole basis of our plans for getting the skilled men back. Those events are well known, but the needs of our fighting forces on land were paramount. This situation of the shortage of skilled men had all along been feared by those entrusted with the building of merchant ships, and although the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee had just then adopted the standard ship, which is a ship built in the old way with the proportion of one skilled to four or six unskilled men in its construction, it was decided by the Government to go ahead at once—and I would remind the Committee that the world's tonnage was going down at the rate of 550,000 tons per month at that time—with a scheme for building a simple ship which could be erected with the minimum of skilled labour. That ship was designed and originated in the Admiralty, and it was only when the shipbuilders found that the materials which had been prepared at the Admiralty's order in the bridge yards for erection in the national shipyards was available that they decided, on account of the deficiency of skilled labour, to ask for the fabricated material which the Controller's Department had provided, in order to enable them to erect ships of this
    288
    new Admiralty type with the minimum of skilled labour. It is interesting that the very same problem confronted America, and they have met it in practically the same way—the same class of yard, the same type of construction, and with excellent results. I believe that they have now ninety slips for putting up ships in exactly the way we are adopting.
    It may be asked why the Admiralty did not get the shipbuilders of the country to take up that fabricated ship in the first place. The shipbuilders were against the standard ship. They wished to build their own type of ship, and they were against this type of ship. There had been a good deal of opposition to the adoption of the standard ship, and at that time we were in a position of great urgency, and we really had not time to enter into further discussions as to the type of ship to be adopted after the standard ship. The Government decided, on the advice of the then First Lord, and on the advice of myself as Controller—and I take full responsibility for the recommendation—to go ahead with the provision of national shipyards on the We and Severn. Even in the light of the past year's events, when we have passed from a net loss of 400,000 tons of British shipping per month and an increasing fleet of hostile submarines, to a loss to-day of 90,000 tons per month of British shipping, and for the present, at any rate, a decreasing enemy submarine fleet. I am still of the opinion that that decision was right.
    An HON. MEMBER: Is the net loss 90,000 tons?
    Sir E. GEDDES: Yes, the net loss.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain this point? He mentioned 100,000 tons a short time ago, and he now mentions 90,000 as being the net loss. Can he explain the difference?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The 100,000 tons was a net gain to the world—the average per month for the quarter ending 30th of June last. The loss of 90,000 tons is the British loss. At that time is was intended, in the circumstances which I have set out, to man the yards with enlisted labour or prisoner of war labour, and with a minimum of skilled labour only rendered possible by the type of construction adopted. Now let us see how that original plan has been modified, and why, apart from the labour

    289
    situation, with which I will deal fully in a moment. A year ago we believed that the shipbuilders of the country could, given the steel and the men, turn out tonnage to their full capacity. We gave them the steel, we gave all the men we could get, and I have given the figures; but another factor became more pressing even than new construction—namely, repairs. I have upon a previous occasion explained to the House how the driving of the submarine inshore and an improvement in our salvage arrangements has enabled us to salve and repair damaged ships to an enormously increased extent. Repairs alone are absorbing to-day a number of men equivalent to 60 per cent. of the total number engaged on new production of merchant ships, and for this work we must have a larger percentage of skilled men than in the case of new construction. That was an entirely unforeseen and very serious demand upon the skilled men who were available, and as an all-round figure it may be taken that it takes six skilled men for a, ton of steel put in for repair work as against one skilled man for a ton of steel for new construction; so that the Committee will see what a serious draft on the available skilled men this great increase in repairs was. No one could have foreseen this result, which was a change brought about by an alteration in the tactics of the enemy. Now the position is again changing, or is showing signs of it. The enemy came inshore, and the vast majority of his attacks were quite close in. Now he has found it too dangerous to work inshore. The increase of the anti-submarine craft and appliances has made it rather too hot for him there, and there is a clear indication that he is going out again. The sinkings are now creeping away outside the 50-mile line, and, although we are not getting so many ships to repair, the actual results are that the attacks are fewer, he is damaging fewer, and sinking fewer, but that is having the effect of reducing the amount of men we have got on repairs.
    The shipbuilders, commencing with the firm controlled by my Friend the Noble Lord who is now, but was not then, Controller-General of Merchant Shipbuilding, asked to be allowed to erect the material in their yards which the then Admiralty Controller had ordered and had had prepared in the bridgeyards for erection in the national shipyards. That material could to-day have been put into ships in the national shipyards, but in the circumstances,
    290
    and acting solely in the interests of the nation, this material which had been prepared for erection in the national shipyards was handed over to the private shipbuilders in order to enable them to continue and develop the output of their yards. Not only was the Admiralty design adopted by the most experienced men in the industry as something superior for the present purpose to anything that they were designing themselves, but they asked the Admiralty to adopt the self-denying ordinance of handing over to them their manufactured material. The policy of the national shipyards by that very act of self-denial—and it would have been easy to have laid down keels as early as April last, slips being ready—was changed, and we decided, as time then permitted of it—circumstances had changed as I have explained—to go further with the building of the yards before starting to erect ships in them, thus getting rid of the construction of the yards before we began production, since the circumstances existing permitted this more economical course to be adopted. At that time it was arranged with the men as part of the general scheme—and it is important for the Committee to see the reason for the alteration—that as the employers were prepared to erect these fabricated ships in their yards we would undertake that such shipbuilding throughout should be done by civilian workers and not by enlisted men.
    The question may be asked why that arrangement was not originally made with the trades unions concerned. I have in part given the answer. Time was of the first importance, and private shipbuilders were against the fabricated ship and did not propose to take it up. It was solely a national shipyard production. At that time also, if the Committee will cast its mind back, we were just about having the trouble of the 12½ per cent; increase, which was not a very favourable time to go to labour. We knew that a minimum of skilled labour was required for it, and barges built on the same principles had already been constructed in considerable and increasing numbers by military labour, but when it became a question of a ship which was to be built in the private yards at the request of their owners, the matter assumed for the trades unions an entirely different aspect. When it became a system of national production they claimed that the principles of their trades unions should be safeguarded, and that

    291
    has been done. That accounts for the second variation in the proposals for work in the national shipyards. These yards, when fully completed, will have thirty-four berths. I am told by the experienced shipbuilders entrusted with this work for the Controller-General that, roughly, 300 men per berth may be taken as the total establishment in these shipyards, making 10,000 men altogether. There are to-day 10,000 men working at the national shipyards, almost entirely unskilled except those who have been taught pneumatic riveting on the spot. Of these 10,000, 3,000 are prisoners of war and 7,000 are enlisted men. Under the agreement with the trades unions, enlisted men will not build these ships. It is therefore possible, subject always to the question of skilled men, which I will come to later, to staff the full number of berths proposed in the national shipyards with men already on the spot. The enlisted men who are there will be given the opportunity of transferring to Reserve W and of taking up work as civilians in the national yards at civilian rates of pay—this, again, with the complete accord of the trades unions. In conversation quite recently with Mr. Payne (Director of Shipbuilding at the National Shipyards), whose services have been lent by Messrs. Harland and Wolff, he tells me that he is to-day receiving large numbers of applications from civilians who are willing to come and serve in the national yards, and that he anticipates no difficulty whatsoever in getting the men without in any way touching the normal supply to the private yards. That is unskilled labour. Should the supply be short, the trades unions fully realise that the Government reserves the right of using prisoner labour, if they see fit, to construct the ships, and although that is not contemplated at the moment, it would be quite possible to man one of the three yards entirely with prisoner-of-war labour. It will therefore be clear to the Committee that the national yards can be manned without drawing labour from the private shipyards in any way. Therefore, notwithstanding the formal change in policy as regards labour—the change from enlisted labour to civilian labour—we shall in substance practically achieve our original purpose to work these yards with labour additional to that which can be used in the private yards.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Did the right hon. Gentlemen say that the trades unions have agreed for these prisoners to be used?
    Sir E. GEDDES: No; I did not say that the trades unions had agreed, but that they realise that the Government reserves the right to use prisoner labour. The question of the employment of prisoners was reserved.
    An HON. MEMBER: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to go to sea in a ship made by German prisoners of War?
    Sir J. WALTON: Are German prisoners of war not going back to Germany in exchange for our prisoners?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I now turn to skilled labour. In recent months, on the initiative of the Admiralty, steps have been taken, with the full accord of the trade unions, to encourage the training of men in pneumatic riveting, and it is by that means that the Controller-General assures me that he expects to overcome the difficulty as to the adequacy of skilled labour in the private yards as well as in the national yards. I would like the Committee clearly to understand that we are going on with that training all over the country. I may further add that these training arrangements are being conducted in private yards, mainly on Lord Pirrie's initiative, and largely with pneumatic plant which he has obtained for the yards, partly by surrendering plant built on our behalf for the national shipyards. Men are also being trained at the national yards, and enough for three berths are already completely trained and are being employed on the erection of the shipyard cranes, to the entire satisfaction of the director and the engineers in charge of the work. But there are two other sources from which I anticipate that we may obtain the skilled labour. The first is the probable reduction of repair work which the course of war is bringing about, as I have explained, and if we get, as we have to-day got, a reduction in the repair work, and if that continues, that will be the richest yield of skilled labour we can get. The second I will now deal with. I will ask the Committee to go back to the position as it existed twelve months ago. The number of men employed on new construction of war vessels and auxiliary vessels—that is to say, non-merchant ships used for anti-submarine or anti-mine purposes—is roughly 150,000, and on merchant

    293
    ship construction 120,000. We had to decide the proportionate effort to be devoted to merchant shipbuilding and war shipbuilding, and the figures I have given show the result of that decision. The success against the enemy submarine campaign shows the final result, but we have been building ships in order to create a large anti-submarine force, and it is not necessary for me to tell the Committee that those ships take a very much larger proportion of skilled men than any type of merchant ship which we were then constructing, and far more so than in the case of the fabricated ship.
    Up to now—and I am sure our Allies will not resent my saying this—this country has borne the burden, to a preponderating extent, of fighting the submarine; the new output of anti-submarine ships, mines, and appliances has been preponderating ours, and the responsibility of combating the menace has been ours-Even to-day the increased assistance brought about by new construction of our Allies is small indeed, but times are changing. The American programme, which they started when they came into the War, is now beginning to come along, and I have within the last few days had the privilege of considering it in detail with Mr. Roosevelt, the Assistant Secretary of the United States Navy Department. My conferences with him have confirmed what I have throughout relied upon, namely, that when once the flow of destroyers and anti-submarine craft fairly starts from the United States, it will become a formidable torrent. I look forward to the day when the Admiralty, in the no very distant future, will feel the relief of that torrent, and will be able to divert some portion of the country's resources from meeting the heavy demands for warships and auxiliary craft to the replacement of its mercantile marine losses. The effect upon labour for merchant tonnage new construction is obvious to the Committee. Warships take an enormous proportion as compared with merchant ships.
    No one who has not access to the detailed figures can perhaps fully appreciate the enormous handicap in merchant shipbuilding which has been imposed upon this country by its responsibility for building against the submarine menace in anti-submarine craft, for repairing Allied and neutral tonnage damaged in the danger zone round these Islands, and in
    294
    undertaking the increasing demands for refitting the American naval forces operating in these waters. No other country could have tackled it; they have not the facilities for doing it, and I know they will not resent my saying so. These Islands are the great danger zone, and we have also had added to us a burden in refitting the Allied and neutral tonnage which comes in here—a burden which no other country in the world has had to undertake, because the damage has always been caused round these coasts—and of course we have another burden which, in the interests of the Alliance, we must take upon ourselves, which is the repairing of the American naval craft as it comes in here. These have made serious demands upon the shipbuilding of the country—demands which I think have not been fully realised by the Committee.
    Our anti-submarine fleet has brought the menace down to its present less formidable dimensions, but we have still considerable additions to make before the margin of safety which we must have will have been attained. But our enormously increased anti-submarine fleet, plus the valuable contributions which the United States will make, ought to enable us, as I have said, in the no distant future, to divert certain of our resources to the building of merchant ships. The destroyer building yards are not, in very many cases, suitable to build merchant ships. There will have to be a diversion of skilled labour to the yards which are able to build the cheapest and most efficient type of freighter. The losses of our higher-class merchant ships has been great, and some of the private yards will, we hope, in the no very distant future, be able to turn their energies to rebuilding the more elaborate of our merchant fleet to be used during the War for troop and similar purposes, and the national shipyards will have to stand the burden of quick production of ships to replace the tonnage losses which are bound to occur. I shall read shortly a communication from Lord Pirrie which justifies the contention I am here advancing.
    Before leaving this point, I would like to read the figures, which are given to me on the best possible authority, as to the time and production of the fabricated ship as compared with the ordinary standard ship. The average time of production for a 7,500 dead-weight ton standard ship built on the plan adopted before the

    295
    fabricated ship was commenced is eight and a half months, and I am assured that once the work has got into swing, the national yards will be able to put a 10,000 dead-weight ton ship off the slip at the rate of one every five months, and even faster as the work develops, and that three weeks longer, at most, should see the ship in service. I am a little conservative in that figure.
    Mr. ALEXANDER RICHARDSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the time of building the fabricated ship includes the preparation and riveting of the material at the yard?
    Sir E. GEDDES: No; the time I am giving would be the time on the slip. I am advised by these experienced shipbuilders, who are concerned in the running of the national yards, that they look to the day when only four or five really skilled men will be necessary for the plating on each ship, and it is by the relief which will be afforded by these yards that the mercantile carrying capacity so vitally necessary to this country, if it is to continue to wage the war with its full vigour, will be supplied. Some questions have been raised in previous Debates on the question of housing for the national shipyards, as, if this problem only existed at the national yards, and as if houses were standing empty in the other shipbuilding areas in the country. Those Members who come from shipbuilding districts will fully appreciate the fallacy of this point. There is not a shipbuilding district in the country to-day that can accommodate more labour without more houses being built. Single men and men who are prepared to live in hostels can be provided for, and the Admiralty has done what is necessary to provide those men with that type of accommodation; but wherever you wish to increase shipyard labour to-day, broadly speaking, you have to build houses. You have to build under conditions which make it very expensive. You have to build in cramped areas, whereas on the Wye the houses can be laid down in situations of a most desirable kind. On the We we are building houses of an admirable but most economical type. I am assured by the engineer-in-charge that the system of concrete blocks employed is actually cheaper to-day than woodwork or corrugated iron huts.
    Mr. ROCH: Will the right hon. Gentle man say what is the cost per house of those on the Wye?
    Sir E. GEDDES: We will give an estimate later. These houses are built very largely now, and in a month or so's time will be built entirely by prisoner of war labour, which could not be employed satisfactorily in building houses in the congested areas of our shipbuilding centres, and therefore I claim that from every point of view it is more satisfactory to build houses on the We than in the congested areas where shipbuilding has flourished for generations.
    Sir F. LOWE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether houses are actually being built now? I was there the other day, and I did not see a single one.
    Sir E. GEDDES: What are being built are the hutments.
    Sir F. LOWE: Not the houses?
    Sir E. GEDDES: No, hutments. Another point which I should like to clear up is this: The national shipyards are, as the Committee knows, designed to put together the fabricated portions of the ships prepared in the bridge yards all over the country. The actual maximum capacity of the berths in the national shipyards are given to me as three ships per berth per annum, and when the whole thirty-four berths have been fully completed, fully manned, and are in full working order the maximum capacity of the yards might roughly be put at 100 ships per annum. That is ultimately when the yards have got into full swing. The Controller-General has already arranged to get the equivalent of one ship per week from the bridge yards, but, as the Committee knows, these are being applied for now by the private shipbuilders. The original design of the national yards has, therefore, included a manufacturing shop which, as at present designed, will be capable of producing when in full working order and fully manned, the equivalent of half the requirements of the national shipyards, and should the bridge yards be occupied fully with other work, and with the fabrication of ships for the private yards, this manufacturing shop at the national shipyards would have to be expanded. It is not intended, however, to do anything in that direction at the present time.
    Sir C. HENRY: Where will it be situated?
    Sir E. GEDDES: It is to-day situated at Beachley. As to the day when the national yards can begin construction, there is no difficulty about laying down keels upon a certain number of berths at the present time, but, as I have said, it was considered by the Controller-General, as the situation had developed, to be in the best national interests to give the fabricated portions of ships ordered for the national shipyards to the private yards, and to carry further the construction of the national shipyards before commencing to build ships. He tells me, however, that he intends, in about a month's time, to commence laying down the first keel, and that the other slipways will gradually come into production about one in every third week, as is considered desirable, the completion of the yards and building schemes eventually being left to the prisoner of war labour. The Sub-committee of the Select Committee on National Expenditure which investigated the Admiralty financial arrangements commented, and rightly commented, upon the fact that these yards were embarked upon without proper estimates. Enough has been said in previous Debates to explain why that course was adopted. The main delay in submitting an estimate was in the detailed surveying and calculations necessary to prepare the estimate, and I submit to the judgment of the Committee that in the conditions which existed at the time these yards were decided upon, and which I have tried to bring to the recollection of the Committee, any delay in starting the work would indeed have been unpardonable.
    The digging of trenches in France or the making of a strategic railway are regarded as war measures and not as commercial undertakings. Similarly, these yards were embarked upon as a war undertaking to meet the enemy's attack, which was at that time succeeding to an extent extremely dangerous to the country's continuance in the War, and it was in that spirit, and, in the circumstances which existed, it was the correct spirit, that this work was commenced. The conception of the national shipyards to build the fabricated ship and their integral parts was sound, far-seeing, and courageous, and the Cabinet approved it. It will be, so far as one can see, of the very greatest
    298
    possible war value. The type of ship is receiving daily the endorsement of leading men in the shipbuilding industry, and the national shipyards themselves as a workable proposition are endorsed by the leading and most successful shipbuilder in the world, my right hon. Friend (Lord Pirrie), and on his confirmation of the action taken I am perfectly content to rest the case, as also upon the American adoption of the same methods to meet to some extent the same difficulties. It has been remarked upon outside this House, and, I think, inside this Committee, that, from a commercial point of view, this was not a business undertaking. In order to arrive at whether the undertaking is a business one or not you have to decide what you want, namely, whether you want the article or whether you want profits.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: The article.
    Sir E. GEDDES: As to the requirement of the article in this case there can be no possible doubt. The need is, perhaps, as great to-day as it was when we decided to go on with the yards, although the danger is not so imminent.
    Sir F. HALL: We have not the article yet!
    Sir E. GEDDES: No; not yet. The first keel will be laid in a month, and then one every three weeks after that. Therefore, I think I have shown that we can get the labour and material, and if the Committee accepts the opinion of the shipbuilders that we will get the article, on one count the proposition is justified. From the financial point of view, I suppose the test we have to apply is whether they will pay as shipyards. In order to decide whether they will pay, you have to take the basis of costs as against the value of the article produced. It was practically impossible a year ago to say what the cost of building a yard of this kind would be, and it would be impossible to-day to say what it will be twelve months ahead. Similarly, it was impossible to say a year ago what the value of the ships was going to be to-day. In 1914, after the outbreak of war, these ships were sold at £8 per dead-weight ton; today the cost is from £23 to £25 per deadweight ton, and, taking the average all over the ships which this country has to buy abroad, we pay £38 a ton. I venture to think that at something very considerably

    299
    below the price we have had to pay these yards would be a very profitable undertaking.
    But obviously it is not on a basis of commercial profit that you have to look at a thing like this. We must have ships, and we must have them at whatever price is necessary, if we are to keep in the War. The test to apply, therefore, is whether, in the circumstances as they existed a year ago, we were justified in what we did, and, if so, whether that justification exists to-day. I am advised that it does. I am advised that it did a year ago. There was a doubt when this was last debated in this House, at the beginning of this month, as to Lord Pirrie's attitude on the scheme when it originated, owing to something that passed in giving his evidence to the Select Committee. So I put two questions to him, and this is his reply to me:
    "You put two questions to me, and I answer them with pleasure. The first is—Was the national shipyard scheme a wise and prudent undertaking a year ago? My reply is—that taking all the circumstances as they were, I am decidedly of the opinion, even in the light of all the helpful criticism which has been made and looking at the question in a more deliberate way than was then possible, the decision taken by the Cabinet was absolutely correct.
    The second question is: With the modification of circumstances since the undertaking was embarked upon, and with the modifications consequent or otherwise in the general scheme, is it a wise and prudent undertaking to-day? My reply is—The necessity for the national shipyards is even of more importance at the present day than in 1917, when it was felt something must be done with a view to furthering production. On account of the serious losses sustained, many berths in the private shipyards must be occupied for a considerable time to come by ships building for the important Transatlantic and other shipping companies, and while the existing shipyards can be utilised to a great extent for the building of such ships, the national shipyards will be able to produce purely cargo-fabricated boats, the material for which will have been largely prepared in the various bridge yards. In my opinion, the undertaking on its present basis is a wise and prudent undertaking which will be of immense benefit to the country in the continuance of the War."
    That is Lord Pirrie's opinion, and I m content to take it. I have endeavoured to give the Committee as full information as is possible on the subject of the national shipyards on this Vote. I have said very little on the naval side, and I am sure it will be readily understood that, for obvious reasons, I am precluded from doing so. But the merchant shipbuilding side is closely interlocked with the naval
    300
    side, and the whole Admiralty war-productive effort is closely interwoven with that of the War Office and Ministry of Munitions, and with other calls upon the man-power of the country. The situation is also an ever-changing one. I submit to the judgment of the Committee that, on the results which we have reached to-day in the submarine menace which appalled us a year ago, the net result of the Admiralty allocation of the available effort has been satisfactory, and, even in the light of events as they have developed—and who could foretell them—I submit that to-day it has proved itself to be the wisest possible allocation in the circumstances. The national shipyards have absorbed a considerable amount of attention, and, while it is right and proper that the Committee should closely scrutinise expenditure of this kind, I hope they will agree that the creation of the national shipyards was a wise one in the circumstances as they then existed; is a wise one to-day, and will be one of very great utility, indeed, in the immediate future, I am satisfied that the output from the yards will be very considerable; will form a welcome and necessary addition to the tonnage available for bringing supplies to this country and Allied countries, and for the continuation of the War; and that when the final judgment on the scheme comes to be passed, the action of the Government in 1917, which there is every intention to pursue, will be fully justified.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: From the British point of view the shipping situation can never be satisfactory until our building programme compensates, and far more than compensates, for our losses. Now, that is not the case to-day. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman did give sufficient emphasis to that point, but, during the first six months of this year, we have lost 1,300,000 tons of shipping, and we have built about 760,000 tons. There is a net deficit on the six months of 550,000 tons. After the submarine campaign had been said to be well in hand, it is a somewhat depressing situation, but I hope with the new measures which have been taken by the Admiralty under the presidency of the right hon. Gentleman, that this margin of loss will be very largely decreased, though, if we expect the national yards very largely to decrease that margin of loss, I think we shall be very greatly mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very

    301
    long explanation of his action with regard to the national yards. He has left me quite cold. I have no more faith in them now than I had before. Let me explain why I have no faith in these national yards. My right hon. Friend himself talked about the ships being built by German prisoner labour. Of course, if he is reduced to that, I am afraid that the national yards will be a very poor undertaking indeed.
    The national yards really provide one of the most amazing stories in our Parliamentary history. They could never have been undertaken in any time of peace. The Treasury and the Opposition of the day would have been on it like a knife, and to have had anything like these national yards, other than through the action of an arbitrary Department endowed with arbitrary powers, could never have happened. Let me give a little history of these national yards. At the end of 1915 a private company was formed of practical shipowners. They were spending their own money at Chepstow. In July, 1917, they invited a Government official from the Admiralty to come down to see how they were getting on. That Government official came, he saw, and he promptly commandeered. He scrapped this private company, and all the experience of practical shipowners, all their skilled knowledge, all the work they had put in for a year and a half was lost, and the First Lord himself announced here that on the 1st November four yards at least were to be established. He gave then as the analogy the fact that there had been established in this country in the early part of the War national shell factories. The analogy does not hold good. So far as national shell factories were concerned, we had none, or very few of them, at the beginning of the War. But, so far as shipbuilding facilities and capacity was concerned, British shipbuilding was the pride of the world, and it turned out something like 2,000,000 tons of merchant shipping in 1913.
    I maintain that the true policy of the Government would have been to have strongly supported and supplemented private enterprise. That private enterprise was flouted, and the most curious history about these yards was that the decision to found them was taken, not upon the advice of practical shipbuilders who were at the disposal of the Admiralty, but it was taken by I do not know whom. If it were the War Cabinet, then who recommended
    302
    it to the War Cabinet? The First Lord has just accepted responsibility, but I think he was fortified by another general, who was a very eminent engineer in Nigeria. I cannot help thinking that it would have been far better had the general, who was Controller of merchant shipping, and my right hon. Friend, who was, I believe, also once a general—I do not know whether he is to-day—accepted the advice of those private shipbuilders who were at the disposal of the Admiralty. What is the good of having an advisory committee of practical shipbuilders at the Admiralty if you do not consult them? To my mind it is perfectly ridiculous, and it is unthinkable that any scheme should have been presented to the War Cabinet without the advice of those practical shipbuilders being taken. My right hon. Friend talks about the results that are going to be achieved. It is always "are going to be achieved." He made a statement here, I think, last year that keels were going to be laid then. On the 13th December he said:
    "These yards are well under way, and it is anticipated that the first keel of the first vessel in the national yards will be laid in the early part of next year."
    That is the early part of this year. Well, no keel has yet been laid. I think we ought to have rather a "beano" when it is laid. I suggest that he takes down Members of Parliament to see his first keel laid, which was due some six months ago. But that is not all. Lord Inchcape, who was the chairman of the Standard Shipbuilding Company, which the Government took over, told us in a letter in the public Press on 25th March that his company would have had two slips ready by October, 1917, and by that date—25th March last—it would have had two ships of 10,000 tons well on the way to the water. You have not got a single keel laid down yet. Therefore I say you have absolutely crippled private enterprise in providing the necessary ships, and there is no doubt about it that Lord Inchcape would have had these ships well on the way to the water on 25th March. You have not one keel laid to-day. What was the reason for not supporting Lord Inchcape with his Standard Shipbuilding Company? It was given by the Financial Secretary. The principal reason, he said, was that the contractors could not get sufficient men for the work.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): What was the date?
    Mr. LAMBERT: 17th April, 1918. These are his actual words:
    "The principal reason that influenced the Government in taking over the yard was that the contractors could not get sufficient men on the work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1918, col. 378, Vol. 105.]
    Then the number of men the contractors wanted was about 200. Would it not have been far better for the Admiralty to have given every facility to the present private contractors to have got these men to proceed with their ships instead of taking over yards of their own? That is my case against these national yards. I say that the authorities have destroyed, that they have not created! In the early part of this year the Admiralty had the whole shipbuilding world thoroughly disgruntled, thoroughly by the ears. Shipbuilding had decreased. Then the Prime Minister, with a flight of genius, bethought himself of Lord Pirrie. Never was appointment more welcomed at the Admiralty than that of Lord Pirrie, for it got the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord out of a great hole. These hon. Gentlemen were like two men in a boat, with a hole in the bottom of the boat, and when they were rapidly sinking along came Lord Pirrie and they grasped him with a convulsive grip. Of course, Lord Pirrie is loyal. He has brought his own manager to look after these yards. But I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can really claim Lord Pirrie as being the true father of these sprawling futilities—the national yards. If Lord Pirrie had laid out his own yard in the manner in which the Admiralty have laid out these national yards he would not have been the great captain of industry he is to-day. My right hon. Friend stated on 10th July that these yards were decided upon for the purpose of building fabricated ships. I did not understand that statement just then. But I was down there the other day. I must admit that my hon. Friend behind me (Sir F. Lowe) and myself were taken down in a most admirable manner. We were treated quite courteously by everybody. We saw everything that we were intended to see.
    Colonel W. THORNE: Was there anything kept back?
    Mr. LAMBERT: We will talk about that in a moment.
    Sir E. CARSON: Did you see anything?
    Mr. LAMBERT: We could not help seeing. After all, there were 10,000 men
    304
    there at work, and we must have been rather blind not to have seen men. That is the position about the fabricated ships. What does it mean? There was a great building-shed, to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, fixed on the top of a hill. I believe some one has called it "The Folly." That shed is for planing the material and getting plates ready for the ships. That building-shed was intended to do the ordinary work of the ship-building yards. The whole basis of these yards has, I understand, been changed. We are to have civilian labour employed while military labour is to be abolished. The Admiralty twelve months ago were warned by the practical shipbuilders, who were their Advisory Committee, that military labour plus the prisoner-of-war labour would not do. Events have proved the truth of that warning.
    I rather expected this afternoon that we should have had some estimate of the housing. We have not had that. If you are going to employ anything like 10,000 you must have a very large scheme of housing. There was one Admiralty experiment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham did not see the Admiralty buildings. I got wind of them. They have put up a couple of blocks of houses down there. They comprise, as I am told, solid 9-in. walls on the outside. That is not very sanitary. There is a third bedroom in these cottages, and that third bedroom is 6 ft. 7½ by 6 ft. 1½—not very large. Such a room would not, I think, satisfy my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Colonel W. Thorne). I do not think he would have very much room in which to stretch himself. There is something more than that. The Admiralty have provided a larder which, even in these days of food control is necessary. A local gentleman writing to me says
    "The only window in the small larder opens into a passage 3 ft. wide, exactly opposite the earth closet."
    Have the Government no Health Department at the Admiralty? These yards when in full working, will, as I have stated, employ 10,000 men. In the North of England it has been shown that it takes about fifty houses to accommodate 100 men who are working; that means that you will have to build something like 5,000 houses to accommodate these 10,000 men. Put it at £400 per house; that gives a total of £2,000,000. That is a moderate estimate. You have got to add that

    305
    £2,000,000 to the original estimate of £3,887,000. This will mean a township of 30,000 or 40,000 people. You really do not mean to tell me that you are going to get all these houses put up with the necessary shops, etc., for 30,000 people within any reasonable distance of time. Where are you going to get your material? Where are you going to get your timber, slates, and the hundred and one things required for building houses? You cannot expect the men who are to be engaged in these shipbuilding yards to continue to live in huts as they are doing to-day. That is quite obvious. I maintain that the proper course for the Admiralty would have been to have strengthened the private yards. These latter are being blamed. But these private yards have had their energies diverted to the building of warships and all sorts of apparatus to destroy the submarine; all sorts of anti-submarine apparatus. On 17th April of last year the private yards put a proposal to the Government, and showed the Government how they could approach a 3,000,000-ton building programme in one year. To do that they would require a large amount of material and 100,000 men. So far as my information goes, the private yards have since only been supplied with 20,000 men. Therefore, for the building of a 3,000,000-ton programme there is something like 80,000 men short. I say, therefore, that you ought to have given the private yards all the labour possible before you ventured on crippling Lord Inchcape in his enterprise. At the present time, according to the First Lord's statement on 10th July, eighty-seven new slips have been sanctioned for private yards. Of these, fourteen have been completed, while the other seventy-three, as I understand it, and as I am informed, will be completed this year. This will just bring the number of slips up to the production of 3,000,000 tons per annum.
    These, however, require labour. Where are these private yards to get the labour to build the ships upon the slips which will be completed by the end of this year? Labour is the crux of the whole business. Some time ago the Government promised to release 20,000 men. Owing to the exigencies at the front they have not done so. Still, the demand for the labour is there, actually to man the yards in which all this large number of slips have been sanctioned. It must be remembered that you
    306
    must have fit men for the shipyards. You cannot have all sorts of people there, because the men have to go up high scaffolding to do some of their work; therefore if a man is not in a fit state of health he cannot do this work. That, I think, will answer my hon. Friend below the Gangway. You cannot have increased labour in the national yards without increasing the personnel of the managers. In the new national yards you will have to have yard managers, foremen, checkers, piece-work accountants, timekeepers, wages clerks, and so on. All these are in the private yards to-day. You need not increase them, although the main body of labour is increased. One thing more. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that the ratio of the skilled men in the national yards need only be one to forty of unskilled men. Is that really true? I do not understand that statement. I think my right hon. Friend attributed it to Lord Pirrie. Do we really understand that you propose, or that you can, put together these fabricated ships in these national yards with skilled labour in the proportion of one skilled man to forty others? I cannot believe that for a moment. In the first place, if you go into the yard that is putting together the fabricated ship, you will find that it requires the labour of riveters, plumbers, carpenters, joiners, engine-fitters. Are not these skilled workers? Of course they belong to the skilled trades. The idea of your going either to build or to assemble ships, as you call it, in these national yards with unskilled labour is a dream. If we have to wait for the ships that are so built to bring food to this country, we shall have to wait a very long time. There is something more. We talk of these fabricated ships as if they mean an enor-more saving of labour in the shipyards. As a matter of fact they do not. All you save in the national shipyards, as I am very credibly informed, is about 15 per cent. of labour. Supposing the shipyard does build a ship or does assemble a fabricated ship, it would simply mean a saving of that 15 per cent.
    I am going to close by asking the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. There were no estimates presented, because the Admiralty, at the time I earlier referred to, had not made up their mind. When you have to present an estimate to the Treasury you have to clarify your mind, and the minds of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were not clarified in

    307
    July. In September, 1917, I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would be good enough to tell us—and he did not tell us in his speech—what tonnage—as he intends to pursue this policy, though, for my part, if the House will go to a Division I shall certainly vote against it—what tonnage he proposes and what tonnage he expects to turn out in these national yards within the next two years, which are vital years? There is something more I desire to know. What is to happen to these yards after the War? Are they to be carried on as national enterprises or are they to be turned over to the private shipbuilders? I should like to know, because I say—and here I differ from my hon. Friend below the Gangway—I do not want to see any extension of national yard enterprise. Such enterprise has been disastrous.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Nonsense!
    Sir W. RUNCIMAN: A great disaster!
    Mr. LAMBERT: A great disaster; that is my opinion. I want the Government to make up their minds what they are going to do with these national yards. In conclusion, I wish to put three questions to the Financial Secretary: (1) What is the estimate for housing; (2) what is the tonnage which it is proposed to turn out in the next two years; and (3) what are you going to do with the national yards after the war?
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. A. RICHARDSON: I congratulate the First Lord of the Admiralty on the under-current which ran through his address, and which must have impressed everybody with the enormous amount of work which is being done, not only for the British Navy, but for the Allies. At the same time there was a main current running through that address, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that that main current was exceedingly disappointing; is is running in the wrong direction. The whole policy of the national yards must be completely reversed. They have now at their head a shipbuilder of great experience, and these yards are not now the yards that were intended. In the first place, it was intended to use prisoners of war. Can you conceive of any honest trade unionist who would be willing to work alongside of those men who have done the deeds that
    308
    they have done? Can you conceive it right that these men should be asked to educate these Germans in a trade which will be of vital importance to Germany after the War? Common sense ought to have told the promoters of those yards that that was an impossible proposition. The shipbuilders of the country and the trade unionists told them that a fortnight before the announcement was made in this House that these yards were being commenced; that advice was unheeded. Following upon that we were told that those yards were to be utilised for fabricated ships, and that the material for them was to come mostly from the rolling mills of South Wales. What has happened? We are not to have prisoners of war in those yards, or if we have, trade unionists and skilled men will not work with them. We are not to have military labour there; the military men are to be turned into civilians. They have had much fabricated material from Wales, but material has been brought as far away as Scotland and the North-East Coast on our congested railways, and, when it was decided that the ships were not to be commenced, the material had all to go back on those congested railways to the great shipbuilding districts of the country. Now we are told—and this is the finishing touch—that shops are being built so that the material that comes there need not be fabricated. Therefore, these yards to-day are in the exact comparison with every other shipbuilding yard in the country.
    What is a fabricated ship? Why did America support the idea of the fabricated ship? America had no shipbuilding yards, no machine tools for preparing the material for building ships, but she had immense bridge-building yards. There is no difference in the constituent parts for building a ship of steel or a bridge of steel. The material comes from the rolling mill in the form in which it is to be put together. It requires holes to be punched or drilled, plates to be put on and joined together by rivets. That is the same for the building of a ship as for a bridge. Therefore, America said, "We will use those punching machines and those drilling and riveting machines, and we will put together in the bridge building works as large a part of the ship as it is possible to convey and place them down in a blank space of ground, where we will have a few riveters to put the parts together." That was a good policy, but to talk about the Admiralty

    309
    design for a fabricated ship is, with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, a misnomer. Certain details in design had to be made to make a fabricated ship into an ordinary ship; but this any experienced draughtsman could have done.
    Then, again, we have heard to-night a great compliment paid by the First Lord of the Admiralty to the shipbuilding industry of this country. I would like to know why the right hon. Gentleman did not go in the first place to these shipbuilders and say, "Will you build these fabricated ships?" The whole question of the national shipyards resolves itself into the efficient utilisation of our manpower. That is the crucial point we have to address ourselves to—that is the standpoint, and that alone. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down pointed out that the extension of a berth in shipbuilding yards did not necessarily involve any increase in the staff, in the number of foremen, or in the ordinary machinery for utilising unskilled labour. If, therefore, you add one berth to every shipbuilding yard in the country you are able to utilise that unskilled labour at a much less expenditure of skilled man-power than if you create a new yard. But there is a graver question. We have had it stated that the cost of a berth in those yards is £120,000. It is difficult, I admit, to get an estimate of what an ordinary berth would cost in a private yard at the present time, but I should be very much surprised if such a berth could not be put down for less than £30,000. Consequently you are expending four times the money.
    I am not putting it on the point of expenditure at all, but say that you are spending four times the money for ship berths, and the whole of it goes to the payment of man-power. It is not the direct employment of man-power, but it is the indirect employment. You have your material to pay for, and that has got to be produced. Consequently you are spending four times the man-power necessary to create each berth for the production of ships. It is ships we want. It does not matter where they are built or how, but you have got to utilise your man-power to the fullest conceivable advantage in order to get the maximum number of ships. I, therefore, say that it was the duty of the Admiralty first of all to consult their advisers. They had their Advisory Committee and they did consult them and they got advice that they did not like. They
    310
    got advice contrary to their preconceived determination. They refused the advice they got and they went on, and, now that they have got good technical advisers, what happens? An entirely different state of thing is created, but still we are not going to get the ships out of those yards that we ought to get. You cannot get men to go there to work even if they have to live in barracks unless you have the barracks. Therefore, until you have the accommodation for the men, you cannot get them for shipbuilding work.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty looked forward with great pride to the fact that these yards would after the War be turned on immediately to building tramp steamers. If they are only confined to fabricated ships, where are you going to get the fabricated material, because your bridge builders and the builders of your great factories will be as busy building bridges and factories as the shipbuilder will be building ships I Consequently you have to look forward, as Lord Pirrie has wisely done, to the equipping of those yards in exact comparison with existing yards. These yards are not war emergency yards; they are intended to be national yards for all time. That is a fact we have to remember. I agree with what was said by the right hon. Member opposite, that we do not want nationalisation, and this is the thin end of the wedge. I think we ought to ask, if you are going to build ships, who are we going to build them for? Are we going to enter into competition with foreign nations for the building of British ships These are questions which we must decide. We are paying excessively for these yards and they will never pay for themselves. They may be a success from a technical point of view, but they will not be a financial success. A prudent business man, when he finds he has gone into a bad speculation, or, shall I say, a risky investment, carefully considers whether and when he should balance his account, and whether he should cut his loss, and I do say, in view of the enormous advance in shipbuilding in America and the enormous demand of our private shipbuilders for men as well as material at the present time, the Admiralty should seriously consider the situation, and consider whether it would not be better for them to adopt the prudent commercial man's method.
    Commander NORMAN CRAIG: In listening to the observations which have just been made by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Richardson) one could not fail to be struck with his obvious sincerity, and his criticisms will constitute a valuable contribution to this Debate. I feel, however, that he has rather prejudiced this question by proceeding upon the two assumptions which he has very much taken to heart, but which, if they turn out to be ill-founded, will destroy his argument. A much more potent argument than the question of price which the hon. Member has put forward is the fact that we want ships, whatever the price. The second assumption which the hon. Member made was that these are not emergency yards, and he said that this is a sinister and insidious attempt to introduce the system of the nationalisation of property, which he resents. I share his opinion with regard to the nationalisation of property, but I do not share his apprehensions as regards the purpose of those yards. He feels very strongly that nationalisation has been destructive of shipping enterprise, and that it has been costly in operation, but in spite of that I should still, at this crisis, be ready to sink my personal feelings if I thought one more ship could be got to sea by taking these measures. I do not know upon what basis the hon. Member founds his argument that this is not an emergency measure, for in that contention he is completely and absolutely denying the conclusion of the Select Committee on the subject, because they found that it was a war measure—
    Mr. RICHARDSON: The difference between the Select Committee's Report and my contention that it is not an emergency measure is the fact which is first announced to-night that larger sheds are being put down to make them independent.
    Commander CRAIG: That does not appear to me to affect the vital question of the application of particular means to particular needs at a particular moment. I do not think it goes to the real point at issue. While differing from the hon. Member on the two questions, and thinking he assumed too much, yet I welcome the sincerity of his arguments. In listening to the observations of the right hon. Member for South Molton, I could not help wondering whether his criticism was really meant to be helpful. He began by
    312
    emphasising the imperative need of tonnage, even under the better conditions to-day, and he pointed out the shortage which had gone on increasing during the past six months. If that is so, and if that is pressing him, why should he discourage to-day the well-meant effort initiated a year ago, and which holds out the promise, within a month, of seeing ships laid down? I do not understand the attitude of mind which talks of the continuing loss of shipping and in the same breath complains of honest and well-meant effort. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out in one sentence that it would take years to complete the houses for 30,000 people, but he complained in the next sentence that in the middle of the War the men had been housed in huts. How can such criticism be helpful? During war-time you have to live under conditions which do not commend themselves to anybody, but the War has to be gone on with, and the conditions accepted. The right hon. Gentleman complained in one breath that private shipbuilders were not allowed to undertake this work, and in the next breath he complained that the first keel is not yet laid down, though it had been hoped that it would have been laid months ago. He does not, however, contradict the First Lord, who stated that the reason that the first keel has not been laid yet is that the material destined for the national yards has been diverted to private yards.
    Mr. LAMBERT: The hon. and gallant Member will excuse my interrupting to point out that Lord Inchcape clearly and distinctly stated, on the 25th March, that two ships of 10,000 tons were well on their way to the water.
    Commander CRAIG: That does not appear to me to affect the argument. I submit with all sincerity that if this Committee is going to be fair in regard to this matter it must throw back its memory to June, 1917. That is not indulging any ex post facto a meticulous spirit. Remember how we stood in June, 1917, and, thank God, that some action was taken. You have only to compare the curve of construction and the curve of destruction in 1917 to know, if you know anything about maritime matters, what the position was. The position then was as grave as grave could be. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord talks about it as if it was a question whether we could continue in the War. That is right. It is true that the question had come to be whether

    313
    we could continue. Unless we got one curve to go up and the other curve to go down we could not continue in the War. That is why you must go Lack to June, 1917, if you want to consider this question fairly. The right hon. Member for South Molton would appear to speak as if this proposal in June, 1917, was in some sort of way accidental. I can hardly believe it is true, but he professed to be so ill equipped to criticise it that he said it was propounded by "I don't know who." Reference, at any rate, to the Report of the Select Committeee shows, it is fair to say, that a comprehensive survey of the position, so far as the mercantile marine was concerned, was placed before the War Cabinet. That was prepared by the First Lord, who was at that time Controller, and was presented by the then First Lord of the Admiralty. It was considered not merely by the War Cabinet, but as the Report states, also by the Controller of Shipping, and the War Cabinet appointed a Sub-committee to deal with the subject. To listen to the right hon. Member for South Molton one would think that this was a competitive plan put up against the plan to keep fully occupied the private yards. The Report of the Select Committee states that three plans were urged by the Admiralty, after this comprehensive survey had been considered. The first was to make full use of the existing resources of private shipbuilding yards. That was according to the finding of the Committee. The second plan was to extend the private shipbuilding yards as far as possible. The third was to obtain tonnage from other countries.
    It was only because it was found that these three measures would be insufficient to meet the menace, as it then presented itself, that this question of national shipbuilding yards was taken up, and it is due to the action then taken that we have the results we see to-day. These are the facts as the Select Committee found them. It was not a question of placing national shipyards in competition with private shipyards. The Admiralty itself exploited to the full all private means, and extended those private means by borrowing from neutrals and others. Then, and only then, because those measures were not sufficient, they undertook the making of these national shipyards as a supplemental measure of safety. I would ask the Committee to remember, in looking at the whole question involved in these proposals, that the
    314
    sum which they involve is only one day's cost of the War. I think the Committee should bear that in mind. Is it fair to consider this question merely as a question of cost, whether it is extravagant, or whether it is commercial, seeing that the whole sum involved is only that which is spent on one day of the War? What was at stake in 1914? It was our national security which was at stake. What would have been the position of the Admiralty and the Government if it had been possible for the right hon. Member for South Molton to charge them with not having taken any action in June, 1917? That would have been a serious charge—a charge of criminal neglect of the interests of the State. To look at it as to whether it was the best plan or not seems to me as rather trivial and small, compared with the question of taking action or not taking action. There has been too much drift in this War already. There was plenty of inaction when the Government of this country was in other hands. I would rather have a bad decision than no decision at all; I would rather have action that was not the best than inaction. At all events, those who were consulted, and they were the right people to consult, supported the line of action which was taken, and the alternative of inaction would have been very terrible. The submarine menace was launched to produce victory, "swift victory" for our enemy. The words "swift victory" were used by Bethmann Hollweg when the submarine campaign was launched. In regard to the labour question with this subject it has only relatively altered and the changes made in regard to labour will enable the matter to be solved practically to the whole extent. If prison labour, engineering labour, and military labour had been possible, a labour difficulty would not have arisen. To a large extent it will not now arise owing to the modifications which have been effected. Difficulties which have arisen since will, I hope, be largely met by the manner in which trade unions have co-operated with the Government in endeavouring to find a solution which, while it protects their own view of the position of organised labour, will not throw into inaction those yards which are in course of preparation. In approaching this question it is above all necessary that the Committee should remember the conditions as they existed in 1917, and think, if there had been no action, what would

    315
    have been the consequences. We should be thankful that action was taken—action which, in the opinion of those best able to judge, has resulted in a very-helpful contribution towards tonnage being, within a relatively short time, made available for the needs of the country.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I trust the House will give a very hearty welcome to the admirable acquisition which has been made in the hon. Member for Gravesend, with his engineering knowledge and his powers of debate. I desire to say, however, as regards one of his statements, that it surprised me that he, with his engineering knowledge, should have fallen into the mistake of suggesting that the 3,000 German prisoners who were ultimately set to work in Chepstow yard should be acquiring knowledge of shipbuilding to carry over to the Germans. Surely my hon. Friend is aware that some of the very finest ships that are now engaged in carrying American troops across the Atlantic are ships that were built in Germany, which have been captured in New York and other ports, and which are doing their work in the very best possible manner. The prisoners selected for the purpose, provisionally, of doing shipbuilding work are men who in their own country have been shipbuilders before they were drafted into their own army, and I, for one, see no reason why the German peasant should be sent to work on British farms and the German shipbuilder should not be utilised, so long as he is in this country, in the particular trade to which he belongs, always provided that the honourable bargain made between the Government and the trade societies shall be fulfilled, and that nothing against that bargain should be incurred in the employment of these men.
    I turn to the speech of the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert), whom I am sorry to say is not in the House at the moment. He appears to have consorted with private shipbuilders to such an extent, and those Gentleman, believing as they naturally do, that ships can only be built in the very best way by private shipbuilders, that he has come to agree with their opinions, and has, in some degree, lost the customary logical and even balance of his own method of thought. There are some private shipbuilders who do not take that
    316
    view. Sir George Hunter is the chairman of one of the largest shipbuilding concerns in the country, and, addressing his shareholders in general meeting the other day, he stated:
    "Our shipbuilding output was below the necessities, below our losses, and, indeed, it was barely half enough to make good the losses in British ships alone."
    That is true. The figures which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton quoted show that during the first six months of this year of grace 1918 we lost nearly twice as much tonnage as we built and produced. In these circumstances, what would the critics, both inside and outside this House, say if the Admiralty, upon whom the responsibility rests, did not take every step, probable and improbable, to make good the deficiency in tonnage which was at one time the most dangerous threat—certainly as the Germans regarded it the submarine was a threat—to our very existence and continuation of the War! The United States have set a magnificent example. Within the fifteen months in which they have been in this War they have multiplied their power of ship construction by eight times, not only in the number of slips but in the number of men occupied in shipbuilding. They are completing ships in weeks, whereas they used to complete them in months. It shall never be said, I hope, as long as we have a British Admiralty that the British Admiralty, with an example of that kind and with a friendly competition of that kind in front of them, will cease to lead the way. The Admiralty have added eighty-seven berths, or are in process of adding eighty-seven berths to our private yards, and they have filled those private yards more or less with standardised ships. I am not here to say that the Admiralty have acted with perfect good judgment throughout. They have not. One of the faults they made was referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir H. Greenwood) in a former speech, namely, putting four and even five different classes of standardised ships to be built in one yard, a mistake which I know is now rectified, so that as far as possible only one type of standardised ship is allocated to each yard, so that the work may go on by repetition, and so go on to the very best possible advantage.
    The First Lord has referred to repairs. I happen to have had a good deal of

    317
    experience in that matter since the War broke out, and I recognise the magnificent services that Lord Pirrie, Mr. Grayson, and Mr. Edwardes, the Directors of Ship Repairing, have done to the country. They have standardised the use of dry docks and the use of ship-repairing labour in every port of the country. Formerly, on the authority of Lord Pirrie, there used to be an average of thirty-five ships each day idly losing their time in waiting their turn to get into dry dock. But under this system, by which every dry dock, its occupation, its powers and its facilities are tabulated in Great George Street, no ship is sent to any port until it is considered when her turn would arise for entering dry dock. So, from an average of thirty-five ships a day waiting idle, the number has been reduced to about five ships per day who lose their time waiting for their opportunity to get into dry dock. That is a magnificent result. Day by day it has splendid and far-reaching effects upon the movements of our tonnage and upon the services which the ships render. We are glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that there is now no shortage of steel. The shortage, as we all know, is one of labour. Twelve thousand men from the Army have been returned to the shipbuilding yards, and I understand they are all skilled men, and as such the number of 12,000 means many more thousands of unskilled labour diluted by them and turning upon them as pivot men. As the facilities for getting men from the Army returned to shipyards are increased by the advent of our Allies from the States, I hope that my right hon. Friend will use his utmost influence to obtain from the War Office such further releases as may be possible having regard to the military necessities, because it is only by having a proper proportion of skilled men that we can hope to overtake the terrible arrears which have accumulated, and which are still going on accumulating. One good point in the administration that was initiated when Lord Pirrie took office was the separation of work into yards for fighting ships and yards for mercantile ships. I am sorry to say that, although the intention is good, the realisation of it is not complete. I can point at this moment to quite a number of yards and a number of repairing docks in which fighting shipwork and mercantile shipwork are going on concurrently. The sooner that change is made complete the better it will be for the
    318
    currency of labour, the more repetition of ships there will be secured, and the greater output from all the yards arising from these improvements. Lord Jellicoe said, in a public speech not very long ago, that the submarine menace would disappear in August. Well, we are on August, and there is no sign of it disappearing. It seems to me to have been a foolish and, as the result has proved, an entirely unjustified prophecy. The necessity for the continued activities of the Admiralty in ship construction remains as great as ever, perhaps greater than ever, having regard to our arrears of tonnage and to the large submarines which it is understood the Germans are building in very considerable numbers.
    The gravamen of the charge against the Admiralty in the Press recently, and partly in the speeches made to-day, has been the use and the initiation of the Chepstow yard. For myself, I cannot see what else the Admiralty could have done than to have made preparations for utilising the bridge building works, which were lying comparatively idle because there is no bridge building possible in the present circumstances—and which are inland, and, by making fabricated parts of ships there, providing the means of putting them together and launching them as finished ships into the sea. My hon. Friend the Member for the Edgbaston Division (Sir F. Lowe) has been to Chepstow and some others of us have been too. I myself have known Chepstow for perhaps thirty years. A firm of the name of Finch have been for that length of time building ships at Chepstow—small ships, it is true, but successfully building ships there. Lord Inchcape, whose name has been referred to, enlarged the ideas of the yard and began to lay out a very much increased establishment as compared with what Messrs. Finch had been using for so long. The statement of Lord Inchcape that he expected to have keels laid down in March, is no doubt correct, but the explanation of my right hon. Friend has convinced me, at all events, that the change in policy has been a perfectly wise one, because it is upon the basis of finishing the establishment first and getting it completely ready, by the labour which is available, for the work to be done, and then, when it is ready, starting the work of building ships and getting on with it as fast as possible. Chepstow is an excellent position for a national shipyard. It is quite close to the

    319
    coal mines of Wales. It is close to the Ebbw Vale Steel Works, to Dowlais, and to Landore, while there is a considerable amount of labour available both in the Bristol Channel ports and from the country close round about. The attack on Chepstow yard by my right hon. Friend seemed to be based upon the idea that, for the first time in history, there would be a national shipyard. No one has referred in the Debate to the fact that His Majesty's dockyards are national shipyards which have been in existence for many generations, and the finest standard of workmanship has been reached in the dockyards at Pembroke, Chatham, Devon-port, Portsmouth, and elsewhere.
    Sir E. CARSON: Have merchant ships ever been built there?
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Merchant ships have never been produced in the dockyards, but what has that to do with the policy of having national shipyards? You have national shipyards, the money voted by this House, and the men in Government employment, and you build ships which are of the highest standard. Why, therefore, do you not build ships of the mercantile standard also? The agitation against these yards is, in my judgment, a very shallow agitation, and one which I do not think can continue, and I hope the Committee will not be put to the trouble of a Division. Certainly, the provision of tonnage rests upon the responsibility of the Admiralty, and the duty of this Committee, as it seems to me, is to support the Executive in its responsibility, and to give it helpful and not destructive criticism, and when it assumes the responsibility and takes a course of decisive action, which did not exist very much in the Government of which he was a member, let the House support it, and leave the responsibility to it, with full confidence in a successful result.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The discussion to-day has of necessity covered some ground with which the House is already familiar, but it has been remarkable not only for the statement of the First Lord, but for the well-instructed speech of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Richardson), whom I warmly congratulate. When I was a younger man I attempted to woo the constituency which he got not even for the asking. I believe it was offered to him. I congratulate him on his constituency,
    320
    and I am sure the whole Committee hopes that from our technical discussions he will not be absent in the future. The question of importance before the Committee this afternoon is not as to whether private enterprise or national enterprise is the better. It is not whether the First Lord of the Admiralty was well advised in taking these steps on his own initiative, or whether Lord Pirrie has now come to his rescue. The only matter of importance with which the Committee has to deal is by which method the largest number of ships have been and can be put into the water in order to relieve the situation, both now and in future. My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieutenant-Commander Craig) made a good many references to the alteration in the curve of losses and the curve of construction, which have not yet crossed in this country but which we hope will soon meet. He pointed out the great improvement which has taken place in the last twelve months, but he overlooked the fact that that improvement is entirely due to the enterprise and the energy of the private yards, and that not one single speck of assistance has been given by the national yards so far to that great improvement in the curves. That is the record up to the present. Is it likely to improve in the future? The Committee must judge from the discussion which is now taking place. But in reviewing the statement of the First Lord I think he was a little unjust to private shipbuilders who were members of his Advisory Committee and with whom he had every opportunity of being in constant consultation. In the first place I know, for it is common talk in the industry, that the Advisory Committee never advised against the standard ships. They offered criticism of the standard ships, as of course all technical men would offer criticism. The hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Flannery), I have no doubt, is quite capable of criticising the standard ships. They did no more than he would do. They criticised in a helpful spirit.
    I think he also gave the Committee the impression that the private shipbuilders were known to be against the fabricated ship. It all depends what sort of question you put to the private shipbuilder or the naval architect. If it is on grounds of beauty I am sure no one will commend the fabricated ship. If it is on grounds of commercial use no one would commend it. If it is on the ground of rapidity of construction there is no doubt a great deal

    321
    to be said for it, as has been discovered in America. But it is quite unfair to the private shipbuilders to say they were so opposed to fabricated ships that they would not have co-operated in their construction. If that was the impression the First Lord intended to give to the Committee it was an unfair impression. The truth is that the only fabricated ships which have been constructed so far have actually come from the private shipyards. The question of whether the private shipyards or the national shipyards can produce the larger number of vessels turns on a complete survey of our shipbuilding capacity. At the very time when the First Lord embarked on the policy of national shipyards the possibility of expansion in the private yards had not been fully tested. At present there are over seventy berths which have not yet been fully completed in the private yards. They are short of contract labour. If they were short of contract labour they could have been supplied with Royal Engineer labour, which has been used at Chepstow and Beachley and, to a smaller extent, Porthness, and they could have done a great deal towards the completion of those seventy berths, and I believe, if we may judge from the experience of the Tees, many of those private berths would already be yielding tonnage, so that the very object which the Committee has in view of increasing the number of available vessels could have been better gained in the private yards than in the national yards. The number of men who are employed now in the Chepstow area, I believe, is something like 6,000 Royal Engineers and 3,000 prisoners. The prisoners, I understand, are not engaged on shipyard work. They are making, mainly, concrete blocks for houses and other buildings. If there was any attempt to use those prisoners in the shipyards the First Lord knows it would be doomed to failure. I notice that he did not answer a somewhat pertinent question, put to him in the course of his speech, whether he would be prepared to go to sea in a vessel constructed by prisoner labour. We have all had enough experience of German methods not even to trust a German when he is a prisoner, and it is quite possible that German prisoner labour, so far from proving effective, would have been to a large extent, although well drilled, nothing like as productive as British labour. It would have given rise to labour troubles, and it is perfectly
    322
    obvious, from what the First Lord now knows, that not a single one of the unions would have been prepared to work alongside of them.
    Then the idea of using men in uniform in the shipyards has also been abandoned, and indeed it need never have been embarked on. If the right hon. Gentleman had consulted the unions, if he had consulted the Shipbuilders' Advisory Committee, they would both have told him he was heading straight for labour trouble if he attempted to use one or the other. It is the absence of that consultation which the Committee is entitled to criticise. I do it not with the object of showing that the First Lord cannot conduct national shipyards on a competent basis. I hope if they are going on with them he can. But we are entitled to point out the mistake which has been made in the past, with the object of impressing upon him the necessity of getting into close touch with the unions and the shipbuilders in the future. The whole of his labour schemes appear to be worked out on the calculation that in the yards where fabricated vessels are to be constructed there will be a very small number of skilled men necessary. We were told by the First Lord that about five or six men per berth would be all the skilled labour required in the construction of fabricated ships—that is, five to six men out of some 300. What does he mean by skilled men? We have heard a great deal about skilled and unskilled men, but I doubt whether ten members in the Committee know the distinction between them in the shipyards, as it was used by the First Lord. Are caulkers and riveters to be counted as skilled men? With fabricated ships he will save platers and drillers to a large extent. It is possible he will save them altogether. But does he imagine that he is going to build any of his vessels with only five to six caulkers and riveters engaged upon them? The thing is preposterous, and practical men know it.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Whereupon, the YEOMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD having come with a Message for the House to attend the Lords Commissioners, the Chairman left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

  323
  The House went; and, having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Finance Act, 1918.

  2. War Loan Act, 1918.

  3. Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Act, 1918.

  4. Solicitors (Articled Clerks) Act, 1918.

  5. Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1918.

  6. Deputy-Lieutenants Act, 1918.

  7. Land Drainage Act, 1918.

  8. Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1918.

  9. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1918.

  10. Flax Companies (Financial Assistance) Act, 1918.

  11. Juries Act, 1918.

  12. Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1918.

  13. Small Holding Colonies (Amendment) Act, 1918.

  14. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1918.

  15. Land Drainage (Pinchbeck) Provisional Orders Confirmation Act, 1918.

  16. Land Drainage (Woodwalton) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1918.

  17. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1918.

  18. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1918.

  19. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation Act, 1918.

  20. Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation Act, 1918.

  21. Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1918.

  22. Aldershot Gas, Water, and District Lighting Act, 1918.

  23. Railway Passengers Assurance Consolidation Act, 1918.

  24. Pontypridd and Rhondda Water Act, 1918.

  25. West Bromwich Corporation Act, 1918.

  26. London County Council (Money) Act, 1918.

  27. Belfast Harbour Act, 1918.

  28. British Gas Light Company, Limited (Norwich), Act, 1918.

  29. Morecambe Corporation Act, 1918.

  30. Londonderry Corporation Act, 1918.

  324

  31. County of London Electric Supply Company Act, 1918.

  32. Sligo Corporation Act, 1918.

  33. Nelson Corporation Water Act, 1918.

  34. Calthorpe Estate Act, 1918.

  35. Hamilton Estates Act, 1918.

  36. Scarisbrick Settlement Act, 1918.

  37. Miles Divorce Act, 1918.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repair, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919."
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN (resuming): When the Committee was interrupted I was discussing the proportion of skilled to unskilled men that would be employed in the national shipyards, and I was throwing the recollection of the House back to the numbers given by the First Lord. I think I said that the First Lord stated that there would be from five to six skilled men employed on each berth. It would perhaps have been more correct to say that there would be five to six skilled men employed on plating in each berth. That does not mean that five or six is the total number of skilled men who will be employed. It leaves out of account plumbers, joiners, carpenters, and, to some extent, I understand, it leaves out shipwrights. It means that five or six is strictly limited to the category of plating. I do not think we shall be far wrong if we say that the total number of skilled men who will be employed on each berth, instead of being from five to six on plating, will be on all the services which are necessary for the completion of the ship something much nearer a proportion of thirty to forty. It may be even higher in the finishing stages of the construction of the vessels. My right hon. Friend made a comparison of the skilled men in the national yards—whether on this occasion or on a former occasion I cannot recollect—with the number of skilled men employed in the private yards. There he was comparing the number of skilled men on all services in the

  325
  private yards. It is quite clear that the number of skilled men will have to be enormously increased if there is to be provision for the proper manning of the national yards. Let the Committee not forget that not only have Skilled men to be provided for the national yards, but skilled men have to be provided for every one of the other seventy-three berths which are now being extended in the private yards.
  Some criticism has been made during the discussion of the distribution of labour, and the point of it was that there is not now a sufficient amount of skilled labour to secure the manning of even the yards which are now turning out vessels. There will be much less skilled labour available when the extra seventy-three berths are added, and if any portion of the skilled labour is absorbed in the national yards it is obvious that the private yards will go short. Let us apply this test to the position—will it tend to the production of more or less vessels? It is perfectly obvious that concentration of labour and energy is the only way in which you can get a maximum output from the country as a whole, and I would commend to the First Lord the wisdom of concentrating his skilled labour rather than dissipating it. The advantage of using it in the private yards is not only that you already have equipment there and that they know their business well, but that you have a great deal of the upper organisation there. You have not to extemporise it. There is no question of borrowing men from other yards to fill up. The main organisation in the yards remains, and the extensions can go on without any dislocation in the other categories. The First Lord anticipates that owing to the alteration of submarine strategy, there will be set free from repairing docks and yards a certain number of skilled men. He said the number of the heavy repairs had been unforeseen. It was not unforeseen by many shipbuilders and shipowners. They have been painfully conscious since the War began that the repairs of their vessels were being effected on far too small a scale, and that this position was gradually getting worse. It has been obvious for a very long time that the number of vessels which were not repaired, and many of them will not be repaired until the War is over, is so great as to effectively reduce our tonnage to a far greater extent than appeared in
  326
  the return of submarine losses which appeared from week to week or month to month.
  The release of skilled men from the repairing yards or dry docks depends to a considerable extent upon whether the vessels which are being put into the water will require to be repaired to a greater extent and more frequently than the ordinary type of merchant vessel upon which we have depended up to the present. We do not know. We have had no experience of the fabricated ship. We do not know how they will stand the constant knocking about in the Atlantic. We do know whether the sharp angles, of the fabricated ship will tend to that vessel lasting as long as the vessel with finer curves. They are being put together with great rapidity. I do not think even Lord Pirrie will be prepared to prophesy that the repairs of fabricated ships will be no greater than the repairs of the ordinary merchant vessel of the type we have known in the past. Some people hold the view that the repairs will be more heavy. If that be the case there will be no skilled men set free from the dry docks, and the repairing yards, and I say emphatically that the Admiralty and the Shipping Controller are not justified in counting on any skilled men being set free from the dry docks and the repairing yards for the purpose of giving assistance in the shipbuilding yards. They will have to keep the repairing yards going with even greater capacity for output than they have shown up to the present if they are to keep themselves within present requirements.
  The more one discusses this subject the more one realises that it all turns on the subject of labour. I observe that my right hon. Friend dismissed somewhat summarily the criticism which has been offered by the Select Committee of Members of this House on the expenditure of the national shipyards. If it were a question of saving the country for the sake of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, there is not a man anywhere who would hesitate about spending a hundred times that for the purpose. But where my right hon. Friend misses the point is this, that you cannot have an expenditure of £2,000,000 more than is necessary without to that extent actually reducing the total labour supply of the United Kingdom. The point was put with some force by the hon. Member for Gravesend. It is not merely a question of money. It is not the simple

  327
  question of saying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "You must not put any obstacles in my way." You cannot get out of the difficulty by a spurt in the flotation of War Bonds Every £1,000,000 which is dissipated represents so much labour. It is difficult to estimate what labour is actually worth at the present time; but I am not far wrong in saying that an extra £2,000,000 spent on these yards which could have been saved means a waste of the labour of 7,000 men for twelve months. Therefore, wasteful expenditure is not a negligible point. It is not a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It becomes primarily a matter for the Minister of National Service, because we are deleting the supply of labour if we allow any unnecessary expenditure to go on in national shipyards or in anything else. When you translate it into terms of labour it becomes quite obvious that the heavy expenditure on these yards has done a good deal to handicap us in other unseen directions, and, so far from imagining that the outburst of energy which brought them forth was all to the national good, I say it has to some extent interfered with our activity in other directions.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that when these national yards were completed it was hoped that some of the private yards would be set free for the construction of vessels for the lines and shipping companies whose total tonnage has been so sorely depleted during the War. That is the announcement of a new policy, and I welcome the announcement. It is a matter of the greatest importance. It is a departure from the policy of the Government for the past two years, and a very sharp departure. Let the Committee remember that up to the present time it has been the policy of the Government that no vessel shall be constructed for private account. They have to be constructed for national account. The heads of the great shipping lines over a year ago put themselves into communication with the War Cabinet and urged strongly that if they were to be enabled to hold their own when the War is over, if they were to be able to keep in touch with the outposts of the Empire, and prevent the Japanese and the Americans from taking from us vital services across the ocean on which our trade as well as our Imperial connections depend, that these great lines and companies must be
  328
  allowed to fill up their gaps during the War, or at all events must be allowed to make arrangements which would enable them to fill up their gaps immediately the War is over. The answer they got to that request was that no such permission could be given. All the vessels to be constructed must be of standard types. None of them could be built for private account, and although the yards were to be free to make contingent contracts when the War was over, it was impossible for any of the companies to make proper provision for the replenishing of their fleets and filling up the gaps created by submarine losses. That has been the policy up to to-day. Now we have a complete change, and I welcome it. I think the Government has adopted the right line. They have adopted the position indicated by the statement of the First Lord. I hope I have not misunderstood it. What I want to make quite clear is this: Am I to understand from the statement he made to-day that he definitely commits the Government to the policy of allowing private shipping companies and lines to fill up the gaps in their fleets as soon as the national yards are in full bearing and that private yards can be set free for the construction of ordinary merchant vessels? I do not think that is an unfair paraphrase of his statement.
  Sir E. GEDDES: I had no intention of committing the Government to that policy. I think my right hon. Friend is carrying his mind to the wording of Lord Pirrie's letter to me and not to what I said. I have looked up the point, and what I said was, "The losses of our higher classes of merchant ships has been great, and some of the private yards will, we hope, in the not very distant future, be able to turn their energies to the rebuilding of the more elaborate of our merchant fleet to be used during the War for troops and similar purposes." That was what I said. I did not intend to announce that as any change in policy, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, would be a matter for the Shipping Controller and not a matter for the Admiralty.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that he did not regard it himself as a change in policy, but it is, in fact, a change in policy. It is a most important departure from the policy which has been in force up to the

  329
  present. I welcome the change, and I do not think that I misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman's statement when I said that it will give these companies and lines some chance of holding their own when the War is over, by making up some of the losses to which they have been subjected. The point of the criticism this afternoon really amounts to this, that up to the present the national yards have proved disappointing, that the time in preparing them has been excessive, that the labour available for them is small, and that, so far as we can see, private enterprise has excelled the Government in the production of tonnage. I mentioned the last time this matter was under discussion in the House what had happened on the Tees. There, under the energetic guidance of one of the most enterprising of our young shipbuilders, a yard was started in the month of March this year. By the month of July of this year that yard was actually at work, and before a week or two is over they will be turning out the very fabricated ships which were originally intended for the national yards. Compare that with what has happened in the national yards. Twice, almost three times, the amount of time has been spent on the national yards than has been spent over this magnificent yard on the Tees. The energy which has been put into that private yard is an example for the Government which they might well follow. When I say "energy" I hope the Government will not imagine that they can get out of all their troubles by a mere display of energy. My hon. Friend below the Gangway is a little inclined to think that a display of energy towards one of the essentials, though not the only essential, is good administration.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: Well directed energy.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I agree with my hon. Friend, and if he can only have his candid opinion expressed in regard to the action about these national yards I think he would say that better directed energy could have produced better results elsewhere. But the hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I am glad to see back from naval service (Commander Craig), appealed to us to give credit to the Government for having shown an amount of go and energy which he regarded as absolutely new in his public life. What does that amount to? No one has ever accused the First Lord of being lacking in energy. Those of us who know him and
  330
  who have seen him know that he has not a streak of laziness in his composition. There is no criticism as to lack of energy. It is as to misdirected energy. There is a general feeling that there ought to be, combined with energy, knowledge, and wisdom. If knowledge and wisdom were put into shipbuilding the output in this country could be increased enormously.
  I am sick and tired of hearing the example of America held up. They have done wonderful things. They have started on virgin soil. It remains to be seen whether their vessels are any better than ours. Our own energy and enter prise are just as great. They have an almost unlimited labour supply in the States which up to the present has not been greatly reduced for Army or other purposes, though I welcome every 100,000 men who come across the Atlantic. There they have succeeded in diverting a great deal of their land service into sea service. Here we have already our shipyards engaged in a vast output of naval tonnage. I notice that somebody sneered at the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) on the around that when he was a member of the Government the output from the yards was small. Everybody who knows what was done in the first year of the War, largely owing to the skill of Lord Fisher, knows that our output of tonnage at that time has never been equalled. Of course there has been a great drop in the amount of naval work of the heavier kind, and it is diverted now to smaller construction. What America is now doing for smaller vessels we have done in our yards for every type of vessel. All we ask is that when you concentrate on naval service, when taking a complete survey of the needs of all our forces, you should regard our service afloat as being of the first importance to the Empire. Any man who realises the full nature of the War in which we are now engaged knows that it must be either won or lost afloat.
  Colonel Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: I cannot help being impressed with the general tone that has run not only through this Debate, but through the previous Debate, which we had at the time the Adjournment was moved. There seems to be an idea on the part of every speaker that the submarine danger is past, but I might ask what would be the position if, as is possible, the coming winter brought us back again to a time when the chart

  331
  of sinkings went up instead of down, and if we all got as scared as we were last June, when we were appealing to the Government to realise the gravity of the position? It is an optimistic thing to say definitely that those times may never come again. Suppose that we came up against this bad time again, and suppose that instead of a lot of coastal submarines we had far sea-going submarines, which are most difficult to get at and deal with, you would have every Member now sitting in this House begging the Government to go ahead and build ships at Chepstow and elsewhere; and if we were short of labour we would have other industries drawn on to get the labour to man the new yards. With regard to labour, I submit that it has been greatly overdone. For instance, in bridge building in the ordinary course of events we have bridges fabricated, just as you are fabricating the ships. They are all put together and tested here, and they are sent off to South America and other places, and, under the guidance of one ganger, sometimes these bridges are put together and riveted with nothing else but raw native labour. You have certain rules and regulations which govern our movements in regard to labour here, but I am perfectly sure, knowing what is being done to-day and realising that a figure of somewhere about 350 men per berth would be an over-estimate of the amount of labour which you have in shipyards where from 30 to 40 per cent. of the labour is employed in the shops fabricating on the site, that if you allow for 200 men per berth for fabricating ships it would give you all the labour you require, and you would be able to get when your berth is tuned up an output of three ships per berth.
  The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Commander Craig) pointed out the importance of trying to benefit by the past and not being caught out, as we nearly were caught out the last time. I believe in a helpful criticism, but some of the criticism which we have heard is criticism by those on whom mainly rests the fault of not having seen our requirements in the early days. They were foreseen by some. I remember when I was trying to do my little job in France, not in the water or in the air, but somewhere else below the surface, I got possessed with the idea that the submarine was going to beat us. I got leave of absence
  332
  and came over here and saw the powers that be in the Government, and I pointed out the necessity for the standardisation of shipbuilding, and the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex (Sir Fortescue Flannery), I think, in March, 1916, drew the attention of the House to the wisdom of standardising shipbuilding. I think that it was a month or two before that, when I was so nervous as to the possibilities of danger from the submarine, that I wrote a letter to the "Times" drawing attention to the advisability of the standarisdation of shipbuilding with a view to impressing on the Government the urgency of the matter. Looking at it from a sound practical point of view, I think that the national yards at Chepstow were an undertaking that no Government could have avoided considering. It was absolutely essential at the moment, and when we are criticising now it is well that we should realise this, and that we should make all our criticism helpful so as to aid the Government to pursue a wise course.
  The Government took a very wise step in putting at the head of the Shipbuilding Department one of the greatest leaders in shipbuilding, not only in this country, but in the world—Lord Pirrie. I know that the Committee will not think that we can teach him his business, but that we should give him all the assistance which we can give by helpful criticism and by supporting him in every decision which he may take in regard to those yards. On the last occasion on which I intervened, I listened to the speaker who followed me. Then I had to go out to help to entertain some Australian officers and I did not hear the two speeches which followed, but both of them, I understand, rather pulled to pieces my reference to what the First Lord had said with regard to the housing problem. I may have been under a misapprehension as to the Government's ideas, but I got the idea, rightly or wrongly, that the Government intended for the moment to concentrate on ten berths at Chepstow only—leaving Portishead out for the moment. I have gone all over the buildings and hutments to see whether at a pinch there were enough buildings there for that programme, and I came to the conclusion that, judging from what had been done up in the north in other yards, that if we were to put up hostels, which could be converted afterwards into cottages for from 500 to 700 men, with 100 cottages for married men, with the buildings that you have now, you

  333
  could, at Chepstow, as a war measure, find all the housing accommodation you want and keep ten berths or even twelve going full speed on the fabricating idea. If you are going to develop into fabricating your own material on the site then we should increase that by 150 men per berth. But I do submit that, with the buildings that you have already erected there, and the money spent on them, somewhere in the vicinity of a hundred thousand would see it through as a war measure. I look upon it as a war measure. We cannot say for certain that the War is going to be over next year. It may last for two or three years more. You have all sorts of periods of uncertainty to go through.
  There is one point that I want to make clear. Naturally when one does not often speak one picks up one or two papers the next morning to see how much that one has been reported. It is human nature. I found only two or three lines inferring that I was in favour of the nationalisation of the shipyards. I remember that the "Times" had it. My travelling experience in almost every corner of the world, with the exception of the Far East, India, and Australia, tells me that nationalisation of any industry is a curse to that industry. I am absolutely opposed to it in this sense or in that sense. I want to make that quite clear. I do submit, holding those views, that the Government for the time being could not have done other than they did in laying down this national programme as a measure of insurance. I should like to suggest, however, that it would give universal joy and satisfaction if the national yards for the time being could be developed to erect fabricated ships only, freeing the private yards as much as possible to go their own gait. I have heard the cry in several yards that if they had been left to carry on their own policy they might have produced more ships, and I do think, if they could have two or three berths free to them, so long as it did not interfere with the Service, and so long as they built standard boilers, engines, and so on, it would be better for the country. It has been mooted to me by many largely interested in yards which I have visited that, if they could have some assurance from the Government that they intend to treat this as a, war measure, and that it is not the intention of the Government at the present time to develop an after-the-war policy, but to submit that question to the decision of the House at some
  334
  future date, it would give great satisfaction. I should like to join with others in appreciation of the very practical remarks of the new Member for Graves-end (Mr. Alexander Richardson). I am sure that he will be a great acquisition to this House, but in one or two of his remarks I do not think that he quite realised what was behind the Government when they decided to set up these yards.
  Colonel COLLINS: Like the hon. and gallant Member who has just addressed the House, I also take no exception to the Admiralty developing these national shipyards in 1917, nor do I approach this subject from the point of view of expenditure, because we realise that ships must be produced to-day regardless of price. We do question, however, whether the Government are rightly utilising the labour resources of the country and putting them to the very best use in concentrating such large quantities of labour, not only upon the construction of national yards, but also upon building fabricated ships at these places. If I understood the First Lord of the Admiralty rightly, he justified the continuance of his present policy on two grounds—first, that there is to be a shortage of skilled labour; and, secondly, that in these national yards he intends to build fabricated ships. These were the two broad arguments which the right hon. Gentleman advanced this afternoon. Before addressing myself to these points, I would draw the attention of the House to the Admiralty management of mercantile shipping. In the earlier part of this year the Admiralty issued a White Paper in which they stated that it was well within the reach of this country, during this year, to build 1,800,000 tons. During the first six months of the year the Admiralty have constructed 760,000 tons, and in reply to a question this afternoon they informed me that during the first six months they estimated to build 870,000 tons. Therefore, their anticipations for the last six months have not materialised. Does the right hon. Gentleman still anticipate that the estimate he made in the earlier part of the year of 1,800,000 tons of mercantile ships will be launched this year, for to do so he must increase his present output by 33 per cent., and for every 100 tons launched during the first six months he must launch 133 tons during the last six months. Our average production during the first six months has only been 126,000 tons. We

  335
  require 166,000 tons to complete the estimated figure of 1,800,000 tons during the year. I hope that the Admiralty will give us some assurance on this point before the Debate closes, and in judging the Admiralty policy we are entitled to take into consideration their record in this matter. What is their record and their past, and what guide does that give us as to their actions in the future?
  We all recognise that this is a question of labour, but I think the Committee have not yet fully appreciated the extreme shortage of labour which exists in the yards to-day. In February last we were told from the Front Bench that some 20,000 men were to be returned to the shipyards to the Army. During that period only 12,000 men have been returned. Seven thousand of these men have gone to the yards and 5,000 of them have gone to the engine shops. At the same time the National Service Department have withdrawn 5,000 men from the shipyards. Therefore, there has been an addition of 7,000 men. On a recent visit to my Constituency I spent considerable time going through the yards on the Clyde and endeavouring to encourage the men in that shipbuilding area to increase their output. I found large quantities of plates lying in the yards waiting for men to rivet them together, and I have been assured that the same position exists to-day. There is a-large shortage of labour, reckoned to be about 10,000 to 20,000 men, in the present yards. In addition, there are thirty-seven private slips which are being constructed to-day. Fourteen of them are complete, and seventy-three are presently under construction. The First Lord of the Admiralty will agree that it is not an exaggerated figure when I say that 350 men will be required for each slip. Three hundred men are required in peace-time, and 350 men to-day, taking into consideration the physical fitness of the men in the shipyards at the present time. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that figure of 350 men for each slip, he will require to find for the present yards a further 25,000 men for the seventy-three slips. In addition, there are the numbers of men who are required for the engine and boiler shops. I am aware that the engine shops have been extended during the last six months, but the boiler shops have not kept pace with the extension of the engine shops, and from the information that I have received—and I have
  336
  taken the trouble to verify my figures—there will be required in the coming months a further 8,000 men for the boiler and engine shops. Taking these three factors into consideration—the present shortage in the shipyards of some 25,000 men, the numbers of men required for the seventy-three slips presently under construction, already a further 25,000, and an additional 8,000 men for the engine and boiler shops—we have a total of some 43,000 to 53,000 men required for the private yards in this country. I think we are entitled to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty either to refute these figures and to give the reasons why he refutes them, or, if he accepts them, to tell us how this labour is to be provided. We are as anxious as any member of the Government to see a larger construction of ships during the coming months, but we question whether the Admiralty are directing the available labour and putting it to its best use. The question as to the number of skilled workers who are required has been raised this afternoon, and it has been stated that the number of skilled to unskilled men required on these fabricated ships is one to forty. I believe that the number of skilled ironworkers on the fabricated ships will be much less than on the ordinary ships, but so far as the joiners, the carpenters, the electricians, and various other types of tradesmen are concerned, you will require as many skilled workers on these fabricated ships as on the ordinary type of ship.
  Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Has the hon. Member taken into account the skilled labour which is employed in the engine shops?
  8.0 P.M.
  Colonel COLLINS: If you are going to construct part of the ships in the engine shops, you will require to divert the labour from the shipyards to the engine shops. The First Lord of the Admiralty told us that in constructing a fabricated ship on the slip in the yard he would only require one skilled worker to every forty unskilled workers. I was endeavouring to show that, while believing there would be a reduction in the number of skilled ironworkers, the numbers in the other trades would not be reduced. He told us that one to forty was the figure. Is he quite certain of that figure, and, if he is not certain of it, I would ask him whether it is wise to quote it to the House. It is necessary for the Admiralty to carry with them the skilled workers in

  337
  these yards. I have recently visited these yards, and I am anxious to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. I found, when speaking to these men, that I was constantly heckled by them on this point. They said to me, "There are men employed at the Admiralty who are not sympathetic towards trade unions." I desire to make that statement in this House to the First Lord of the Admiralty. It was pressed on me at many meetings that there were-men at work at the Admiralty, advising the Admiralty, who were hostile to the trade union movement, and I am bound to say this, that that fear and that impression in their minds does tend towards that lack of hearty co-operation and sympathy which I am sure the Admiralty are anxious to secure and which I, with such ability as I possess, endeavour to secure.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: What men at the Admiralty?
  Colonel COLLINS: I have no knowledge of the men who are employed by the Admiralty, but I am sure the Financial Secretary would think me lacking in my duty as the Member for a large shipbuilding centre if I did not convey to him on the floor of this House the opinions of my Constituents, expressed to me, at a time when I was endeavouring to do what I could to secure an increased output of mercantile ships. Whilst speaking on the question of the shortage of labour, I desire to ask the First Lord this question: How far has the increase of the United States Army in France influenced the policy of the Government? Are we under an obligation which we are in honour bound to fulfil to maintain our numbers in France at a certain strength? I agree that if we are in honour bound to maintain a certain number of men in France they must be maintained, but in view of the large numbers of men who have crossed the Atlantic and who are now by our men in France, how far has the policy of the Government been altered by that striking event? The men in the shipyards are questioning about these things. They see these large numbers of men coming from America, and they know that at the same time the National Service Departments are taking from the yards pivot men. This morning I received a communication from the North of England in which a large employer, whom I do not know personally, told me that some of his skilled draftsmen
  338
  and others were being taken from his yard and transferred to the Army. I agree that public sentiment and military necessity demand that the young fit men should be taken from civilian life and passed into the Army, but it is being carried further than that, and many of these men who are being taken, and who have been taken, and who are not being released, would, in my opinion, be of far more use in the shipyards than in the Army, and I am supported in that contention by the speech of the First Lord this afternoon. He told us that his great trouble in the shipyards was a lack of skilled men, and he said, if I understood him aright, that he had a plentiful or a fair supply of unskilled men. Therefore, if he can get 1,000 skilled workers from the Army, he will be able to find, say, 20,000 or 30,000 unskilled workers who will be able to work with these skilled workers. If that is the case, and in view of the welcome improvement in the military situation in France, surely he might bring further pressure to bear to secure the release of these men and so enable them to put forth their best efforts at the spot where their knowledge is of the greatest use to this country.
  The First Lord endeavoured also to justify the continuation of the national shipyards on the grounds that these yards will build fabricated ships. I have been in communication with shipbuilders, and I have an assurance that there are to-day in the country 150 slips which can build fabricated ships. If that be correct, and my information is from one who is well qualified to advise me, we have to-day in the country the very slips which the First Lord is anxious to secure and which he is pressing to complete at the national shipyards. He has to-day 540 slips, when the seventy-three at present under construction are completed. He proposes in his scheme to construct a further thirty-two. In other words, all he proposes to do is to increase our available slipway accommodation by 6 per cent. That is the total extension—540 private slips, thirty-two slipways in the national yards. If my figures are correct, and I think the First Lord will find that they are very close to the actual figures, the number of slipways he is constructing is small enough, and they are to be constructed at a time when every available man should be utilised in our private yards, where there is to-day a great amount of material only waiting for the labour to rivet the plates together,

  339
  and it is from that point of view that I press the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter, not on any ground of expenditure, I can assure him, but rather from the point of view that we should put our labour to the best use, so as to secure the greatest possible increase of output at the earliest possible moment. Do not let any judgment taken in 1917—a judgment which, in my opinion, was a right judgment—bind our action to-day. If the First Lord changed his policy to-day it would not be any sign of weakness, but rather of strength—rather the sign of a Minister who, faced with ever-changing conditions, was prepared to face some passing unpopularity so as to secure for his country the greatest available number of ships at the earliest possible moment.
  Sir R. BARRAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I am in full agreement with the last expression of my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I think we ought to have, before this Debate closes, a definite reply to some of the problems that have been brought out during the Debate, and with a view to making sure that we get a reply that will be satisfactory to the Committee, I propose to move a reduction of the Vote by £100, so that it will be possible for the Committee, if they so desire, to take a Division on the point. I think the Committee ought to concentrate its attention on the present position, and had the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) been present I should have criticised the attack that he made upon the First Lord. In the early part of this Debate, I think, the Committee was in danger of looking at this problem from an entirely wrong standpoint. The main point that was brought out in the right hon. Gentleman's first speech from the Front Opposition Bench was a sarcastic complaint that the First Lord of the Admiralty had not produced the ships in the national shipyards as quickly as he promised, and that he had not produced them in the numbers that he promised. There was also in the early part of the Debate an attack upon the Admiralty for the whole policy of the establishment of these national shipyards. I want to criticise the present attitude of the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I should not feel justified in doing so without first expressing my appreciation of the wisdom of the
  340
  Admiralty in originally designing and commencing these national shipyards, and neither should I feel inclined to criticise unless I bore a tribute to the energy and the enthusiasm with which all those who have been connected with those ship yards have taken up the work in the national interest. I am going to deal with that criticism that the Admiralty has not produced in these shipyards up to now any ships, and that you cannot see in the immediate future anything like the numbers that were originally spoken of. What I want to say is that that is entirely to the credit of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I think this ought to be brought out very clearly. Originally, the position with regard to these national shipyards was in every respect wholly different from what it is at the present time. The submarine menace was greater, the output in private shipyards was smaller, the number of men required for the Army was nothing like as great as it is at the present time, and the labour difficulties, although some say they might have been foreseen, had, at any rate, not materialised at that time. It is all very well for hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken to emphasise the point that some advisers told the Government at the beginning that the national shipyards were a mistake. It is usually the case in Admiralty matters, in ship building matters, even in Army matters, just as it is in the ordinary walks of life, that there are two schools of thought, and if the Government take the advice of one they obviously go against the advice of the other. I am wholly of opinion that the Government at that time were wise in establishing the national shipyards. I am equally sure that, looking at the condition of the country nearly a year later, when they saw something like 500,000 men taken to join the forces, when they saw the difficulties that they were faced with in labour matters, the certainty that they could not use German prisoner labour for the building of ships, the certainty that there would be trade union difficulties—
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Who said we could not use prisoner labour?
  Sir R. BARRAN: In my view it is an absolute certainty that you cannot use German prisoner labour for the actual construction of ships. I am sure that the majority of the people of this country would not trust German labour on the one

  341
  hand, and I am sure that the labour world would not consent to it on the other hand. Those items have entirely altered the situation. Then the last speaker alluded to the fact that we have not got the men from the front, and, as far as we can see, there is no probability of getting the men from the front. All these considerations entirely alter the situation. But there is another consideration—that is, the consumption of coal. It has not been alluded to in the Debate, but the establishment of new shipyards means a large increase in the consumption of coal. It is a fact to-day—I had it put before me only this afternoon by hon. Members of this House directly connected with the steel trade—that in many of the engineering works of this country they are not at the present time getting their full output owing to the shortage of coal. It is quite clear that in the production of power the more you spread yourself over a wide surface the less economical is the use of power. If we largely extend our shipbuilding operations by the addition of these shipyards, we are courting a further difficulty in addition to raw material and of labour in the supply of coal. The point I want to put to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and which, I think, ought to be pressed upon him, is: Are we in the three national shipyards which have been planned going on with the maximum of output, or are we going on with the minimum output consistent with the supply of labour that is required for the slips that have been put down in the private yards? The figures have been alluded to several times—that the Government have advised shipbuilders in this country to put down another eighty-seven berths. These have been put down after consultation with the shipbuilders, and largely on the advice of the shipbuilders. To some extent they have been put down on the responsibility of, and I dare say with funds provided by, the Government.
  The point we have to press on the First Lord is this: will he give this Committee an assurance that until all those slips in the private yards are properly manned, and turning out their full quota, no extension will take place in the national shipyards? There are in connection with the Chepstow shipyards a certain number of ships being built at the present time. May I for a moment allude to the present position on the Wye and on the Severn? There are practically three sets of slips. Since the latest of them was started a
  342
  considerable amount of work has been done, but there I venture to suggest no work has been done so far which would materially depreciate if they were at the present time to cease to continue that work. At the second, I take it the next largest of the works, they have committed themselves to a considerable expense, but even there I do not think it will be disputed by any body of practical men, if such a body were to go down to examine the operations, that that shipyard could be run on a very small number of slips at the present time without any deterioration in the work that has been done there. Then you come to the third largest, known as Finch's yard, which has been taken over from a large shipping combine. It is an open question as to whether it is wise to extend that at all beyond the slips where ships are already being built. The First Lord has pointed out to us a very serious position in the ordinary private shipyards beyond anything that we had to contemplate before he made his speech to-day. He has told us that, although the amount of ship-repairing at the present time is decreasing, owing to the submarine danger having gone further afield, and not now being so near to our shores, there is for the moment a smaller amount of repairing in our shipyards. But the First Lord of the Admiralty gave no indication whatever that it was a permanent arrangement, and I venture to say that if he had prophesied that that would obtain in all the remaining months of this year, this Committee would have hesitated to take that view, because nothing is more uncertain than the methods of warfare of our opponents, and nothing would be more unwise from a commercial point of view than to take an action which might be falsified any day by an alteration of tactics on the part of our enemies. In addition to this, the First Lord has told us that we are to be responsible for an enormous amount of repairs and refitting to American ships in British waters. He has given us no idea to what extent that will be. I think it is reasonable to suppose that the amount of repairs and renewals that will be required for the large fleet of American boats which he spoke of as coming over to British waters will more than make up for the smaller repairs of our own disabled vessels owing to the submarine menace. The whole of this is cumulative, and we are coming down to the question, Where is the

  343
  First Lord of the Admiralty going to get the labour for the eighty-seven slips that are generally being put down in the private shipyards? Only a little more than a dozen are down at the present time.
  Dr. MACNAMARA Dr. MACNAMARA was understood to dissent.
  Sir R. BARRAN: The statement has been made several times to-day that only fourteen of these slips are now occupied, and up to now that has remained unchallenged. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us. At any rate, I think I am right in saying that a very large number of these slips are still unoccupied.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
  Sir R. BARRAN: The repairing in our private yards is going to be very heavy. Supposing that is balanced by the smaller shipbuilding programme which may be necessary because of America coming in, that still leaves labour to be supplied for the remainder of those eighty-seven slips. The First Lord has not dealt fully with that question, and has not explained to the Committee the number of men who will be required for that, nor has he given any indication whatever where that labour is to be recruited from. It is very evident that it cannot be recruited from this country. Anyone engaged in engineering or any other kind of trade knows perfectly well now that we can get no labour except by taking it from our neighbours or our competitors. It is quite clear that with the extraordinary shortage of labour there is at the present time in agriculture you cannot draw any further labour, even unskilled labour, from the agricultural districts for the shipyards; and it has been shown to-night that, whereas we are drawing a certain amount of labour from the front to put back into the shipyards, at the same time National Service is actually taking men to-day—I do not know whether large numbers from the shipyards, but men in large numbers from the engineering works. And it does not really matter whether they are taking men from the shipyards or the engineering works; they are taking men to-day for the Army from the engineering trades of one kind or another, which must come down to shipbuilding.
  Now we are told that you have got 6,000 Royal Engineers at Chepstow whom you can employ in these yards. The problem comes, supposing you are going to
  344
  take these men out of khaki and put them into the labour market, are they better employed in the yards of Chepstow, or in the private shipbuilding yards where you have arranged for these eighty-seven new slips! It is quite well known that those 6,000 men are a negligible quantity as compared with the labour that you will require if you are going to have the whole of these shipyards full. What is the real advantage to the ship-building of this country in going on full speed at the present time with all the work in connection with the national yards? I venture to suggest that the prisoners of war labour could be very much better employed, possibly, in providing housing accommodation. I venture to suggest that the skilled men amongst the engineers could also be very much better employed in the private shipyards, and I mean by that that they would be likely to produce a large output of shipping from those yards at a very much earlier period. If six months hence we find it impossible when all these slips are ready, both in the private and national yards, to provide labour for the whole of them, is not the labour that is going on in the intervening months in pre- paring them being wasted compared with what it would be if it were at once transferred, or the greater part of it, to pressing forward the work in private yards? It seems to me that if the First Lord of the Admiralty would look carefully through the policy of the last few months, and would say to himself, "I have not had skilled labour and I have not had unskilled labour suffìcient to equip these national shipyards, and therefore I have found it advantageous to turn to work that originally I expected would go into those shipyards," and if he would go a step further and say, "If I were to turn what- ever labour I have available at the present time in erecting those slips at Chepstow into the private shipyards, I should be expediting the output of ships more than if I leave them on these national shipyards," and if he were to say that no work should go on further with those shipyards except such as can- not be stopped without serious deterioration to the work that has been already done, then, I think, we should get the policy of reducing the work in those national shipyards to very small dimensions, indeed. I think that is a policy which would commend itself to the House of Commons.

  345
  If the First Lord is not prepared to adopt that policy, and to say to us, "Now we propose to slow down the work of these shipyards as much as possible," then I think he ought to justify, in a way he has not attempted to do at the present time, his carrying on these shipyards in any extensive manner by showing this Committee from where and at what period he expects to get labour, not to carry them on, but labour first of all to man the shipyards that have been arranged for. There is another advantage in taking this course. If it should turn out that the American shipbuilding, with our own shipbuilding as otherwise arranged outside the national shipyards, is unable to solve the shipping question; if it should prove that we are still unable to get large numbers of men back from the front, and that in order to get victory we must leave our men there, then after the War we should be faced with a very less serious position than if we proceed with an enormous expenditure upon the work. I do not criticise the expenditure at all. I do not criticise the question of their going on without putting estimates before this House, any more than I did the policy of the Ministry of Munitions in doing similarly, when it was necessary to get guns manufactured, which was then the great essential. But the more we curtail the programme of national shipbuilding at the present time the easier will it be to solve the difficult problem afterwards of what we are going to do with these shipyards. The one which is close to an old shipyard can easily be taken over very much on the present lines, and on those which it was possible so to do before the Government took it from the private individual. If they were to adopt the course that has been suggested and only go on with the others to a very limited extent, there would be no real problem afterwards as to what to do with Government shipyards which were building merchant shipping. With all deference to a former speaker, I would point out that there is a very large difference in the Government having a large output of warships and having a large output of merchant ships. The latter will undoubtedly, after the War, create a very difficult position, as many difficult positions will be created by the establishment of national factories. I am not opposing it on that ground.
  I am quite prepared to face that difficulty, if need be, but I do not think we need augment that difficulty at the serious
  346
  risk of putting the labour we have available, or the labour that we can make available into the wrong channels. I should like to urge upon the Financial Secretary of the Admiralty, before we come to vote upon this question, to give the Committee some indication as to what is to be the attitude of the Government. Are they going on at full speed with every slip they can, with this enormous expenditure, or are they only going to do such work as will save the work that is being done from being lost, and throw the whole of their resources into those lines which undoubtedly will give us the largest output of shipping?
  Colonel THORNE: Before this Debate closes I should like to inform the House of the position, so far as the Labour party is concerned and its attitude to the Government. It is quite true to say that on another policy there is some division in our ranks, and there are two sides to this question of national shipyards. But I can assure my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that he has got a unanimous vote behind him so far as the Labour party is concerned. There is absolutely no division at all in our ranks upon this question of national shipyards. One of the hon. Members on the Back Benches, a few minutes ago, spoke about difficult relations between the trade unions and the Admiralty. So far as I know—and I know in days gone by there was some little difficulty between organised labour on the one side and the Admiralty on the other—but now, so far as the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned, I can assure the House, and the country in general, that the right hon. Gentleman has always been a sympathetic admirer of organised labour, and has always done his level best to help us in every direction. So far as I know, at the present time there is absolutely no difference at all between organised labour and the Admiralty. The latter has met organised labour in every direction, especially where the working was under the practical control of the First Lord and the Parliamentary Secretary, in connection with what I would call our present national shipyards. Where my hon. and gallant Friend got his information from about some little difference of opinion, and that labour was aggrieved because there was some person or persons at the Admiralty opposed to organised labour, I do not know. What he says may be true. There may be one or two individuals

  347
  at the Admiralty who do not look with a favourable eye upon organised labour, but so far as the First Lord and the Parliamentary Secretary are concerned they are absolutely with us from the organised labour point of view.
  I am not at all surprised at the way the Government have been hammered this afternoon from various parts of the House. What I have heard this afternoon from various Members on both sides appeals to me this way, that in the very near future there is likely to be a deep-rooted conflict between those who have spoken this afternoon and those they represent and the party which we represent. Hon. Members have shown very clearly, so far as they are concerned, that they are absolutely and entirely opposed to national shipyards, or national anything else. I quite understand that. They take a different point of view. Their interest is not our interest.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Or that of the nation.
  Colonel THORNE: From that standpoint the major part of them, as everybody knows, have lived upon rent, profits, and interest, and when the major part of this House live upon rent, profits, and interest, it is perfectly evident that we are bound to come into conflict with each other unless some means or methods are devised to bridge over the difficulty, which may not exist at the present moment, but which is bound to exist when this terrible struggle in which we are engaged is over. Not all the speakers, I am pleased to say, have taken this attitude. One or two hon. Members who have spoken have taken up the view of the Government in relation to the national shipyards; but the major part who have spoken have certainly taken up a hostile attitude. Not, they say, on the ground of expense. On principle they do not care for the policy, because, it appears to me, they think that this scheme is going to enter into competition with private enterprise. Naturally so! In my humble judgment, as a matter of fact, if it had not been for our present national shipyards I am one of those who is convinced that private enterprise would have been bleeding us a good deal more than we are being bled to-day. Private enterprise would have been exploiting the public in every direction. It is in consequence of the work that has been done in our present national shipyards that that exploitation
  348
  has been prevented being much more deep than it is at the present time. Another thing I have been surprised at. Not one single Member has said a single word against the work which has been done in our national shipyards.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Royal dockyards you mean.
  Colonel THORNE: It is all the same thing: the Royal dockyards if you will. Not a single Member has in any shape or form condemned the work which has been done in our Royal dockyards, neither upon the ground of speeding up, or expense, or anything else. I believe that if there was a proper investigation as to the way in which the work has been done in our Royal dockyards during this War, the way in which it has been speeded-up, and in relation to the workmanship—
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: And the economical working as well.
  Colonel THORNE: Yes; and in economy in the working the work will bear very favourable comparison with any work done in any private enterprise at the present time. The only quarrel that we have ever had with the Government, so far as the Royal dockyards are concerned, is some difficulty in convincing them of the necessity of paying what we call the recognised rates of pay. The reply to that has always been that, in consequence of the privileges which are given to men working in the Royal dockyards, it compensates them for the loss of wages that is inflicted upon them on account of receiving less than what is paid under private enterprise. Therefore, I think we cught to be highly gratified to know that although there has been some opposition to the national shipyards there has been no opposition for the policy adopted in our Royal dockyards. It has been said that the work done in the private shipyards has been speeded up, and that may be true; but if it is true about the private shipyards, it is also true about the Royal dockyards. Is there anybody in this House or outside of it who is prepared to say to the Government, "Please hand over to the Royal dockyards the private enterprise "? I do not think there is, for there is not a man courageous enough to put forward a proposition of that kind.
  I know there has been a big demand outside this House at trade union congresses

  349
  to press the Government to take over all the private shipyards, and that has been one of the causes of the quarrel. May I point out that during the whole of this War there has not been a single strike in any of the Royal dockyards or in any of the yards under Government control? Why is this? It is because they know they are working for the country and not for private individuals, and because they know that whatever profit is made goes to the common good. That is why organised labour has been impressing upon the Government the absolute necessity of taking over the private yards, because under Government they know they are not only working for themselves but also for the nation, and they also know that private owners are making huge profits.
  I would like to draw attention to another fact, and it is that so far as the Chepstow yard is concerned we have only had one trouble and that has now been removed. In the early stages of the development of the national yard at Chepstow no doubt the Government thought they were going to run that yard on military lines, and that it was going to be manned and superintended by the military. The intention was to engage a large number of soldiers in the construction of ships and to pay the rate paid in the Array. [An HON. MEMBER: "And prisoners of war!"] I am not quite sure that you can get prisoners of war to work side by side with trade unionists, but, nevertheless, I know that prisoners of war have been doing the heavy excavation work, to which no exception has been taken; but if German labour was engaged upon the construction of ships at Chepstow I do not think it would work well, and the Government would be well advised to keep it out. The only quarrel we have had is because the Government intended to run this dockyard on military lines, but that difficulty has now been removed, and there is no difficulty whatever now between the Government and the men working in those yards.
  It does appear to me that, perhaps, some money has been spent that might have been avoided; but can anybody tell me even in private enterprise when they start digging and delving that they know whether they are going to gain out of it or not, or whether they are going to lose a few hundred or a few thousand pounds? When you construct a coal mine you often have anticipated getting coal after expending
  350
  a few thousand pounds, but all kinds of difficulties are sometimes encountered, and frequently thousands of pounds have to be spent over the original estimate. Very few buildings, even when contracts are given out and you have the assistance of quantity surveyors, are erected without encountering all kinds of difficulties, and, therefore, I am not surprised that the Government could not properly estimate the amount of money that was going to be expended in laying down the foundations of these slips.
  I believe they have done their best to keep down expenditure, and, at any rate, I have never found that they have been very extravagant with workmen's wages. They may, perhaps, have been extravagant with regard to salaries, but never in regard to wages. So far as the labour engaged in the Royal dockyards is concerned, the managers and foremen extract every ounce of social labour in the same way as employers do in private yards. May I remind the Committee that, so far as gun making is concerned, if you take the Infantry guns made at Enfìeld and those made at Woolwich, and compare the price either of guns or bayonets made at those two places with those made at the Birmingham Small Arms or at the East London Small Arms Factory, you will find that they are made very much cheaper in the national workshop? Therefore we have every faith, so far as the Labour party is concerned, in national shipyards. Perhaps in the initial stages there has been more money expended than was anticipated, but I believe that they will come out all right in the long run. There has been some talk that when the War is over these national shipyards should be handed over to private enterprise. I hope not, and I should like to ask anyone to give any reasons why they should be? I would like to say that if the Labour party are as strong as they are to-day they will do their level best to prevent that, and if we are strong enough I am hoping that we shall not only maintain the national shipyards and the Royal dockyards, but if there is any chance we shall "pinch" the private yards.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Not "pinch."
  Colonel THORNE: Of course, I mean with a reasonable amount of compensation, because I believe the private shipyards ought to be under national control, and for that many of us in this House, including myself, have been working for the

  351
  last thirty-five years. I do not mean to say that we have made very much headway, but it is not our fault, but the fault of those outside who do not understand our principles. I believe they are beginning to understand them now, and if they do not understand them fully at the next election, at any rate, I believe they will at the election after that. Therefore, so far as the Labour party is concerned, we are absolutely unanimous in backing up the Government policy with regard to national shipyards.
  Mr. FRANCE: I desire to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Leeds (Sir R. Barran) to reduce the First Lord's salary. I am quite sure, although he has not been very long in the House, that he will understand that it is not done with any wish or intention that he should enjoy less of the emoluments of the office in which he worked so hard and in connection with which he does so much good work, and as I shall, in the course of the few remarks that I make, disagree with him very strongly on many points I hope he will allow me very sincerely to congratulate him upon the record of success that he was able to give in the early part of his speech with regard to the sinking of submarines and the position in which we stand, particularly with regard to the world's tonnage. I should like to say—I do not think it has been said publicly in this House yet—with regard to the successful attack upon Zeebrugge and Ostend, which, no doubt, has done much to improve the position, that although he may not be responsible himself for all the details of the attack, yet the First Lord is justly entitled to have credit for the good work of his Department, as I think he must also be prepared—and I am sure he will agree to take responsibility for all matters of administration in regard to which we disagree from him. I do not propose to follow those who have criticised the Admiralty with regard to the sites of the national shipyards. I have never criticised the sites of these shipyards, and since I have had the privilege of visiting them by the courtesy of the First Lord, I have no support to give to those who take the view that we ought to criticise severely the decision of the Government twelve months ago when they found themselves in an emergency with regard to national defence and
  352
  national shipbuilding. Although I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who said that any energy and any plan was right and good so long as it was energy, yet I do agree that there were difficulties then which might well have turned their attention to any possible increase in the amount of shipping. Nor do I think that I shall fall foul of the hopes of my hon. Friend who has just spoken (Colonel W. Thorne), as I do not at all intend to take up any position in this Debate as regards national or private enterprise I do not think it is a point that we ought to urge at this stage in the War and in view of the national emergency. The only question which is of supreme importance at the moment with regard to the building of merchant ships is whether or not we are making the best use of the labour at our disposal. I would remind the Committee of the words used by the First Lord of the Admiralty itself, I think in his first speech in this House, when he put to the House a question which he immediately answered himself with entire satisfaction to the House at that time. He said
  "It may be asked, 'Why build new yards when the existing yards are not working to their full capacity?'"
  He went on:
  "The answer to that question is very simple and very straight.'
  It was this:
  "We will not use the national yards until the existing yards are worked to their full economic capacity."
  9.0 P.M.
  I contend that when he spoke of the full economic capacity of the existing yards he referred to the possibility of a proper economic extension of the existing yards, and I think that view is borne out by the fact that subsequently the Admiralty sanctioned their extension to the extent of at least eighty-seven slips, of which fourteen have now been carried out. All we ask for at this stage is that the very solemn, straight, and simple pledge which he gave to the House of Commons and to the country should be carried out. I do not ask this from any pedantic preference for the carrying out of pledges. I agree that it may not sometimes be possible. There may be national circumstances which make the carrying out of a pledge or promise impossible. The country would excuse a change of policy if it were clearly proved that it was in the national interest that the change should be made. I contend

  353
  that this promise should not only be kept as a promise, but should be kept because it is still the soundest and best economic policy. Having only a certain supply of labour and only a very limited supply, the intention then was the right intention and should be carried out now. One is bound to wonder at the continual changes of policy with regard to these national shipyards. I am not going to labour that—first the intention and then the abandonment of the use of prisoners of war and the abandonment of the use of military labour—but I would draw attention to the fact that the Controller of Merchant Shipping visited these national shipyards for the first time in June—it has become fashionable to visit shipyards of late—and he made a statement to the Press immediately afterwards giving his view with regard to them. He concluded his statement by directly giving the country the information that no work would be carried out on those slips and no keel would be laid until the yards were completed. On that statement a question was asked in the House as to whether or not that included the housing scheme. That was 10th July. Since then we have heard by rumour, and we have had it confirmed in the House to-day, that another change of policy has taken place. Two slips are to be immediately employed and keels are to be ready as soon as possible upon two slips at Chepstow. That, to a certain extent, is a departure from the pledge to which I have already referred.
  The position with regard to the essential number of men for the carrying out of the programme of shipbuilding with a view to reaching that very rosy but by no means unattainable standard of 3,000,000 tons in one year has been often discussed in this House, and we were promised no longer ago than March that 20,000 men would be returned to the shipyards—I presume it was also intended to make good the deficiency in the marine engineering works—from the Army. As a matter of fact, some 12,000 men have been returned. A number of men, I think roughly equivalent, have been withdrawn either from the shipyards or from the marine engineering works, and I do not hesitate to say that at the present time the net result is that the increase from the time that the promise was made is negligible. If that is so with regard to the existing yards, what about the extension of the existing yards?
  354
  Eighty-seven extensions have been sanctioned. Fourteen were completed a fortnight ago. I do not know how many since. Seventy-three are to be completed. When they are completed, they will, on the estimate given to-day, require, approximately, 20,000 men to man them if fully worked. You, therefore, have the 20,000 originally estimated to be required for the normal requirements of the shipyards; you have another 20,000 ultimately required for the extensions of the shipyards, and you have the 10,000 for which you are now asking for the national shipyards—altogether 50,000 men. So far as I am concerned, it is solely on that ground that at this stage, I support the Amendment to reduce the Vote, and I hope the Committee will take the view that, in face of the pledges given, of the labour position and of the economic and national advantage, it would be a very serious mistake indeed to deprive the yards of their requirements, to fail to keep the pledge of helping them to carry out the extensions which the Admiralty themselves have sanctioned, and thereby to diminish the output which the existing yards are capable of producing.
  With regard to these extensions the First Lord referred to housing. May I ask him whether, when he said that wherever additional labour was required houses would be required, was not that in his mind, and was not that in the mind of the Admiralty when they sanctioned these extensions? Were these extensions sanctioned, the work put into them and the labour engaged with regard to them, without any regard to housing facilities? I cannot believe that. I cannot but believe that when the Admiralty sanctioned these extensions they knew—if they did not know, a very serious charge can be laid against them—that either by existing housing or by placing of hostels in the neighbourhood where the men themselves could readily be found, economic and profitable use could be made of these sanctioned extensions. We have been told that at the national shipyards there are at present about 7,000 men in khaki—Royal Engineer men who can, by a change to the civilian garb, be used for the work of producing ships practically at once. In view of the promises and of the pledges that have been given, what is the justification for retaining these 7,000 men at Chepstow, Portbury, and Beachley when the Admiralty are pledged to a supply of men for the existing yards and

  355
  their extensions? I know it has been said to-day that unskilled men have been offered to the shipbuilders and have been refused. I should like to emphasise the criticism on that statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dews-bury (Mr. Runciman). The First Lord would hardly like to ask the Committee to believe that of the men who are at the national shipyards at present, many of whom are skilled men, many of whom are semi-skilled, and many of whom they intend to make semi-skilled, and, indeed, are now making semi-skilled by schools for pneumatic drilling—I do not believe he wishes us to understand that the shipbuilders of this country are still crying out for men, and yet are refusing that type of labour in their own yards. That is asking us to believe more than I personally can accept. The First Lord will admit that the shortage is largely in riveters. The capacity of riveting is really the measure of output in structural work, just the same in the national yards as in the ordinary yards, and the riveting done in proportion for the fabricated ships is, as we were told on the authority of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Alexander Richardson), roughly not more than 15 per cent. of the amount of the work which has to be done in the riveting of a ship. Wherever that riveting is done, men have to do it. Labour is required for the riveting of the frames and other parts of the ships beforehand wherever it is done. Therefore, it is hardly fair to deduct the labour put into riveting at the bridge builders from the total amount of labour which is required in the shipyards.
  Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Does the hon. Member realise that the work done in the shipyards is of quite a different character from that when you assemble the material and put it together? The shearing, the punching, the fixing of the templates, and that kind of thing is quite a different class of labour.
  Mr. FRANCE: I am by no means an expert like the hon. Member, but I am quite aware of those elementary facts. I was referring at the moment to the real shortage which has to be faced throughout the country at the present time, and I was submitting that riveting is really the rock on which the ship of labour, so to speak, is split. I was submitting that a certain amount of riveting is done in preparing the frames, and that wherever
  356
  it is done you must have riveters for it, therefore it is not fair to deduct from the supply of labour the amount of labour which has been put into these ships before fabrication takes place. I feel very strongly that the Committee of the House of Commons in Supply ought to assert itself in this matter of control, not so much of expenditure as of the very best use that can be made of the available labour in this matter, which affects the safety of the nation and the well-being of us all. If there is a Division, I shall most certainly support the Amendment unless the Government are prepared to take one of two courses. The position of some of us in regard to voting will turn largely on whether the Government are prepared to take one of two courses with regard to the national shipyards. The first is, that there should be an inquiry into the whole question of the labour for shipyard work throughout the country, including that for the national shipyards. That may be thought by the First Lord and his advisers to be a humiliating course. If that be so, I offer a second alternative, which has already been advocated by the hon. Member for North Leeds (Sir R. Barran), namely, that there should be a limitation of effort in regard to the national shipyards until the experiment—it is an experiment—is proved to be a success. You have at Chepstow the possibility of carrying on your experiment with six slips, and you need not necessarily postpone all work at Beachley and Portbury. I would strongly urge the Government to consider whether they could not accept one of these courses. No harm can come from proving an experiment which as yet has not had satisfactory proof, thereby justifying the belief that they can, without unduly drawing on labour, really make a success of this experiment.
  There has not yet been any great success with regard to the shipbuilding programme of this country since the Debate which took place in March. We were told to expect great things from the appointment of the new Controller of Merchant Shipping. I would desire to say no word which could in any way be construed as disrespect of his very great qualities and achievements, but I must say of the First Lord's principal officer in shipping that, in regard to this matter of controlling and advising on the national shipping of this country, he is still on his trial. Only two or three months have elapsed since his

  357
  appointment, and the figures of out-turn since his appointment have not consider-ably increased. They are still far below what we have a right to expect. We believe the reason of that is that labour is deficient in the yards and in the marine engineering works. It is true, as some have said, that there is no shortage of steel or of raw material. There is a shortage of labour. I would remind the Committee of the elemental fact that, in the case of engines, steel is no good unless you have labour to convert the steel into the engines that are required for the ship. There is at the present time a great shortage of skilled labour in the engine works. I am informed that the rate of construction of engines is falling behind the construction of hulls, and that we shall probably shortly have a serious shortage in engines, and thereby the whole progress of shipping will be delayed. I therefore earnestly appeal to the Government, when they see that there is a very serious view held in the House and in the country, that without abandoning the whole of their scheme they should give the House some undertaking that in the matter of housing—and in the matter of the use of all the men they have available—they will stay their hand, postpone the larger part of the experiment, proceed only with a portion of it, and release the men who are thus spared to give to the yards which are so badly in need of them. If they do that they will have an opportunity, if they prove their experiment a success, to develop it at some future time, and they will have done much to help those who honestly desire to help the Government and not to hinder it, and do much at the same time to increase shipbuilding in this country.
  Mr. WILSON-FOX: While I am in sympathy with a great deal which has fallen from the hon. Member, in whose company I had the pleasure recently of visiting the shipyards, by the courtesy of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and also with what fell from the hon. Member for Leeds (Sir R. Barran), I certainly should not feel justified in supporting the Amendment. Anyone who has listened to the Debate must have realised that we are dealing with a very difficult and very complicated subject which is capable of being approached from very many different points of view. I certainly feel that it is not possible for a private Member to feel absolutely certain of his own opinion, because it is impossible that he can be
  358
  fully acquainted with all the relevant facts. The most I should feel justified in doing is to suggest views for what they are worth, and to accept the position that responsibility for the decision must rest with the Government. We must trust someone, and I am prepared to trust the judgment of the Government in this matter, feeling sure that they will consider all such helpful suggestions as have been made to them in the Debate. A great many of the suggestions I do not think were intended to be helpful, and I think also that exhumation of the past is not very profitable at present. I am concerned far more with the present position and what is to be done in the future than with attempts to fix responsibility for decisions which were taken twelve months ago, when circumstances were entirely different. When the milk has been spilt we cannot save it. The most we can do is to try to prevent any more being spilt, and that seems the only reason for reverting to the past at all.
  Though very little allusion has been made to the conduct of individuals other than the First Lord himself, I greatly regret that the name of General Collard was introduced at some length the other evening and has again been mentioned to-day. In time of peace it is unfair, and in time of war it is equally unfair, and positively dangerous, to single out subordinate members of the administration and to attach praise or blame to them—certainly blame—in this House. One is apt to do more than one knows. Very few people realise the extent to which the country is indebted to the initiative, the energy, and enthusiasm which has been displayed by men of the type of General Collard, who have done their best in most difficult times to speed forward the work of the country without regard to self. The other evening it was hinted that the work of General Collard at an unnamed place—I think the name slipped out once by mistake—was condemned, and it was suggested that what he was doing in these national shipyards was probably going to be a failure because of the failure in which he had already been involved. I have had an opportunity of visiting that unnamed place and seeing a number of reports in connection with it, and examining a number of witnesses concerned in it, and so far from it having been a failure I am certain it has been of the utmost benefit to our military adventures, and I am also prepared to believe that when the

  359
  history comes to be written, and all the facts are investigated, quite contrary to expectation it will probably be found that, even on financial grounds alone, the work which has been done at that place has been fully justified. Therefore, I am quite certain General Collard ought not to be condemned in advance because of these rumours in regard to this unnamed place.
  The decision which was taken in March, 1917, to make these national shipyards, was taken in time of grave national peril, and I think as was suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sir Norton Griffiths), that even on grounds of insurance alone, the Government was fully justified in taking that decision. There was only one thing to be done at that time, and it was to provide as quickly as possible for the largest production of ships that the Government could command. They believed they had sources of labour at their command which would enable that work to be carried to a successful prosecution, and so long as they believed that, I am prepared to say they were right in taking that decision, and if that decision was right at the time the fact that circumstances have since changed does not make that decision now wrong. The point now is what are we to do with these shipyards now their construction has been commenced? I do not think the scale on which it was proposed to carry them out was either reprehensible or extravagant in the circumstances. I have no criticism to offer on this point, nor am I competent to offer it. I think there was unpardonable delay in the preparation of estimates. No one would have expected estimates correct to the last shilling to be prepared in a hurry, but there might have been approximate estimates very much sooner than they were prepared. I do not think it could possibly be right for a great Government Department to embark upon the expenditure of millions and to have no estimates available for, I think, six months. That is a situation which, I think, should not be allowed to recur. It certainly reflects on the business and financial side of the Admiralty.
  It has been my business in the course of the last year, under the presidency of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel), to review a number of these enterprises which have been entered upon by the Government on a very large scale, and I think the country really is to be congratulated
  360
  on having had at its disposal in this time of great national crisis a certain number of men who had the wisdom and the foresight to see that great enterprises would be required and would have to be carried out if this great War was to be carried to a successful conclusion. The way in which the War has been carried on on the home front has certainly saved us from national disaster, and no praise that we can express can be too much for the vision and the foresight displayed in those dark days by men like Lord Kitchener and the Prime Minister, who saw what was wanted, had the courage of their convictions, and were determined to carry through these enterprises which were really required. While I recognise that they were right to take that attitude, I have come to the conclusion, from what I have seen in connection with the financial and other sides of these enterprises, that there is an absolute obligation on the Government to review their position in regard to them in view of changing circumstances from time to time. It is not a confession necessarily of mistake to change your plan when circumstances change. It often requires—it generally requires—greater moral courage on the part of those who have drawn up the plan to abandon or restrict the enter- prise than was required when they first initiated it. As was said by the hon. Member for Gravesend in that excellent maiden speech to which we listened to-day, every business man knows that when you have made or contemplate a loss the sooner you cut it the better, and that is a principle which can be applied with advantage to many of these undertakings to which the Government has been committed. It is, of course, annoying to those who have devised the plans, and heart- rending to the subordinates who have carried them out, to have to abandon or cut down their pet project. But these considerations do not absolve the Government from responsibility if it fails to take all the necessary measures to see that the course it is pursuing is the right one. Take the case of these shipyards. We know that nearly £4,000,000 sterling has been expended on the yards alone, and we have reason to believe that if they are to be placed in a position to become permanent shipyards in time of peace, with civilian labour, another £4,000,000 will have to be spent in providing housing accommodation. That is £8,000,000 in all. It is a very vast enterprise. If it will

  361
  be possible to postpone or restrict it should be considered, remembering the enormous programme of shipbuilding and the laying down of slips which is being carried out in America, and the great extension of shipyards that will go on in this country. It can hardly be that the whole of that provision of shipyards, and also provision on Government account, can possibly be required for many years after the War.
  That being so, we should review our commitments and consider our position. The fact that the labour originally contemplated as available will no longer be available will alter the position in the future, and on that ground alone I suggest it is only right that this programme should be reconsidered. There are two factors in this case—that of labour, of which we have heard a good deal, and that of time of which we have heard less. The fact that a considerable time will have to elapse before the full programme can be carried out, and ships on a large scale be produced, combined with the changed conditions of the War, the brighter and better outlook we now experience, points to the necessity of reviewing the situation. The question is, What in these circumstances should be done? If the yard about which there has been so much discussion—Finch's yard—can be abandoned, I think possibly that would be the right course to take. The hon. Member for Leeds suggested that Chepstow should be carried on as rapidly as possible, that at Beachley, if the undertaking be not abandoned, work shall be carried on slowly, and that Portbury should not be proceeded with.
  Mr. HOLT: Why should we go on with Chepstow, which everybody knows is on the worst side of the stream?
  Mr. WILSON-FOX: I have not professional knowledge as to the site, but as an amateur I looked at the place and felt it was a reasonable site for the purpose for which it is intended, and therefore I suggested it should be proceeded with. It is very near completion. Ships could be produced very soon, and in the circumstances I think it is well worth while to complete it. If we desire to dispose of it after the War for the purposes of a private enterprise, if would be a yard of reasonable dimensions which could probably be sold, so that the loss on construction might not be very great. These are the reasons which make me think it
  362
  would be better, particularly as a business question, to proceed with the yard at Chepstow. I am afraid that, in the way we are going on now, we are adding unnecessarily to the large menagerie of white elephants we are bound to possess after the War. In the famous case of Loch Doon, which was also inquired into by the Committee of which I am a member, the Ministry for Air took its courage into both hands, killed the elephant, and sold the skin. That is a thing for which they certainly deserve great praise. I hope that some of those other elephants will be treated in the same way, and if we cannot sell them so as to make a profit out of them I trust that the Government will not hesitate to kill them, and if they cannot make a profit out of the skins they may, nevertheless, get something if only from the sale of the horns and hoofs. I simply ask that the Government should consider such suggestions as those which I have made, and that they shall consider them carefully in the light of existing circumstances. I certainly do not propose to follow my hon. Friend into the Division Lobby against the Government.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Neither Lord Pirrie and his staff, nor the First Lord, have reason to complain very much of the volume of this Debate to-day. The tendency of every speech has been, speaking generally, to appreciate the situation with which we were confronted thirteen months ago, and to meet considerately those charged with the very grave responsibility of endeavouring to meet that situation. The First Lord, in his opening statement to-day, recalled to mind the grave and alarming situation which existed when, thirteen months ago, the War Cabinet agreed to a figure representing new merchant tonnage output, the realisation of which was deemed essential if the situation was to be effectually handled. Thanks to the tireless ingenuity of the anti-Submarine Department of the Admiralty and thanks to the pluck of the sailors in putting into execution the expedients against the submarines which the Department devised, we find ourselves to-day confronted with a situation still troublesome, still to be unceasingly watched—and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) in that respect—but not having within it the grave menace of thirteen months ago. I

  363
  ought, before I leave that situation, to remind the Committee that the figure which we had to work to if we were to control the situation was fully concurred in by the Shipping Controller, Sir Joseph Maclay, though it was not he, but the then Controller of the Navy—the post was at that time held by the present First Lord—and his advisers, who told us deliberately that the figure could not be realised without the establishment of the national yards. Broadly, the sense of the Debate to-day has been this: that although we did quite right to take time by the forelock thirteen months ago, although we also did quite right not to let matters drift until they were beyond remedy, and although we did quite right to lay our plans to meet the alarming situation that then confronted us, some critics say, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) amongst them, "These plans should have confined themselves to the development of the private shipbuilding resources of the country." That is one class of criticism. They say, "The plans should not have involved the establishment of the national shipyards." My right hon. Friend has no faith in the national shipyards, but he has great faith in Lord Pirrie. As late as 28th July Lord Pirrie told us:
  "I am decidedly of the opinion, even in the light of all the helpful criticism which has been made, and looking at the question in a more deliberate way than was then possible, the decision taken by the Cabinet was absolutely correct."
  He goes on to say:
  "The necessity for the national shipyards is even of more importance at the present day than in 1917, when it was felt something must be done with a view to furthering production."
  And, finally, he says:
  "In my opinion, the undertaking on its present basis is a wise and prudent undertaking which will be of immense benefit to the country in the continuance of the War."
  I emphasise that because, so far as my right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Lambert) is concerned, it is quite clear that these shipyards will be no manner of use to us during the War. He says, "It is not a war provision; it is not an emergency provision; you will get nothing out of it during the War." Therefore I emphasise the phrase used by the greatest expert in shipbuilding in the country, who says that the scheme has his entire concurrence and that it will be of great use to us in the continuance of the War. My right hon.
  364
  Friend's view is that it will not be of any use during the War, that it will eat up labour—and here he is by no means single in that view—that it will eat up material, and that it will eat up energy which ought to be better employed. As against that I am entitled to quote Lord Pirrie.
  Another form of criticism says in substance—and my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Wilson-Fox) is one of those who use it—"You may have been right, and you probably were right, to meet the situation of thirteen months ago not only by an extension of the existing private shipyards of the country, but also by establishing the national shipyards." As regards the latter, this class of critic says, "The situation having in the event been, happily, appreciably affected for the better, is there any reason for you to continue your national shipyard scheme along the original lines of development?" Further, it is said, "Even if there were good reasons to pursue to the full the original scheme, is not its utility rendered nugatory and barren by the alteration of the labour policy originally contemplated?" I am not taking the slightest exception to these criticisms. As regards both these questions, I think the First Lord answered them by anticipation in his opening remarks. The First Lord showed, and reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT will show hon. Members, that though the situation has happily, and indeed strikingly, developed in our favour, the national yards will still play a very important part in the replacement of tonnage lost as a result of enemy action. And here he has Lord Pirrie with him, as I have shown. On the second point—that, as we have changed our labour policy, the whole bottom falls out of the national shipyards scheme, and that we shall have to draw upon labour which is all too little for the needs of the private yards—the First Lord showed that the possibility of using German-prisoner labour for assembling the ships still remains a policy. We may or may not go on with it. The continued teaching of the Royal Engineers to use pneumatic tools, which has been going on for some time, is still going on. These two facts and the fact that the men are transferred to W Reserve if engaged on ship construction, and the third fact that a smaller proportion of skilled men, comparatively speaking, is required for assembling the ship contemplated than is required for the

  365
  ordinary type of ship, enable us to say that, after all, though we felt compelled to change our labour policy, we shall still be in the position to execute the construction of these ships to a large extent by labour additional and surplus to the labour available for the private yards. As regards the proposition that the proportion of craftsmen will be small, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) was greatly concerned. He pooh-poohed the idea that you can construct a fabricated ship with the small proportion of skilled labour which the First Lord stated. I think he misconceived the plan of Lord Pirrie and of the First Lord. Let we re-state what the First Lord said:
  "I am advised by those experienced shipbuilders who are concerned in the running of the national yards that they look to the day when only four or live really skilled men will be necessary for the plating on each ship."
  He had previously called attention to the continued teaching of the engineers. He said:
  "In recent months, on the initiative of the Admiralty, steps have been taken, with the full accord of the trade unions, to encourage the training of men in pneumatic riveting, and it is by that means that the Comptroller-General assures me that he expects to overcome the difficulty as to the adequacy of skilled labour in the private yards, as well as in the national yards. I wish it to be clearly understood that we are going on with that training."
  An HON. MEMBER: What does he mean exactly by the use of the term "skilled labour"?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will deal with that point later. These men will be transferred to W Reserve and there will be a steady flow of men to W Reserve who have been taught the use of pneumatic tools for riveting and drilling. I think the right hon. Member for Dews-bury rather misunderstood this point.
  Mr. FRANCE: Why cannot the men who have taught riveting be supplied to the other yards in fulfilment of the pledge that they should be served first.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have here a return showing the net increase of men in the private yards during the first six months of this year.
  Mr. FRANCE: For merchant shipbuilding.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The net increase in the private yards not for merchant
  366
  shipbuilding only but additional labour on ship construction and repairs of all kinds from January to June, 1918, was 18,750.
  Colonel COLLINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the present shortage of skilled and unskilled labour in the yards, taking into consideration the seventy-three new slips under construction?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is quite impossible for me to give them offhand. I cannot carry these figures in my head, and if I do not give them precisely I may be charged with having mis-stated the facts. I will not do that.
  Colonel COLLINS: Has the right hon. Gentleman or has he not made any estimate of the present shortage and the potential shortage before the seventy-three slips under construction are finished?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not an estimate with me, and it would be far better if the hon. and gallant Member would put his question down and I will do my best to answer it. As regards slips extensions, how can I tell what number of men will ultimately be necessary for them, or how much they will be each? We have got eighty-seven new berths sanctioned. Up to the 30th June seventeen of these were fully completed, and a further nine are 80 per cent. completed. How can I say how many men will be required, and when they will be wanted? So much for the general question. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Moulton asked three questions. The first was what tonnage output will be given by the national shipyards within the next two years. It is quite impossible to say. To use the phrase of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Alexander Richardson), in a powerful and highly-informed maiden speech, to which we all listened with great pleasure, if not with complete agreement, "It is ships we want, and it does not matter when or how we get them." My right hon. Friend heard that Lord Pirrie hoped to lay the first keel in about a month's time in the national yards, and that the other slipways will gradually come into production about one every third week, as is considered desirable. But, of course, we want expedition; and it may be more expeditious to mark time at any given moment. I cannot say. If the nation's necessities at the moment can be more rapidly met by the private yard

  367
  my right hon. Friend cannot object, because he is all for the private yards and all against the national yards, To give an illustration of the difficulty of saying what would be the amount produced during the next two years I may refer the right hon. Gentleman to an answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Greenock.
  "The hon. Member asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what priority is given for machines and material required for the national shipyards; and what priority is given for machines and material in private shipyards?"
  In reply, I said:
  "The class of priority given for machines and material for use in the shipyards varies with the date at which such machinery and material is required. No preference is given to the national yards in the supply of plant or material. On the contrary, it has always been, and always will be, the rule that orders for plant for private yards shall receive priority both as to machinery and material over orders placed for the national yards—"
  This is the point I want to emphasise, which shows how impossible it is to forecast these matters—
  "in fact, cases have occurred where machinery was ordered and built for the national yards, and such machinery has been diverted to the private yard."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Monday, 29th July, 1918, col. 53.]
  How can I say what they will be doing at any particular moment?
  My right hon. Friend asked me what is to be the after-war policy of these yards. I suppose when he asked that he forgot the answer which I gave on the 15th November, 1917, to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell). I was asked if I could state the policy of the Government as to whether it is intended to continue to work the new national shipyards as a national enterprise after the War or whether it is proposed that they should be disposed of as soon as the present emergency is over. The answer given is the answer to the question put to-day by my right hon. Friend:
  "I am glad my hon. Friend has asked this question as it enables me to define more closely and to correct in some respects the reply I gave yesterday to a similar question which he then put as supplementary to a question on the Paper. The necessity which led up to the construction of national shipyards is essentially bound up in the urgent requirements for merchant shipping consequent on the present War, and until this emergency is over the Government is unable to give any definite assurance as to the policy to be pursued in connection with these yards after the conclusion of hostilities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1917, col. 578, Vol. 99.]
  368
  The hon. Member for North Leeds (Sir R. Barran), the hon. Members for Morley (Mr. France) and Tamworth (Mr. Wilson), put the position, "In view of the altered conditions, do you want to go forward with these national yards on the original scale? Can you give an assurance that you will cut down, if not entirely, at least in part, the original proposal?" On behalf of the Government, the Admiralty, and the Controller-General, I may point out the situation may develop for the better or it may develop for the worse. We shall have to meet it as it arises, and we shall meet it, as far as our ability and knowledge permit us, with promptitude, efficiency, and, I hope, with due regard to the charge on the public purse. Beyond that I can give no further assurance.
  One other point. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Greenock said that it had been suggested to him—he did not associate himself with it—that there are men at the Admiralty who are hostile to trade unions. I was extremely sorry to hear that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who know the relations between Lord Pirrie and his men know that they are of the most cordial character. So far as I am concerned, responsible as I am generally to the Board of Admiralty for labour, I spend very much of my time meeting trade union representatives, many of whom, I am proud to know, are my personal friends. I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Ham (Colonel Thorne) for the testimony he has paid to that effect. The third question of my right hon. Friend was, What is your additional housing scheme going to cost? On that it is my duty, as Financial Secretary, to deal, as far as I can, with the finance involved in the undertaking generally. The expenditure sanctioned by the Treasury on the 6th February, 1918, was the gross sum of £4,082,329. But there is a credit of £195,000, the residual value of contractors' plant, which will be available for other work on the completion of the shipyards. The net amount of the estimate sanctioned, therefore—a figure which is very familiar and which is quoted in the seventh paragraph of the Fourth Report of the Select Committee—was £3,887,329. But it is also stated in that paragraph that that figure is exclusive of the cost of the land and the compensation to be paid to the Standard Shipbuilding Company, which, as the Committee knows,

  369
  includes the taking over of Finch's shipbuilding yard. In the Debate on the 10th July I said that I hoped to be in a position to state to-day that both those matters had been disposed of, and that I could give precise figures to which we should be committed over and above the estimate to which I have referred. Negotiations are not completed, and although I am anxious to give the Committee in the fullest possible manner a statement of the over-all commitments on the whole of the undertakings involved, it is manifestly impossible for me to do so, or to mention anything in regard to the negotiations about these matters. Of the original gross estimate of £4,082,329, we have incurred liabilities up to the 30th of June to the extent, roughly, of £3,150,000. As I explained to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Greenock, on the 17th July, of the liabilities we have liquidated, roughly, £1,340,000. On the original gross estimate, so I am advised, we have still at our disposal, roughly, about £900,000.
  10.0 P.M.
  There have been some modifications of the original estimate, however. We originally proposed to construct a wet basin at Beachley, the estimate being £557,486. That work is included in the original estimate. Lord Pirrie advised the adoption of the Portishead Dock for fitting out, and this will mean a net saving of something like £400,000. As regards housing, there was originally proposed housing accommodation for soldiers and others who would be employed in the national shipyards, and that was estimated at the figure of £320,110 for hutting accommodation. As I tried to explain on 10th July we shall not require all that hutting accommodation because of the change of policy under which a number of married men will require accommodation for their families. That saving on house accommodation amounts to £120,000, leaving a saving, together with the saving by the adoption of the Portishead dock, of £520,000. But, on the other hand, there remains the additional accommodation for the men and their families as the result of the changed labour policy. We estimate that we shall require for these yards 10,000 workmen, and the hutting accommodation we have already got would enable us to house 7,500 civilian workmen, therefore there remains 2,500 men to provide for. Cottage
  370
  provision is contemplated for 2,080 of these men and their families, and that involves an additional expenditure estimated at £1,282,500. There would still be 420 to be accounted for, and we think that probably they would be accommodated as lodgers, and the new housing expenditure is estimated at £1,282,500, as I say. If we abate this figure by the saving of £520,000, we get a net additional expenditure of £762,500. That figure has to be added to the original estimate, plus the cost of the land and the standard shipbuilding property. I think this makes the story complete. I have only one other word to say, and that is as regards the Royal dockyards. I have been associated with the Royal dockyards for many years, and many of the employés I claim as personal friends. I wish to pay a tribute on behalf of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Board, to the men of the Royal dockyards, who were so generously referred to by the hon. Member for South-West Ham earlier in the Debate, for the devotion and the loyalty with which they have met the long strain of the War, and I thank them on behalf of the Admiralty, of this Committee, and of the country, for their loyal services. I think I may now ask the Committee to give us the Vote.
  Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury) rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Sir R. BARRAN: I do not propose to press my Amendment to a Division, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £900, be granted for the said Service," put accordingly, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.
    SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC.—Matériel.
    8. Sec. 2. Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Matériel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919."
    SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC.—Contract Work.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919."

    SECRET SERVICES.—Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £650,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £500,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."—[NOTE: £350,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I wish to give the Government one chance more. This Government are singular for many things, some of which we think desperately criminal. Perhaps history may take a more sinister view of it, but I wish that this Government should not go down to posterity as a Government "that loveth and maketh the spy." This sum of £500,000 is a sum asked for deliberately for the odious purpose of nursing that hotbed of trouble, the spy. As so very little is known of this system I would like to give the outlines in two or three sentences of the Secret Service Fund. In almost the first enactment in any reign, the Statute fixing the Civil List, the sum of £10,000 is charged on the Consolidated Fund for secret service at home. All other sums that have to be charged for any secret service at home or abroad have to be voted by this House. Already this House has voted the enormous sum of £500,000 for the Secret Service, and it is now asked to vote £500,000 more in one year. Some thirty years ago I read an expression of astonishment that in one year—in 1887—the Secret Service Vote had been increased by £30,000, but it is now increased in one year by £1,000,000. So long as there is secret diplomacy secret service is absolutely necessary; but what I would ask is this, that some information should be given to us as to how much of this large sum is appropriated to and spent in Ireland as distinct from the sums spent in the ordinary improper, though necessary, work of the Secret Service. Some few years ago this concession was
    372
    made. It was customary for the Secret Service to give in gratuities large sums of money to ex-officials, but since 1886 every Minister has on his honour, in disposing of the Secret Service Fund, to say that it is disposed of in a way that he considers proper. I must say one word to the House about a matter which is not generally known. On a separate Vote a sum which used to be £500 a year, now £300 a year, is given to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to distribute amongst the secret agents of this country in foreign lands. I may, perhaps, be able on some future occasion to enlarge upon that, but on the present occasion I wish only to direct my attention to the agents provocateurs who are now at work in Ireland, more actively than they have ever been at work before.
    The agent provocateur is produced, from my reading of Irish history, under these circumstances. We have, let it be taken for granted, a reactionary Government in power. As against a reactionary Government there comes a constitutional agitation. The reactionary Government promises to the constitutional agitation all that they desire. It raises their hopes to the highest and then it dashes them to the ground, and in despair of any constitutional agitation the younger and the more ardent spirits are hired into unconstitutional courses, and from these courses there come outrages, and then the reactionary Government can say, "Look at the outrages that are occurring! How can we grant measures of reform, however willing we may be to do so?" But it can be proved that in all these outrages in England and in Ireland, which have been the distinct result of the selfish denial of popular rights, the persons who have committed these outrages have been agents of the Government, paid by Government money, and in distinct and absolute and direct communication with Ministers of the Crown, and the men who are led to these courses have had the agony of seeing the spy who incited them to outrage, who told them what to do, who made public speeches, who said, as one spy said, that he had 150,000 men who would march on London—they have had the agony of seeing the spy in the witness-box against them. That occurs in your own country, and it was a constant thing for thirty years in your own country, until the Reform Bill came in. I will mention three names. There was a man named

    373
    Castle, who was a spy in the pay of the Government, who bore witness against the very men he had incited. Another man named Donovan was just as bad. But Edwards was the worst of all. He planned that the whole Cabinet should be murdered. He arranged the plan, he brought people into it, and he, Edwards, was saved and preserved, having brought to the block Thistlewood and others of his accomplices, and lived on the pay of the Government out of the Secret Service Fund for twenty-nine years after that occurrence. That has occurred in England, and that has been the effect in England of having a Secret Service Fund with reactionary Governments who are anxious to destroy constitutional movements and then, by disturbance and bloodshed and insurrection, to carry out their wishes.
    That occurred in England when the Government throve on spies for thirty years from 1798 until the Reform Bill came, and then it was smashed up, but it has the full prosperity of a green bay tree in Ireland to-day, and what they are doing in Ireland is only in accordance with the ordinary practice of the country, or rather of the Castle. I will just give, from the various Irish insurrectionary movements, one representative fact from each which will show what I mean. I will take first the insurrectionary movement of 1798, which was a constitutional agitation, about to succeed, with promises made by the Government which they intended to destroy and to withdraw. Then the unconstitutional agitation began, and there came in the savage, devilish spy in order to incite them to outrage, and paid by Dublin Castle. Of all the circumstances of 1798, the judicial murders were the worst, and will it be believed that the counsel who defended the Irish political prisoners, who was trusted by the leaders of the Irish party for thirty years, was in the pay of the Government betraying his clients to them? That man's name was MacNally, and his papers and letters, no fewer than 150 letters, are in Dublin Castle to-day, showing his treachery and falsehood. His briefs are preserved in the Castle, showing the place where he betrayed his clients, and in connection with that an interesting thing occurred in a comparatively recent trial. Two English Law Officers of the Crown had to consider the various cases in reference to high treason in order to arrange and settle the method of procedure in the trial. One of them, an Englishman and a very clever
    374
    man, looking over these reports of Irish cases, said, "I cannot understand it. These men were being defended with admirable ingenuity, and then something suddenly occurs to give the case away. "Don't you know," said the other Law Officer, an Irishman, "that this fellow was bribed?" "I cannot," he said, "believe it." And very properly, and I believe that that is the sole case in Ireland where that devilish practice occurred and that abomination to the Bar was employed. But how are the Government to be considered, and how is every judge who sat on the Bench to be thought of in history, when they knew that the man defending the prisoners at the Bar was secretly betraying their cause for Government money? For eighteen months before the insurrection of 1798 a man named McGann was an eager United Irishman. He was betraying the secrets of the party, and of the leaders of the movement, to the Government, while he was most vehement in proposing the most drastic action on their part.
    These secrets were known, and his arrangement was to go to the people on behalf of the Government in order to carry the Union through. These things cannot be denied. They are too terrible almost to be repeated. By easy transition I now come from 1798 to the next great insurrectionary movement in Ireland in 1848. In the insurrectionary movement of that year there was a man named Barney Malone, who was all for bloodshed. He presented the leaders of the Irish party, and at that time of the Irish insurrectionary party, including the father of my hon. Friend who sits beside me (Mr. Dillon) and Sir John Grey, complete plans of how they could seize Dublin Castle. He was very anxious that that should be done, and that strong measures should be at once taken. Sir John Grey discovered that Barney Malone had had documents which proved that he was in the pay of Dublin Castle from 1798 to 1848, when he was at the same fell work of driving and goading them into insurrection. That was the horrible story. Sir John Grey had an interview with Barney Malone, and invited him to breakfast, and gradually brought himself on to politics and to insurrection, and then began to ask Barney Malone certain questions. He was discomfited, and then at length he produced the document, and the grovelling wretch was there praying for his life, wretched himself, but not

    375
    more wretched than the fell agents by whom he developed his scheme. Now I come to 1867. Two of the most prominent agents provocateurs were Corydon and Massey. They were both in the employ of the Government. They both urged crime, and they were denounced by the judges on the bench, one of them as a danger to Dublin and to European society. In 1867, too, there was one case of a man named Talbot, who had been head constable in the Irish Constabulary. There was a secret conspiracy, and he swore men in by the hundred until altogether over 1,500 were sworn in by this man. He was a Protestant, and in order to inspire greater faith in the men, he actually partook of the sacred Holy Communion of the Roman Catholic Church. What that means to us as Protestants is very terrible, but what it means to Roman Catholics is a depth of iniquity and of blasphemy almost inconceivable. All this cannot be denied. It cannot be counter-said.
    Now I come to the dynamite time, The agent provocateur was a man named Jim MacDermott. He was from first to last in the pay of the Government. It is by telling you these things that I can best explain why, when I see £500 given over for which there is no account, I feel so very aggrieved and so very sorry, and so terror-stricken, as to what will happen in Ireland where to-day the place is honeycombed with agents provocateurs from Dublin Castle. The police have always been used to the job. Some of us recollect a man who, seventeen years ago, pleaded guilty to a charge of murder, because a police spy was prosecuting him who actually committed the murder himself, and I believe with the knowledge of some of the agents of Dublin Castle. I challenge contradiction of these things. For one case I have produced, it is no exaggeration to say, I could produce twenty. I want to be perfectly above board in this—it is almost an insult to say it—that I believe the heads of the Government know nothing about it. It is kept from them. Possibly they shut their eyes to disagreeable things. But what I do say is that Dublin Castle at the present moment is a sink of iniquity. Some crimes are committed through the agency of Dublin Castle in order to destroy the Constitutional movement. Some angry speeches are delivered by men who are themselves in the pay of Government, in
    376
    order to drive people into insurrection to destroy the Constitutional movement, of which they are afraid.
    I have one other word to say I would rather not say, but the late Mr. John Blake Dillon was one of the leaders of the insurrectionary movement in 1848. At a time when Irish politics were very, very different, he was greatly beloved by men of a completely different type from himself. There came to the leaders of the insurrection—the incident was told by Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, who was one of them, in his Memoirs—a gentleman, who said, "Come on; we must have blood! We must impress the popular imagination. Whether we win or fall, we must die gloriously fighting the British troops!" Mr. John Blake Dillon did not take that advice very enthusiastically, and reproved and rebuked this fellow. When the insurrection broke out, although Mr. John Blake Dillon did not approve of it, the adviser who wanted blood was in the lower library of the Law Courts, and afterwards held a judicial position. With this establishment in Dublin, where every person with popular feeling has been exiled, where we know that the old machinations of Dublin Castle are as rife to-day as in 1798, I would be unworthy of my duty if I did not call the attention of the House to one of the greatest and most terrible scandals that ever disgraced administration.
    Mr. DILLON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
    Everybody will admit that, in so far as the Secret Service of this country is concerned, whatever the responsible Government demands must be given. I believe the Secret Service of this country, in contrast with other countries, is very efficient, but in a great country which spares no sum on its spies and system of spies, we all frankly admit that, whatever the responsible Government says is necessary for the Secret Service of the country, must be voted by Parliament. But I think we are entitled to know how much of this money goes to Ireland, and I do ask the Government to separate the foreign Secret Service of this country from the home Secret Service, and give us some indication of what is sent to Ireland. We are now entering upon, I deeply regret to say, a wholly fresh chapter in Irish history. We all listened with painful feelings—at least, I did—to the speech yesterday

    377
    of the Chief Secretary. It was reminiscent of the very worst days that I have passed through in the history of Ireland. One might have been listening to poor old Mr. William Forster in the early days of the Land League—only it was worse in the spirit that it showed. We are now under a military government. We have no responsibility whatever. I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chief Secretary has no power in dealing with the section of the money that is going to Ireland—how much we do not know, and we ought to know—because it should be separated altogether from the foreign Secret Service account.
    There is another question. My hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken has stated a fact that I myself did not know till the other day that the foreign Secret Service of this country is, or was—
    Mr. MacNEILL: Is!
    Mr. DILLON: Is under the control of the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office. If I was not concerned with my own country at the moment I should have a good deal to say on that point, for I consider the Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs is wholly incompetent to deal with this matter. This money ought to be under the control of some very competent person. I pass from that and contrast the fact that while we know who is controlling the distribution of the vast Secret Service funds of this country we do not in the least know, or can only guess, who is controlling the distribution in Ireland. Is it the Chief Secretary? Is it the Lord Lieutenant? Somebody must be responsible. Is it Major Price? This is a very serious matter for us. We have passed through stormy times in Ireland. Some of us in the past have been faced with imminent danger to our lives by the operations of this Secret Service Fund. My hon. and learned Friend has related one anecdote—a perfectly true story. I will relate an anecdote in reference to myself, as to the Secret Service Fund of this country, when the Land League was busy, and when that money was used by the Government of that day to suborn men to swear that I had organised a conspiracy in Clare to get a man murdered. The agent who worked that plot was brought up in the Court in Clare, and put into the witness box; he was examined by the police. He gave evidence that he was
    378
    present at a meeting of one of the secret societies which were then rampant in Ireland, and that it was there and then agreed, under the circumstances stated, to carry out the murder. He said that the circumstance which decided him to go on with the murder was that one of the young men present said that he had Mr. Dillon's special instructions to carry out this murder. This man was put into the box, and my life was in imminent danger. The counsel defending the prisoner had got a dossier of the gentleman in the box, and on cross-examination it was proved and admitted that this man in the box had been in the pay of the police for several years, that he had been convicted over and over again of the most scandalous crimes, including unnatural crime; but that the police still kept him in their pay. On the night on which the murder was planned the police had sent him out to plan it, and had paid him. They then went on patrol duty, and found him lying drunk in the gutter with the money which they had paid him to go out and plan the murder. They picked up, washed him, and put him to bed until he was sober, and then sent him out again to plan the murder. What happened? The police and their agent were waiting in a house. The police rushed from behind the door, and in the struggle which ensued, the head constable was killed who had planned the whole iniquity. It was a judgment of God on him. Afterwards the whole of that iniquity came out—that this was a deliberate plot. This was done by the Secret Service. They tried to take my father's life, and they tried to take my life and the life of many of my colleagues in days gone by. It is only two years ago since Major Price attempted to take our lives in connection with the rebellion of 1916—for crimes of which we were far more innocent than the men sitting on the Treasury Bench. Is this money to be ladled out without any check whatever in the troublous times before us in Ireland. So far as the sub-agents of Dublin Castle are concerned they do not care about the War, because their war is at home and against us. They are quite prepared to stir up insurrection, and they are doing it to-day, so long as they can discredit us and the constitutional movement which they hate and fear. Ireland to-day is honeycombed with spies, and many of the worst raids for arms and cattle drives and disturbances are carried out by the Government's

    379
    own agents, and by this money we are called upon to vote to-night. We are in for terrible times in Ireland. It may be that we are in for another insurrection. In 1798, and again in 1848, and again in 1867, the agents of the Government were the inciters of insurrection in Ireland. Therefore, at a time like this it is no wonder that we are anxious about this question of the Secret Service, and the least we can ask is that some man should be named who is responsible for the distribution of this money, so that we may be able to examine whether he is a man of honour with whom the lives and reputations of political men are safe, and we should know what is the sum placed at his disposal as part of the general Secret Service, so that we may be able to place some check on this scandalous system of agents provocateurs—a system which brought Russia to ruin, which has disgraced your system in Ireland for one hundred years, and which was killed by the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Birrell), and for which he was denounced, but which has been revived, and is now in full blast in Ireland, and which is a disgrace to any civilised country. No civilised country has a right to do what you have done in Ireland for one hundred years, namely, to supplement spies by agents provocateurs.
    Mr. BALDWIN: There is no Member who has had a longer or wider Parliamentary experience than the hon. Member who has just spoken, and it is a curious coincidence that almost twenty years ago, to the very night, he rose in his place and made a very similar speech to the one that he has delivered this evening in moving to reduce the Secret Supplementary Vote of £13,000 by £10,000, on the grounds that £3,000 would be a sufficient sum to grant, and that the Secret Service money was being expended in Ireland for the stirring up of crime and for the maintenance of the agents provocateurs. The first speech which followed came from Sir Charles Dilke, who opposed the reduction on the ground that the amount of the Vote for Secret Service in this country was not nearly enough for our needs compared with the sums spent by other countries on the Continent of Europe. The House knows, as well as the hon. Member and I know, what is the difficulty in a Debate on this question. If the hon. Member wished to attack the administration, or maladministration of the law in Ireland, an opportunity for a reply would
    380
    have been given on any of the Irish Votes, but he explained the position on the Secret Service Vote during the Debate in words far better chosen than any words that I could use, and they really sum up the whole case. He said:
    "As I understand, we have no power over the Secret Service Fund, and the Secretary to the Treasury appears to have no more power than we have. I do not believe that the Secretary to the Treasury knows how this money has been spent. It has been expended by the Foreign Office and the Home Office, but the Secretary to the Treasury has no knowledge how much has been expended by either office."
    These words are as true to-day as when he uttered them twenty years ago. I would like to remind the House and the hon. Members who have spoken—and this is really all that I have to say upon the subject—of two very important facts. One has been expressed by every one who has stood at this box, including the late Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is a Secret Service Fund, and the House of Commons, by the mere fact that it sanctions the Grant of a Secret Service Fund, abrogates its right to inquire into the disposition of that fund. The House is perfectly free to meet the Vote by a direct negative, and, if it disapproves of the expenditure of Secret Service money, to say so and to stop it; but, if it sanctions the expenditure of Secret Service money, it has done all that it can do. In the second place, I would remind the House that it is quite impossible for Secret Service money to be spent by this or that man on any scheme that may commend itself to him. Every payment has to be voucher for both to the satisfaction of the Treasury and the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
    Mr. DILLON: I thought that the Treasury knew nothing about it.
    Mr. BALDWIN: They knew nothing about how it is expended. The Minister, the head of the Department, is the person who has cognisance of how the money is spent; and he alone is responsible.
    Mr. DILLON: Would the hon. Gentleman kindly tell me who is responsible for the expenditure of this money in Ireland? That is the question I want to have answered.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have no knowledge whether any of the money is spent in Ireland or not. I only say that no money can be spent anywhere without the authority

    381
    of the responsible Minister for the Department controlling whatever part of the realm it may be in which the money is spent. I am quite sure that the Committee as a whole feels now, as it always has felt, sufficient confidence in the men who are at the head of the great Departments in this country, whatever may be the politics of the Government in power, to trust them to see that nothing is done which they do not consider necessary in the interests of the country. With reference to the amount of the Vote, it would be of interest to the Committee to remember that, though this Vote is granted each year during the War, when you consider what the extent of the War is to-day and the extent of the interests of this country, I do not think the amount the Government are asking for is an excessive one, because the Vote we are taking to-night only brings the total expenditure up to £1,000,000, a sum which we hope may be sufficient to carry us through the whole financial year. If it should not be, it may be necessary to introduce a small Supplementary Estimate before the end of the year. The Committee will realise that it is impossible for me to add anything to what I have said. If we should be asked to go to a Division—and there have been Divisions on this matter before; there was one on the occasion to which I alluded when I began my remarks—I hope the Committee will give support to this Vote for which I am now asking.
    Mr. DILLON: The hon. Gentleman really has utterly failed to answer any single question I put to him. I did not quarrel with the size of the Vote. I specifically said that in war-time we were bound to vote all the money the Government wants for the Secret Service. The hon. Gentleman dealt with my speech as if I was remonstrating on the size of the Vote. I asked him to separate what is going to Ireland from the general Secret Service, and to tell us who is the man who has control of this Secret Service in Ireland. When he slides off and says that we have confidence in the heads of the great Departments of State that they will do nothing that is unnecessary, I reply that he has not been able to contradict the fact that the system of paying agents-provocateurs has been in practice in Ireland for a hundred years. We are now in troublous times in Ireland, and we are entitled to ask the Government, Do they
    382
    intend to adhere to that system and do they approve of that system? The hon. Gentleman had not a single word to say in defence of that system. We want to know who is the man who controls the money that goes to Ireland, and how much goes to Ireland. If that man be a man known to us and on whom we can fix the responsibility, that may be some slight comfort to us, but at present we have no knowledge. It may be some subordinate official. I believe it is a subordinate official. I do not believe, for instance, that Lord French goes into the details of this Secret Service in Ireland. I am quite sure the Chief Secretary does not, because he would not have the knowledge to do it. How in the name of goodness could he handle Secret Service money? He would not know the agents. It must be some individual who is acquainted with the dark places and the dubious characters of Irish life and has all the threads in his hands. We want to know who it is. It is a most scandalous thing. We must bring it up again and again. If unknown sums of this Secret Service are to be placed in the hands of irresponsible officials they may, in the course of the next six months, produce a condition of things where no man's life or reputation will be safe if he is obnoxious to Dublin Castle.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I desire to tell the Committee at once that I am the person responsible for the Secret Service in Ireland. There is no underling who is able to spend Secret Service money in Ireland at his own discretion. There is not, and has not been, since I knew anything about it, any agent-provocateur or anything approaching to it in Ireland. What there may have been in the past I do not know and am not answerable for. I protest against the constant attacks upon an hon. gentleman and a faithful and loyal public servant, who is not able to protect himself—I mean Major Price. Hon. Members are attacking him regularly. He cannot answer for himself, and they know it. He has very delicate and difficult work to do, and he does it loyally and honourably, and I emphasise the word honourably. He cannot defend himself, and I intend to defend him.
    An HON. MEMBER: You know nothing about him!
    Mr. SHORTT: I know a great deal more about him than hon. Members if they are really saying what they believe. If they know him as I know him they do not believe what they say about him. I do not know which it is. The amount of Secret Service money which is spent in Ireland is very small.
    An HON. MEMBER: How much?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am not going to say one word on that subject. Hon. Members below the Gangway need not think they are going to tempt me into indiscretions. I am the person responsible. I know how it is spent. No underling spends it without my knowledge. There is no such thing in Ireland to-day as an agent-provocateur, and there will not be.
    An HON. MEMBER: I do not believe it!
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not care about that. I state what I know to be a fact. I protest against attacks upon a man who cannot defend himself, and is as honourable and upright a public servant as exists in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. DEVLIN: We have had a demonstration to-night of the passion that animates the new Chief Secretary for Ireland. He is fevered with the praise which has been levelled at him by the coercion journals in this country. There is nothing more delectable in the public life of England when the reactionary forces are fervent than to find an ex-Liberal doing the worst work of the reactionaries of this country, and therefore covered with praise, and coming to-night to the House of Commons, with the laurel wreaths which have been placed upon his head for the insults which he levelled at Ireland and her representatives yesterday. He comes here to-night to make a declaration which is precisely the same sort of declaration which was made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) when he was Chief Secretary and by Mr. Wyndham when he was Chief Secretary. The late right hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham), when he was Chief Secretary, declared that there was no agent provocateur at the time of Sergeant Sheridan's case. Mr. Wyndham was an upright and honourable man who really believed what he said in this House, that there was no agent provocateur, yet he was compelled to admit subsequently that Sergeant Sheridan himself had been committing the crimes for which he sent so many Irish persons to
    384
    penal servitude. This statement by Mr. Wyndham was made by a man who had not only had extensive experience of Dublin Castle as official Parliamentary Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Colonies, but he also had long experience as Chief Secretary himself, yet with all his extensive experience he was never so loud in protesting against the allegations of the existence of agents provocateurs as the right hon. Gentleman who has been in Ireland only about six weeks, who had never been in Ireland until he went over to assist the Government there, and yet who now talks as if he knew every devious path in that country and was able to speak almost with pontifical authority on everything that occurs there. He was very angry with what he said about Major Price. Apparently he is not aware of the statement of a professor of the National University of Ireland that during the time of the Rebellion he went into a man's cell and offered him his liberty if he would make an allegation against my hon. Friend and myself. Of course we have no means of determining whether that statement is true or not, but it made such an impression on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, the man who put him there as the gramophone for the reactionaries of Ireland, that the present Prime Minister told me the best thing was to clear Major Price out of Dublin Castle. For some reason or other, which I fail to comprehend, this man has such a sinister influence in the Castle that he is able to inspire with more than legal enthusiasm the right hon. Gentleman, who comes down here with such violent protestations in his defence. It is the same old story. These men have always found defenders on that bench. I suggest the right hon. Gentleman would be better occupied if he were to engage in the task of clearing out Dublin Castle.
    Mr. DILLON: That would be too big a task for anyone.
    Mr. DEVLIN: In clearing out Dublin Castle whose chief officer is Major Price. Dublin Castle which the late Prime Minister declared was an outrage upon civilised Government when he came over here after the Rebellion and declared that it had broken down. Dublin Castle and its instruments which he comes here so readily to defend. This Liberal from Newcastle-on-Tyne, this gentleman who has been put into the Government to

    385
    temper the Toryism of the Coalition; this gentleman who is the spokesman of the militarist Government in Ireland, lectures us upon our duty to our own country and to the State. He does that in reference to the representatives of a nation which he was sent over to govern and which he has governed for six weeks.
    An HON. MEMBER: He is a Home Ruler.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Of course, he is a Home Ruler We all know what lawyers are. It is good policy. There is not a more ingenious politician than the Prime Minister. He cannot bring the hon. Member for—is it Manchester? Well, never mind where he sits for. He is a defender of all bad causes. In fact, he could not successfully defend a good cause, and it would not be the game to bring him over, because everybody there would understand it. This is where the political genius of the Prime Minister comes in. He selects a Liberal lawyer to defend all the monstrosities of Dublin Castle, and then the right hon. Gentleman gets up and talks, about Home Rule. His services to Home Rule has been to tell the House of Commons and the constituents who sent us here, and the Irish vote that secured him election to this House, that Home Rule with him is an academic theory. It was a matter of practical politics when he stood on the hustings at Newcastle-on-Tyne. It was merely an academic theory. He can afford to bring his academic theories as a sort of cloak for the reaction which he defends in the House of Commons. That is precisely the position of the right hon. Gentleman. He need not think that he will succeed in this any more than any of his predecessors. It would be far better for us to have an honest Tory. The late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr.Duke)
    was a genuine Unionist and Tory. [Laughter.] I do not see why there should be laughter. You need not laugh at a Tory simply because he is honest. I know a large number of Tories in this House who are honest. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Captain Stanley Wilson), who is always engaged in the intellectual pursuit of interrupting all sensible men, is one of the honestest men in this House. I say to the Coalition Government that it is quite possible that most of the honest men in the Coalition are Tories; therefore it would be far better for Ireland, and it would be far more decent and honourable for us, to have a Tory Chief Secretary for Ireland. They could then say to us, as they said in the old days, "We are not dealing with a civilised race; the Irish are Hottentots." That would be frank. That was Lord Salisbury's declaration. It was to put the Hottentot idea into operation that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies was made Chief Secretary. Then we knew where we were. But a Liberal comes along—a Liberal who votes against coercion and puts it into operation, who votes against Conscription and then tells us it is inevitable, and he comes to the House of Commons and makes it a stage upon which he shows how transient and changeable are his opinions and how inconsistency in politics is the highest form of virtue.
    It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £649,000, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 173.

    Division No. 78.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Molloy, Michael

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Muldoon, John

    Cosgrave, James (Galway, E.)

    Keating, Matthew

    Nolan, Joseph

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

    Cullinan, John

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Dowd, John

    Devlin, Joseph

    King, Joseph

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Dillon, John

    Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

    Reddy, Michael

    Donnelly, Patrick

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Duffy, William J.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sheehy, David

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Tillet, Benjamin

    Field, William

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

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Fitzgibbon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hackett, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

    Mr. Boland and Mr. Doris

    Harbison, T. J. S.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Altrincham)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Allen, Arthur A (Dumbartonshire)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Haslam, Lewis

    Pratt, John W.

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City London)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

    Barnett, Capt. Richard W.

    Hibbert, Sir Henry

    Pulley, C. T.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Hinds, John

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

    Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Renuall, Athelstan

    Bird, Alfred

    Hope, Lt-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Boles, Lt.-Col. Fortescue

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Roberts, Sir Herbert (Denbighs.)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith

    Jessel, Colonel Sir Herbert M.

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Boyton, Sir James

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

    Royds, Major Edmund

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

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

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Samuels, Arthur W. (Dub. U.)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Butcher, Sir J. G.

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G.

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

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

    Shortt, Edward

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Stanler, Capt. Sir Beville

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

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Staveley-Hill, Lt.-Col. Henry

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Stoker, R. B.

    Collins, Sir William (Derby)

    McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. R. C. A.

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

    Colvin, Col.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Coote, William (Tyrone, S.)

    M'Laren, Hon. H. (Leics., Bosworth)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Cotton, H. E. A.

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

    Tootill, Robert

    Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, E.)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James Ian

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Walker, Colonel W. H.

    Currie, G. W.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

    Weston, John W.

    Du Pre, Maj. W. B.

    Meysey-Thompson, Col. E. C.

    Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, South)

    Wilson, Capt, A. Stanley (York)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

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

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)

    Fletcher, John S.

    Needham, Christopher Thomas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

    Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield)

    Winfrey, Sir R.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Nicholson, Sir Chas, N. (Doncaster)

    Worthington-Evans, Major Sir L.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Younger, Sir George

    Gretton. John

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Parkes, Sir Edward

    Lord Edmund Talbot and Capt, F. Guest.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Pease, Rt. Hon. H. P. (Darlington)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    The Chairman then proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No 15, to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Services Estimates, and of the other outstanding Votes, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy and the Army, and the Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1918–19.—Class I.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £598,298, be granted His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    11.

    Surveys of the United Kingdom

    2,650

    12.

    Harbours under the Board of Trade

    1,963

    389

    £

    13.

    Peterhead Harbour

    5,943

    14.

    Rates on Government Property

    442,000

    15.

    Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

    104,400

    16.

    Railways, Ireland

    41,342

    £598,298"

    Class II.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,443,763, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    1.

    House of Lords Offices

    24,567

    2.

    House of Commons

    194,898

    2A.

    War Cabinet

    6,000

    3.

    Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    74,895

    7.

    Privy Council Office

    5,789

    8A.

    Overseas Trade Department

    64,297

    9.

    Mercantile Marine Services

    60,887

    10.

    Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

    4

    12.

    Charity Commission

    15,848

    13.

    Government Chemist

    14,024

    14.

    Civil Service Commission

    19,992

    14A.

    Conciliation and Arbitration Board

    894

    15.

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    39,356

    16.

    Friendly Societies Registry

    13,642

    18.

    Board of Control, England

    75,694

    19.

    The Mint

    25

    20.

    National Debt Office

    7,471

    21.

    Public Record Office

    12,550

    22.

    Public Works Loan Commission

    7,050

    23.

    Registrar General's Office, England

    27,535

    24.

    Stationery and Printing

    370,734

    25.

    Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues

    11,567

    Scotland.

    33.

    Local Government Board

    61,537

    390

    £

    Ireland.

    34.

    Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland

    2,104

    35.

    Chief Secretary for Ireland

    13,277

    36.

    Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction

    84,464

    37.

    Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

    932

    38.

    Congested Districts Board for Ireland

    105,750

    39.

    Local Government Board

    78,022

    40.

    Public Record Office

    3,807

    41.

    Public Works Office

    21,890

    42.

    Registrar-General's Office

    8,037

    43.

    Valuation and Boundary Survey

    16,224

    £1,443,763."

    Class III.
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,606,450, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    1.

    Law Charges

    24,675

    2.

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    10,704

    3.

    Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal

    157,215

    4.

    Land Registry

    21,876

    5.

    Public Trustee

    5

    6.

    County Courts

    103,757

    8.

    Prisons, England and the Colonies

    274,130

    9.

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

    243,243

    10.

    Criminal Lunatic Asylums, England

    32,671

    Scotland.

    11.

    Law Charges and Courts of Law

    46,319

    12.

    Scottish Land Court

    4,186

    13.

    Register-House, Edinburgh

    27,368

    14.

    Prisons

    48,035

    391

    £

    Ireland.

    15.

    Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

    34,296

    16.

    Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments

    67,050

    17.

    Irish Land Commission

    483,897

    18.

    County Court Officers, etc.

    60,112

    19.

    Dublin Metropolitan Police

    50,520

    20.

    Royal Irish Constabulary

    768,422

    21.

    Prisons

    72,656

    22.

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools

    69,072

    23.

    Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    6,241

    £2,606,450."

    Class IV.
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £14,715,028, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    1.

    Board of Education

    11,206,705

    2.

    British Museum

    71,142

    3.

    National Gallery

    6,639

    4.

    National Portrait Gallery

    1,779

    5.

    Wallace Collection

    2,012

    6.

    London Museum

    1,300

    7.

    Imperial War Museum

    11,000

    8.

    Scientific Investigation, etc.

    22,241

    9.

    Scientific and Industrial Research

    83,350

    10.

    Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

    211,700

    10A.

    Universities, etc., Special Grants

    30,000

    Scotland.

    11.

    Public Education

    1,791,545

    12.

    National Galleries

    2,283

    Ireland.

    13.

    Public Education

    1,003,104

    14.

    Intermediate Education, Ireland

    89,000

    15.

    Endowed Schools Com missioners

    455

    392

    £

    16.

    National Gallery

    1,030

    17.

    Science and Art

    133,393

    18.

    Universities and Colleges

    46,350

    £14,715,028."

    Class V.
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £807,421, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    1.

    Diplomatic and Consular Services

    361,511

    2.

    Colonial Services

    437,610

    3.

    Telegraphic Subsidies

    7,300

    4.

    Cyprus (Grant in Aid)

    1,000

    £807,421."

    Class VI.
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £821,526, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    1.

    Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    434,542

    2.

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    20,509

    3.

    Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

    738

    4.

    Temporary Commissions

    5,933

    5.

    Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    2,455

    6.

    Ireland Development Grant

    5,000

    7.

    Government Hospitality

    15,000

    8.

    Expenses under the Re presentation of the People Act

    300,000

    9.

    Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund.

    37,349

    £821,526."

    Class VII.
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,502,189, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    1.

    Old Age Pensions

    7,085,000

    2.

    National Health Insurance, Joint Committee

    396,798

    3.

    National Health Insurance Commission (England)

    3,445,685

    4.

    National Health Insurance Commission (Wales)

    232,686

    5.

    National Health Insurance Commission (Scotland)

    433,232

    6.

    National Health Insurance Commission (Ireland)

    229,010

    7.

    Ministry of Labour

    998,962

    8.

    National Insurance, Audit Department

    52,900

    9.

    Treatment of Tuberculosis (Special Grants)

    570,000

    10.

    Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Board

    42,848

    11.

    Friendly Societies Deficiency

    15,068

    £13,502,189."

    MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
    8. "That a sum, not exceeding £900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Expenses of the Ministry of Munitions."
    MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (ORDNANCE FACTORIES).
    9. "That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for the Ministry of Munitions."
    MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.
    10. "That a sum, not exceeding £900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimate for the Ministry of Shipping."
    MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE.
    11. "That a sum, not exceeding £900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimate for the Ministry of National Service."
    MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION.
    12. "That a sum, not exceeding £900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Reconstruction."
    NATIONAL WAR AIMS COMMITTEE.
    13. "That a sum, not exceeding £900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National War Aims Committee."
    MINISTRY OF BLOCKADE.
    15. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, 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, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Blockade."

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.
    16. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,000, 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, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:—

    395

    £

    2.

    Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

    1,000

    3.

    Medical Establishments and Services

    1,000

    4.

    Civilians employed on Fleet Services

    1,000

    5.

    Educational Services

    1,000

    6.

    Scientific Services

    1,000

    7.

    Royal Naval Reserves

    1,000

    9.

    Naval Armaments

    1,000

    10.

    Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

    1,000

    11.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    1,000

    12.

    Admiralty Office

    1,000

    13.

    Half-Pay and Retired Pay

    1,000

    14.

    Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

    1,000

    15.

    Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities

    1,000

    £13,000."

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.
    17. "That a sum, not exceeding £14,000, 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, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:

    £

    2.

    Medical Establishment, Pay, etc

    1,000

    3.

    Special Reserve

    1,000

    4.

    Territorial Forces

    1,000

    5.

    Establishments for Military Education

    1,000

    6.

    Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

    1,000

    7.

    Supplies and Clothing

    1,000

    8.

    Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

    1,000

    9.

    Warlike and Engineer Stores

    1,000

    10.

    Works and Buildings

    1,000

    11.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    1,000

    396

    £

    12.

    War Office

    1,000

    13.

    Half Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers

    1,000

    14.

    Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, and others

    1,000

    15.

    Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities

    1,000

    £14,000."

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1918–19.
    18 "That a sum, not exceeding £3,023,278, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:

    £

    Customs and Excise

    1,197,918

    Inland Revenue

    1,825,360

    £3,023,278."

    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  WOMEN CIVIL SERVANTS (REMUNERATION).
  WOMEN CIVIL SERVANTS (REMUNERATION).
  GERMAN BANKS (SECURITIES).
  GERMAN BANKS (SECURITIES).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  LIVE-STOCK.
  LIVE-STOCK.
  SOLDIERS ON LEAVE (RATIONS).
  SOLDIERS ON LEAVE (RATIONS).
  LAND CULTIVATION, LENTHAY COMMON.
  LAND CULTIVATION, LENTHAY COMMON.
IRELAND.
  MILITARY INSTRUCTION.
  MILITARY INSTRUCTION.
  TRADE UNION MEETINGS.
  TRADE UNION MEETINGS.
  BANDS PARADING.
  BANDS PARADING.
  ALLOTMENT-HOLDERS (TENURE).
  ALLOTMENT-HOLDERS (TENURE).
  MRS. SHEEHY-SKEFFINGTON'S LETTERS.
  MRS. SHEEHY-SKEFFINGTON'S LETTERS.
  FINNER CAMP (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
  FINNER CAMP (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
  SHIPS IN BRITISH PORTS (VISITORS).
  SHIPS IN BRITISH PORTS (VISITORS).
MERCANTILE MARINE (WAR SERVICES).
  PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
  PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
  INJURY PENSIONS.
  INJURY PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES TO CHILDREN AND OTHER DEPENDANTS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES TO CHILDREN AND OTHER DEPENDANTS.
  STEAMSHIP "JUSTICIA" (SUBMARINE ATTACK).
  STEAMSHIP "JUSTICIA" (SUBMARINE ATTACK).
  DOCK SCHEME, BEACHLEY (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  DOCK SCHEME, BEACHLEY (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  SHIPBUILDING (OUTPUT).
  SHIPBUILDING (OUTPUT).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  KING'S ROYAL RIFLE CORPS (DISCHARGED TIME-EXPIRED).
  KING'S ROYAL RIFLE CORPS (DISCHARGED TIME-EXPIRED).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  MEDICAL GRADING.
  MEDICAL GRADING.
  TEMPORARY EXEMPTIONS.
  TEMPORARY EXEMPTIONS.
  FOOD DISTRIBUTORS.
  FOOD DISTRIBUTORS.
  CIVIL LIABILITIES (GUILDFORD CASE).
  CIVIL LIABILITIES (GUILDFORD CASE).
  COTTON (WAR OFFICE PURCHASES)
  COTTON (WAR OFFICE PURCHASES)
MUNITIONS
  ALLIANCE AEROPLANE WORKS.
  ALLIANCE AEROPLANE WORKS.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (LINCOLN MEETING).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (LINCOLN MEETING).
ALIENS.
  ARMY CLOTHING MAKERS.
  ARMY CLOTHING MAKERS.
  CABS (ADDITIONAL HIRING FEE).
  CABS (ADDITIONAL HIRING FEE).
  ELECTION EXPENSES (PETROL).
  ELECTION EXPENSES (PETROL).
  REGISTRATION (ABSENT VOTERS).
  REGISTRATION (ABSENT VOTERS).
  WEINER AND COMPANY.
  WEINER AND COMPANY.
  HOLZAPFELS, LIMITED.
  HOLZAPFELS, LIMITED.
  JURORS, SCOTLAND (SPECIAL CONSTABLES).
  JURORS, SCOTLAND (SPECIAL CONSTABLES).
IRELAND.
  WATERFORD HARBOUR (SEALS).
  WATERFORD HARBOUR (SEALS).
  EDUCATION.
  EDUCATION.
  HOUSING.
  HOUSING.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  Opium Convention.
  Opium Convention.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES (AMEND MENT) BILL.
Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment considered (according to Order).
[The reference is to Bill 37.]

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 1, line 12, after the third ("acres") insert ("provided that for the purposes of the acquisition, equipment, and settlement of the area hereby authorised to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board may, as respects any county, with the consent of the council of that county, employ that council as their agents, and vest in them all the powers hereby or by the principal Act conferred upon them, in addition to those vested in such council by virtue of the Small Holdings Act, 1908,")
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following amendment:
After ("all") ["rest in them all the powers"] insert ("or any of").
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): My Lords, the object of the Commons Amendment is to make clear in the first clause that the powers which may be transferred may be the whole powers or any part of them.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INCOME TAX BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I rise for the purpose of moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee upon this Bill, and in making this Motion it is only right that I should give a short statement as to what has been done with this Bill. Your Lordships will recollect that it is a Con-
54
solidation Bill for the purpose of reducing to order the various provisions regarding Income Tax which have hitherto been scattered in different Acts.
When the Second Reading had been taken the Bill was necessarily sent to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. That Committee has done its work with very great efficiency. It was presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn in a way greatly to increase its efficiency. The Bill has been subjected to a very prolonged consideration by that Committee. There are a great many Amendments, and it would have been idle to print them separately as Amendments, but every one who has had to deal with Bills is aware that the only way of appreciating the effect of an Amendment is to write it out as part of the Bill which has to be amended. That is the course which the Committee have taken. They have printed the Bill with their Amendments in it, so that it is intelligible as a whole, and may be re-read by any one who desires to compare the Bill as it has come back from the Committee with the Bill as it was originally introduced in this House. I think that any one who compares the Bill as it now stands with the various Statutes in which the law of our Income Tax was scattered before this labour was undertaken, will feel that the result has been to produce order out of chaos. I think, therefore, that the Bill deserves the most favourable attention of your Lordships' House.
I desire to say only a very few words as to what has been done in the way of alteration by the Committee, so that your Lordships may be able to appreciate the value of their labours. They have done a good deal of rearrangement, and one very striking illustration of the benefit of the rearrangement they have effected is that the provisions of the various schedules relating to the Income Tax—so-called Schedules with which we are all painfully familiar, Schedules A, B, C, D and E—are now not in the body of the Act as they hitherto have been, mixed with the sections themselves, but are put into a Schedule, as we understand the term nowadays. There each notice stands in order with the rules relating to it printed beneath. I think this is a very great improvement, and it is not only an improvement in point of language. The provisions are now in a Schedule as that term is understood to-day, and they take

55
their place there in such a way as not to give any difficulty to those who are familiar with the Act as it stood.
I desire to say a few words as to the method which has been adopted by the Committee in dealing with the language of these Acts. They have so far as possible preserved the language of the old Acts. It was very undesirable that any change should be made unless it was necessary. In some cases, of course, some alteration was wanted, because there are portions of enactments which have become obsolete and some are ambiguous, and in rendering these enactments the course has been taken of putting them in a form which corresponds to the understanding not only in the Department but among the public as to what the effect of the enactments is.
The extreme care with which the work of the Committee in this respect has been done is well illustrated by a glance at pages 3, 4, and 5 of their Report, where is set out in detail a whole series of cases in which they thought that sonic change in the language was necessary, and they have given in the last column their reason for, and the nature of, the change. The conclusion that the Committee arrived at with regard to the result of their inquiry is summed up in paragraph (9) of the Report:—
"The Committee consider that the Bill as amended represents the existing statutory law relating to Income Tax, and that the Bill should be allowed to proceed."
Your Lordships are aware that it was considered desirable by this House, when a Second Reading was accorded to this measure, that there should be in the first place only consolidation, and that it should not be mixed up with the work of amendment, because it is very desirable in itself to get the existing law into an intelligible state. The labours of the Committee followed upon admirable work that had already been done on the Bill by those who were responsible for preparing it in the first instance—that is the result of the labours of all parties—in order that not only the profession but the Income-Tax-payer should have a clear, intelligible and compendious statement of what the law is. Of course, that lays the foundations if it should hereafter be desired to make amendments in the law relating to Income Tax. You have first to get the existing law into proper shape, then you see what you have to deal with, and you are in a better position to appre-
56
ciate the amendment which it is proposed to make. The Committee, as they state in paragraph 9, consider that the Bill now embodies the existing statutory law, and that it should, be allowed to proceed.
There is only one other matter with regard to the work of the Committee that I desire to mention, and it is this. Difficulty had arisen with regard to the meaning of the word "person" in dealing with the section relating to a right to abatement of Income Tax where the income was below a certain sum, and the question was whether the word "person" included a corporation. The better opinion undoubtedly was that it did not. The matter has never been decided as regards a corporation by the highest tribunal. It had been decided by the House of Lords as regards an unincorporated body of persons. The Committee have intimated their opinion that the word "person" in that connection was not intended to include a corporation, but—and I think this shows the extreme caution with which the Committee have done their work—they have not themselves embodied an alteration to that effect in the Bill. They have contented themselves with recommending a form of amendment if it should commend itself to the House of Commons, which sets out clearly the application of that right to abatement to an individual who proves that his income is below the necessary amount. This portion of the Report, which is set out in the later paragraphs, and in Appendix II, is worth looking at as showing the extreme caution and jealousy with which the Committee have guarded themselves against any alteration of the language itself, beyond what was in their judgment absolutely necessary. The propriety of making that Amendment will no doubt be considered in the other House.
The labour of the Committee has been enormous, and they have held a great many sittings, they have spent three or four months over this Bill, and the result of their labour is produced in a form which ought to be very useful to all who are conversant with the income tax in any capacity, either as taxpayer or otherwise. I desire to express my very warmest thanks to all members who have served on this Joint Committee. The care and attention that they have given to the matter is beyond all praise. More particularly would I refer to the Chairman, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, who so long has presided over that body with such admirable results. He has

57
bestowed an infinity of pains upon this measure, and has been most ably seconded by all the members of the Joint Committee. The work of the Committee has been materially facilitated by the aid given to them by the Parliamentary Counsel. I need not tell your Lordships how heavy the ordinary labours of Parliamentary counsel are, but with very great public spirit, Sir Frederick Liddell, Mr. Graham-Harrison and Mr. Godley took upon themselves the additional burden which dealing with this very elaborate Bill entails. I know how invaluable their assistance was to the Committee, and I think we ought to recognise that, in undertaking this additional labour, the Parliamentary counsel have rendered a service to the country.
The Report itself mentions what the Bill owes to Mr. Bertram Cox, the Solicitor of Inland Revenue. Paragraph 3 of the Report states that the original draft WS prepared by Mr. Bertram Cox "personally, not under official instructions but as a voluntary piece of work," that it was most carefully considered, and that "throughout these proceedings Mr. Bertram Cox continuously took a leading part in the work. It is not easy to over-rate the value of his services." I certainly can add my own testimony as to the zeal, enthusiasm and conspicuous ability which Mr. Bertram Cox brought to bear upon this very difficult subject. The Report also mentions the names of two other gentlemen who rendered valuable assistance to the Committee in the course of their labours, Mr. Holme, a well-known City solicitor, and Mr. Bremner, a Bencher of the Inner Temple. And the result of all this is that I think the House has before it a very efficient measure for the consolidation of the law with regard to Income-Tax as it stood. I have now to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee to consider the Amendments made in Select Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I think it is appropriate that some lay member of the House should join in the tribute which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has paid to the work of the Joint Consolidation Committee on this subject. It must have been extraordinarily laborious, as is evident from the dimensions
58
of the Bill which has been presented to your Lordships. The subject of Income Tax is not a very attractive one at any time, and it has become more repellant, if possible, of late years; but obviously it is of general advantage that the law on the subject should be consolidated, and that the knowledge of it should be readily accessible to all those who are concerned in what always is bound to remain an exceedingly complicated matter. I merely rose to pay this tribute, and also to say a word upon the Motion which the noble and learned Lord will shortly make as to the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX in order to pass this Bill through all its stages to-day. We always look with some jealousy on the suspension of this Standing Order, but I think it right to say that, with regard to the subject-matter of the Bill, it is not one of course, which specially concerns us; and I feel certain that none of your Lordships will desire to protest on this occasion against the suspension of the Standing Order.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, as a member of the Committee I should like to say a word in support of what was said by the Lord Chancellor. I am sure that we could never have carried through our duties but for the assistance to which he has referred, especially that of Mr. Bertram Cox, Sir Frederick Liddell, and Mr. Holme.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have to move that the Amendments made in Select Committee be agreed to. As I stated, they are embodied in the Bill as now printed, and of course it would be idle to go through them in detail. We have the work of the Committee before us, and I think, in the circumstances, we should do right in accepting the result of that work.
Moved, That the Amendments made in Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
House resumed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with a view to expediting the progress of this Bill, as every day is of sonic importance, and for the reasons that have been indicated by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, I beg now to move that the Standing Order be suspended so as to permit all the stages of this Bill to be taken to-day.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, as one who was engaged during the whole of the summer upon this portentous Bill, I should like to say how glad I feel—and I am sure all the members of the Committee must also feel glad-—that, by his Motion this evening, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has shown that there is determination to try and carry this Bill into effect as an Act this session. There is no doubt that a very heavy task was imposed upon the Committee, and a still heavier task imposed upon those who assisted the Committee; and if we thought that our labours were going to be thrown away, or even to be postponed for a long time, it would naturally be somewhat of a disappointment. I am very glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord has made this Motion, which I trust the House will accept.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Amendments reported.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NAVAL PRIZE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (The EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, this Bill sets forth the conditions and principles governing the distribution of naval prize money to the officers and men of the Fleet during the present war. Several questions have been asked from time to time in this House, notably by my noble and gallant friend Lord Beresford, as to the intentions of the Government in this matter of the
60
distribution of prize money. In this Bill, and in the draft Proclamation which accompanied it, your Lordships will find embodied the policy which was foreshadowed in the answers given to the noble and gallant Lord and others from time to time. I am sorry that the noble and gallant Admiral is not able to be present this afternoon, because, on the last occasion when he questioned me on this matter, I asked him to wait for the introduction of this Bill; and I hope to-day to be able to reply to all the points he raised on that occasion.
The last time we had a discussion on this matter, my noble and learned friend Lord Desart complained that there had been considerable delay in the introduction of this Bill. I admitted to him that the Bill was considerably overdue, but I told him that I hoped to be able, when the Bill was introduced, to give some explanation of the reasons for the delay. I am sure that if he will consider for a moment what is involved in the adoption of the policy of pooling, which is the main principle of this Bill, the noble and learned Lord will realise that a considerable amount of time must have elapsed before the Bill could be introduced. In the first place, the adoption of this principle necessitated considerable discussion with the Treasury. Those discussions ranged over a number of points—some of which I will explain in a moment—but they were very necessary, and they occupied a good deal of time. Then, secondly, it was necessary that we should consult with the Governments of our Dominions, because they are interested in the Bill. That meant that copies of the Bill had to be sent to the various Dominions, and we had to wait for the answers and the criticisms of the Dominion Governments. Thirdly, we had to spend a considerable amount of thought upon the scale of distribution which is now embodied in the draft Proclamation that accompanies the Bill. All these things necessitated the spending of a great deal of time, and really the Bill has only been approved in its final form in the last few weeks, and it was introduced in the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment after that date.
I know that your Lordships are anxious to get as quickly as possible to the other matters on the Order Paper this afternoon, and I do not wish to detain you more than is absolutely necessary in explaining this Bill. I think I can explain its main pro-

61
visions very shortly, but as some of your Lordships may not be acquainted with the technical expressions in the Bill, I should like at the outset to say one word to explain the difference between prize money and prize bounty, and also between droits of Admiralty and droits of the Crown. Prize money is an award to the Navy for the capture of enemy merchant ships and cargoes, paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the same. Prize bounty on the other hand is an award paid by the State out of money provided by Parliament, in accordance with the Naval Prize Act of 1864, for the destruction of enemy ships of war. There is only one clause in this Bill—namely, Clause 3—which deals with prize bounty, and that is introduced because aircraft, which are unessential arm of modern warfare, do not come within the definition of His Majesty's ships of war contained in the Naval Prize Act.
Both prize money and prize bounty have an historical origin of considerable antiquity. Prize bounty dates from the Commonwealth, but prize money, with which this Bill is chiefly concerned, is older still. Prize money is, in fact, older than the Navy itself, amid dates from a time before the existence of the Navy when various ports of the United Kingdom contributed their quota of ships for the defence of the country, and the crews of which ships were paid for their services out of the proceeds of the enemy vessels which were captured. This custom of awarding prize money has been continued down to the present day, and in all previous wars this money has always been paid to the crew of the ship which actually captured the prize. That system was a very simple one and very easily administered, but you will see that it necessarily involved a great deal of chance and luck and. the inequalities of distributing prize money in that way are very much accentuated by modern conditions of warfare. It might, for instance, be possible at the present time for a ship with a crew of anything under 100 to hold up and capture a vessel the value of which might be a million pounds sterling.
The Government have therefore decided to place the proceeds from all prizes captured during this war in a general pool from which they will be distributed throughout the Fleet according to a scale which I will refer to in a moment. I mentioned just now that the proceeds of all the prizes captured in war belonged to the Crown, and I may explain how these monies came to be divided into what are now
62
known as droits of Admiralty and droits of the Crown. When in the course of time the office of Lord High Admiral originally held by the Sovereign was conferred upon a subject the proceeds of all merchant vessels captured in ports at the outbreak of war, or driven into port by stress of weather or accident, or captured by any other means in any other way than by commissioned ships, were given to the Lord High Admiral as perquisites of his office. On the other hand the proceeds of all enemy vessels captured at sea by commissioned ships of His Majesty's Navy belonged to the Crown, and they were given as prize money to the captors of the vessels. When King William IV surrendered his rights of Admiralty and other Crown property for a fixed grant from the Exchequer his droits of Admiralty belonged to the Treasury. As the result of these historical changes we now have the rather paradoxical results that droits of the Crown, which are the proceeds of ships captured by ships of His Majesty's Navy, go to the Navy, and droits of Admiralty, which are the proceeds of ships captured in port, belong to the Treasury. If your Lordships will keep this distinction in mind the provisions of the Bill will be easily understood and can be explained very shortly.
The adoption of the principle of a common pool has prevented any distribution of prize money taking place during the war. Until the end of the war you cannot tell what sum will be available for distribution, and as ships have been brought from time to time into the prize courts of the Empire, no distinction has been made between droits of Admiralty and droits of the Crown. It is necessary therefore to establish a tribunal for the purpose of distinguishing between these two categories. The constitution and powers of that tribunal are contained in Clause 2 of this Bill. It will consist of the three distinguished gentlemen whose names are there mentioned. The tribunal is to have the powers of a High Court judge and it will be the duty of the tribunal to decide what sums are to be paid into the prize fund from which distribution is made to the Fleet.
On May 15 last the noble and learned Earl, Lord Desart, expressed a doubt as to whether if this distinction between droits of Admiralty and droits of the Crown

63
were retained there would be a sufficient sum to meet the requirements of the Navy under this new system of distribution. The noble and learned Earl I know holds the opinion that we should have done better to abolish this distinction and to have placed all the proceeds from prize into one fund to be distributed to the Fleet; and I should like to tell him very shortly what are the reasons for the course which we have adopted. As soon as the policy of constituting a pool was decided upon we had three alternatives open to us. The first was to place all the proceeds of prize, both droits of Admiralty and droits of the Crown, in one fund and to distribute the whole of that fund on sonic scale such as that which has been adopted to the Navy. That I believe is the course which the noble Earl would himself recommend. The second alternative was, having created a fund in this way, to accept from the Treasury a certain proportion of it, to be agreed with them, as a gratuity to the Navy. The third alternative was to maintain the distinction which has always existed between droits of Admiralty and droits of the Crown and to take the latter for the Navy,
The first of these alternatives was not open to us because the Treasury were not willing to agree to the whole of the fund so created going to the Navy. Although unwilling to allow the Navy to distribute the whole of the fund which would be thus created, the Treasury were quite willing to agree with us upon either of the other two courses. Several discussions took place between the Treasury and the Department upon this point, and that was partly the cause for the delay in getting the Bill into its final shape. The Admiralty, of course, had to consider what was best for the Navy, and we came to the conclusion that in the interests of the Navy it was better that we should take the droits of the Crown which had by long custom come to the Navy, than take our chance of a Treasury grant by way of a gratuity, the amount of which was to have been the subject of discussion between us. It was for that reason that we adopted the procedure embodied in the Bill now before your Lordships.
I have now explained the historical origin of the grant of prize money and the Tribunal which has been set up to distinguish between the sums which will go to the Navy and those which belong to the Treasury. There remain two other matters which
64
require some explanation—namely, firstly, who are the persons eligible to receive prize money, and, secondly, what is to be the scale of distribution to them. These matters are not contained in the Bill, but are to be found in a set of Regulations authorised by Proclamation as provided for in subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill. A draft of the Proclamation which it is proposed to issue dealing with these matters has been issued as a White Paper, and this must be read in connection with the Bill. I regret that some words which I used in this House on May 15 have given an impression in some quarters that these matters of eligibility and scale of distribution would be contained in the Bill itself.
I desire, therefore, to say that the grant of prize money is, and always has been, a prerogative of the Crown. It is not a matter which is under the control of Parliament or for which Parliament is responsible; and, therefore, the scale of distribution to the recipients of prize money has always been contained either in a Proclamation or an Order in Council, but not in a Bill. If your Lordships will look at this White Paper you will see, first of all, that those persons eligible to receive prize money are defined as being members of the Naval and Marine Forces who have during the war performed service at sea in ships and vessels of war. "Sea service" is defined as—
"having been borne for service at sea on the books of a seagoing ship of war which goes to sea or on the books of a parent ship for service in armed sea-going tenders."
This expression "ships of war" is defined in such a way as to include armed boarding vessels, trawlers, drifters and those smaller vessels of the Admiralty patrol which have done during this war such magnificent service in combating the submarine danger. Members of the Air Service operating with the Fleet will also participate under conditions which are defined in the Proclamation. In the case of aircraft the following definition of sea service has been arrived at after much discussion and careful consideration—
"Trained pilots and observers, the crews of our naval airships and others who have had to fly continuously at sea shall, while borne on the books of one of H.M. ships and attached to a naval air station, be considered to have been performing service at sea, but no service at a training establishment or whilst employed on shore for service with our army or the armies of any of our Allies shall be so considered."

65
The recipient will get a full share, according to his rank, if he has served at sea for a period which at the present moment is fixed at thirty months. That is considered to be a very severe test of service. Only those who have done thirty months' seaservice will qualify for a full share of prize money. We realise, however, that if the war is continued beyond, say, sixty months—that is to say, five years—it may be necessary still further to increase this period in some proportion to make it bear a relation to the duration of the war as a whole. Any man who has served at sea for one month will qualify to share in the distribution, and he will obtain a proportionate part of a full share corresponding to the period of his sea service. Men who have been prevented by death in action, or by wounds obtained either in action or in a manner attributable to sea service, or men, again, who have been taken prisoner through no fault of their own, if they have had ten months of sea service will be deemed to have served for the whole period. I feel sure that your Lordships will agree with the special consideration shown to these persons.
So much for the persons eligible for the receipt of the money. Let me say one word in conclusion about the scale of distribution. This has been very carefully considered both by a Departmental Committee and also by the Board of Admiralty, and the scale now adopted represents, I think, as near an approach to general agreement as is reasonably possible. Time scale is contained on the third and fourth pages of the White Paper. By the old scale of distribution Flag officers received one-thirtieth of the total sum available, of which one-half went to the senior Flag officer and the other half was divided among the remaining Fleet officers. Of the remaining twenty-nine-thirtieths one-tenth was divided among the captains, commanders and other officers in command, and nine-tenths was given to officers other than those in command, and to naval ratings. By the new scale contained in the Proclamation officers of Flag rank and officers in command will receive considerably less than under the old scale, but the shares of officers not in command and the shares of naval ratings will approximate to the old scale.
I do not propose to take up any more time in explaining this scale of distribution. It is set out in the Proclamation, and, of course, I shall be prepared to answer any questions that may be put to me upon it. I should like
66
to explain that, although the scale of distribution is a prerogative of the Crown and is not a subject for which Parliament is responsible, we are, nevertheless, very anxious to have the views of Members of Parliament and of any of your Lordships interested in the matter before this scale is finally published, and ill order to provide an opportunity for this we have decided to divide this Proclamation into two parts. Tile first Proclamation, with such alterations as may be necessary to make it complete, will be issued at an early date. That will contain the first five paragraphs of this White Paper down as far as the figure one, on page one. That Proclamation will be issued at once because it is necessary to enable the tribunal set up under the Bill to start its work. The second Proclamation, containing the definition of persons eligible under the scale of distribution, will be issued at a later date. In the meantime the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty has undertaken to afford an opportunity to members of Parliament at a private conference to express their views to him upon it. That invitation will, of course, be extended to any of your Lordships who may be interested in the matter. I think that is all I need say on the present occasion. There may be other details in the Bill which require explanation, but they can be left for consideration when we get into committee.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just addressed the House always presents the measures of which he is in charge with such lucidity that it is a pleasure to listen to them. This is a Bill, which one has the ungrateful task of criticising, where one has at any rate before him a very clear account, not only of the measure itself, but of the policy which inspires the measure. In the remarks at the commencement of his speech the noble Earl made some comment on something I said a few weeks ago in this House about the delay in the presentation of any measure affording reward to the Navy for its services in connection with "prize" during the war. I accept fully the explanation, but, unfortunately, the course that has been adopted has produced results which, I think, have increased the, difficulties of framing a measure of award, and which would not have arisen if it had been possible to follow out the Order in Council of August, 1914, more immediately

67
with some scheme in connection with the proper reward of the Navy in connection with prize.
The words of this Order in Council deserve, I think, a little consideration. They were not referred to by the noble Earl, and I cannot help thinking they had a meaning and adumbrated a form of reward for the Navy which, after full consideration, has not been adopted by His Majesty's Government. That Order in Council, which was submitted to His Majesty and issued almost immediately after the outbreak of war, recognised the objection to the old system of prize money. The Order says that "the conditions governing the distribution of the proceeds of prizes captured from the enemy to officers and men of your Majesty's Fleet require modification in order to bring them into accordance with modern conditions." And it proceeds: "In lieu of the system of distribution of prize money there should be substituted, under regulations and conditions to be hereafter announced, a system not of the distribution of prize money, but a system of prize bounties or gratuities for more general distribution to His Majesty's Forces."
I cannot help thinking that when this Order was introduced it was not contemplated that you would merely distribute the old form of prize money to the Fleet, but that you would establish a new system of prize bounties, or gratuities, in a different form. If I have to say a few words in a perhaps barren task of criticising the framework of a Bill which must unquestionably pass through Parliament, and which I am glad should be passed as being the measure which the Government, with their responsibility, say they desire should be the way to recognise the services of the Fleet in this matter, I am bound to say that I think a good deal of difficulty and complication, perhaps a good deal of delay, might have been avoided if a somewhat simpler procedure had been adopted for dealing with the matter, not on the old lines but on the broader lines which, I think, were indicated by the Order in Council of August, 1914.
The actual situation, as I understand it, and I think I am right, is this. There is a very large fund in the hands of the Assistant Paymaster-General, which I will call for convenience the "produce of prizes." After the Order in Council up
68
to the present date there has been no grant by the Crown of any produce of prize whatever, and the Crown now stands in the position that it is free to grant either to the Fleet, or by way of bounty to other people, either the droits of the Crown, or the droits of the Admiralty, as it pleases. There is, therefore, at the present moment a clean sheet. There is this fund to reward the Navy, or for whatever purpose it may seem right to use it.
There is another complication that has arisen from the delay. Although no grant has been made to the Navy during this time, it was decided by His Majesty's Government at the outbreak of war—and a Committee was formed to deal with the matter—to follow the old practice of grants being made out of bounty to persons who are British subjects, and in this case to Allies or neutrals, who had suffered hardship by the action of the Prize Courts in certain specified directions. The Committee was formed quite early in the war and has sat continuously ever since. It has dealt with about 1,700 applicants, and it has made awards—perhaps it is not right to express it so—but it has made recommendations to the Treasury, which the Treasury have adopted, dealing with considerable sums of money. So that, whether the fund be droits of the Admiralty or droits of the Crown, there is this charge of money which has already been paid, and which has to come out of it. The fund remains a very large fund subject to whatever this may amount to, but I may say there are still many claims to be considered and to be dealt with.
In these circumstances I should have thought that the line of least resistance, and the line which would give you the greatest liberty and the best result, would have been to abandon altogether the old distinction between the droits of the Crown and the droits of the Admiralty—all being now in the power of the Crown—and to have allowed, when the time came, grants to the Navy which would be a reasonable and proper remuneration in connection with its services for prize as a whole, and apply the residue as you like. I do not think it is necessary to say that the whole of the fund should necessarily have gone to the Navy at all. But you would have secured by this that the Navy could have had a proper reward, and I think that you would have been equally sure that there would

69
be a balance of some kind for Greenwich Hospital or the Exchequer Or some other purpose. That, it seems to me, would have been a simpler way to deal with it, for it would have avoided any inquiry by any tribunal with a view to separating one from the other, an operation which I think is bound to occupy time and—I hope that I am wrong—one which may involve a much more difficult task than T thin k perhaps the Government have altogether realised.
What is the real objection to it? The noble Earl in his speech said, I think at the beginning, "prize money was granted in the old days for the Navy." In a sense that is true; but it is not really what the facts were. This money was really granted to the individual captors, and the crews of the ships which captured prizes, and it was not limited to the Navy, for in the eighteenth century it went also to privateers. It was a grant for a particular service done, and, subject to a small Treasury deduction, the proceeds of the condemned cargo or condemned ship went to the captors who themselves conducted the proceedings in Court and not the Crown. What you are doing now is to reward the whole Navy—a much bigger thing—for what they have done in producing the profits of prizes for the benefit of the Government and the State of this country. With some very small exceptions such as detained ships I venture to say that all prizes—droits of the Crown and droits of the Admiralty—are equally due to the vigilance of the whole Navy. You are rewarding the vigilance of the Navy, and not the act of the individual, and it seems to me that it is not only an easier line but it is a more logical one that the Navy should have some portion—whatever is right—out of the proceeds of prizes to the capture of which they have contributed, because there is no longer the reason for the limitation as a reward to an individual ecuring certain property and taking certain property away from the enemy. I cannot see, therefore, any logical objection to dealing with it in the way I suggest.
Moreover, yon would avoid what may be a very difficult inquiry, that of distinguishing between the cargoes of ships which are droits of the Crown and those which are droits of the Admiralty. The reason for that—it was touched upon by the noble Earl—is that in consequence of there having been no grant of any sort or kind it has
70
not been necessary for the Courts to distinguish in their decrees and documents and forms between one and the other. I think, therefore, that it will be found that there are cases—very likely a great many—in which the ship may be condemned as a droit of the Crown when really, if the facts could be inquired into, she would turn out to be a droit of the Admiralty. Equally there would be cases—more of these, I think in which a ship would be condemned as a droit of the Admiralty when really she was a droit of the Crown. That is rather a serious thing. I could give several instances, but I will give only one illustration which is a typical one. It is that of a short case where there is no appearance. What happens in many cases is this. The officer of the Customs makes an affidavit that the ship came in, that the cargo was so-and-so, and that the cargo was condemned for such-and-such a reason. That is all. Nobody appears, and nobody opposes it, and it is not clear in which category it should be placed.
In the course of this war, it is extraordinarily probable that in a great number of these cases although the cargo is condemned as a droit of the Admiralty it is in fact a droit of the Crown, and as far as the record goes it will be a droit of the Admiralty. In order to ascertain which it is you would have to re-open the facts of the case, and it might not he very easy to do so. You might not have the material to do so. That is one illustration. Again, I think that the tribunal might have to deal with serious judicial questions. To that, of course, there is very little objection if my noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore presides, for nobody is more capable of dealing with such questions. But I do not think that is what was contemplated. Many new questions have arisen in this war and you will find that the documents in the Courts will not always show how the ships were condemned. There were sonic cases in which neutral ships came into our ports under agreement. There were other cases in which neutral ships were sent in to be examined. There have been cases in which British ships were diverted into a British port and in which possibly there was enemy cargo on board. In those cases it was the cargo which was condemned and not the ship, but there has sometimes been no judicial decision as to whether they were droits of the Crown or droits of the Admiralty. No one is more qualified to decide these matters than my noble and learned friend Lord Philli-

71
more, and it may be that the tribunal will be able to decide upon a principle in those cases apart from the facts, which I think it will be extremely difficult sometimes to ascertain. A learned friend of mine, with whom I had a conversation with regard to this matter, went so far as to say that it would be almost impossible to disentangle the problem.
The real object that we all have at heart is that the Navy should get its reward, and get it within a reasonable time, and should understand what it is going to get. I think that if you had taken the opportunity that was afforded by the position of this fund you would have been able to deal with it more promptly, clearly, and comprehensively. I do not think that there is really any logical reason for distinguishing one class from the other. With regard to the charges on the fund which are referred to in the Bill, there is some language which is not quite clear, but I think that I understand it. I am personally, as chairman of the Committee, very familiar with the practice. Under direct authority from the Government any recommendation made by that Committee has only been acted on so far as it could come out of the particular condemned ship or cargo to which it related. Consequently it may happen in some cases that you would have a droit of the Crown which would result in there being little left to the Navy out of that prize. That involves an inquiry in each case in which the Prize Committee have made a grant to decide whether it was a droit of the Crown or whether it was a droit of the Admiralty.
There is also the possibility of a third fund. The question whether the monies arising from what are called the detained sin is will ever be available depends upon whether at the end of the war the provisions of The Hague Conference are acted on. I still think that the form in which this Bill is presented is cumbrous, and that you could have obtained the results we all in common desire more easily and more readily by not having adhered to this plan of distinguishing between droits of the Crown and droits of the Admiralty. It is not necessary technically, and I should have thought it was not necessary logically, and I think that if you could have avoided it it would have been much more convenient, and you would have obtained the result desired more readily and more speedily.
72
I should not dream of suggesting that your Lordships should do anything so unreasonable as to throw out a Bill which is approved by the Admiralty and is their means of meeting the proper claims of the Navy to recognition. But there is just this that I might say as an excuse for the few observations that I have ventured to make. It may turn out—and I really think it is likely—that when this inquiry is completed you will have an insufficient sum, and I only wish that we could have some assurance that if that should be the case nothing will be done with the money that represents Droits of Admiralty which will preclude the Crown from making out of that fund an additional grant to the Navy. My main object, as it is that of all of us, is that the great services which the Navy has rendered to this country, and in this respect particularly, should have the reward which is not necessarily confined to principles of old days but should be reasonably adequate for what they have done. Having regard to the fact that they have adopted this principle of distinguishing between droits of the Crown and droits of the Admiralty under this Bill, limiting the rights of the Navy to droits of the Crown, I hope that if these should hereafter prove insufficient the balance of the produce of prize now in the hands of the Admiralty will not have been dealt with so as to preclude its being available to supplement the produce of droits of the Crown if that should turn out to be too small to satisfy the reasonable claims of the Navy for remuneration in respect of prize.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
LORD RIBBLESDALE LORD RIBBLESDALE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To invite the attention of the House to the recent pronouncements (on I 17th July) of the Leader of the House upon the propriety of putting questions down on the Notice Paper with a view to receiving replies from His Majesty's Ministers; and to ask whether, for the future, permission will be required to do so.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think I need assure the House that I have not put this Notice on the Paper on any

73
private, or still less on any personal, grounds. On the contrary, in common, I think, with all your Lordships, I always listen with pleasure and interest to the agreeable speeches of my noble friend the Leader of the House, and I admire the urbane eloquence which he ungrudgingly gives to the routine business of the House. But I am bound to say that on July 17, and the various incidents prior to July 17 which led up to the pronouncements that I am examining this evening, my noble friend was not fortunate either in his choice of methods or his choice of phrase, and the more I reflect upon this, and the more I peruse my Hansard, the more disquieted I feel about our future. I have put this Notice down in the hope that I may give my noble friend an opportunity—I dare say he will not thank me for it—of retreating from what (looking at it quite as a backbench and unofficial Peer, merely one of your Lordships' House) I think is an untenable position and one which I think is hazardous to our liberties as a House and to our practice.
I would claim your Lordships' attention for one moment to a postulate. I am sure you all agree that postulates are almost platitudes. Let it be granted that the two main safeguards, perhaps the two main distinctions of our free and unwritten Constitution are, first, the right of free speech; and, secondly, Ministerial responsibility. To amplify the postulate for a moment, I think it will be generally admitted that free speech in this House has been sanctioned by theory, ratified by practice, and secured to us by the troubles and by the controversies of the 17th and 18th centuries, As to Ministerial responsibility, I have no need either to labour or to belabour that. Ministerial responsibility is, after all, the pièce de resistance of all Constitutional history and practice. I shall only be preaching to the converted if I affirm that nothing should be allowed to molest or to impair free speech, and that nothing should be allowed either to excuse or to diminish Ministerial responsibility. As to Ministerial responsibility, I say that this vigilance on our part is especially requisite in these days. As it is, Ministerial responsibility has become a remarkably intermittent apparition—almost that. It is extremely evasive, and it is really wonderful how it is able to take cover under the skirts of D.O.R.A. and to hide itself away, thanks to the various bureaucratic controlling contrivances of the
74
emergency days in which we happen to be living.
Now I submit that the Leader of the House the other night in what he said—though I do not wish to go back to the merits of that in his dealing with Lord Wimborne's Motion—to borrow a once famous phrase, has dismissed free speech and Ministerial responsibility "to Jupiter or Saturn." I ask you what becomes of us and of this House, of our liberties and our ways, if the noble Earl's pronouncement the other night stands. I submit that we become in the jargon of the day a "controlled establishment," regulated as to our ancient freedom and rights at the discretion of a Government and of a Leader of the House, just as hay, corn, and bacon are now regulated by authority.
And now, my Lords, I ask, Will that do? It is quite possible that the present Leader of the House, having, as it were, had his excursion the other day, may be very careful of these things. Byron told us that the Tyrant of the Chersonese was Freedom's best and noblest friend. I believe that is rightly quoted, but, whatever Byron said, we have never had any opportunity of knowing what the inhabitants of the Chersonese thought about it. It is this conjuncture of affairs and influences that, I will not say causes me alarm or perhaps dismay, but honestly I have been here a long while and I do not like this state of things, and it does, as I said just now, cause me disquietude and anxiety.
The other night my noble friend Lord Crewe, to whom in former years I had the honour of acting as Chief Whip when he was leading this House, on the spur of the moment intervened, I thought in perfect taste, as he always does, and with very good sense. He put in what I understood to be a caveat to what we had just heard from the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I think, having regard to the rather strained circumstances of that evening, the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, could not have said more. But I felt very strongly then, and these few days have matured the impression I then formed, that things cannot be left as Lord Crewe left them. Lord Crewe suggested a remedy. In that particular ease the remedy might apply, but it would not apply in ordinary cases. Lord Crewe adumbrated this kind of remedy, that all this kind of thing, where it was an awkward Question, could be done

75
by friendly conversations outside. The Minister would show his whole mind to the inquirer, and the inquirer would go away perfectly satisfied that all was for the best in this best of worlds. I think it very possible that if the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, or if the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, had Questions of that kind on the Paper, they would have had immediate access to the noble Earl, and they might go away satisfied with all lie told them.
But I will just put it to you: perhaps a Peer who lives in some remote part of Ireland, who feels very strongly about something which is happening affecting Ireland, who knows nobody up here, who perhaps does not even know the Whips, puts down a Question which, it may be, is inconvenient to the Government. Do you mean to tell me that that Peer, coming up to London, trying to do the kind of things which Lord Crewe recommends as the palliative to Lord Curzon's ratter violent medicine, would have very much chance, however strongly he felt about the matter at issue, of either getting the House to know his views or getting any satisfaction? It is quite clear that it is impossible.
I would also put this hypothetical case which arises out of this. Let us suppose that we may find ourselves in this position very shortly: a Government in office pledged and plighted to some very extreme Irish policy, an Irish policy of the colour which I approve of, for I am one of those dangerous characters, an English Home Ruler. Assume a Government of that kind, and assume that my noble friend whom I see in his place opposite, Lord Londonderry, feels that he must put forward the case of Ulster in a manner which cuts directly across the Government policy, and wants to put down a statement of argument in his Question which is extremely inconvenient to the Government. Are we to understand, on Lord Curzon's pronouncements, that because it is inconvenient to the Government the Leader of the House is henceforward to say: "I do not like this Question of yours, and if you do not take it off the Paper I will not answer it"? I do not think that this will commend itself to the House as a very desirable outcome of the Tables of Stone which were delivered to us the other evening.
Take the case of a Government plighted to the secularisation of the Establishment. Let us assume that the Archbishop of
76
Canterbury or the Bishop of Oxford in the same way put down a Question, as they would be bound to do, which again struck a vital blow at the general policy of the Government. Are they, again, to be told on the authority of the Leader of the House, "This is inconvenient; you can go on if you like, but no one will answer you? "
Well, my Lords, I do not know that I have very much more to say. As you see, in the latter part of my Question, which gives me, if I like to exercise it, some right of reply, I ask whether in future we are to ask permission to put down Questions at all. Because it really amounts to that If the reply is to be withheld, having regard to the custom of the House by which we generally put down Questions to convey arguments, it is an automatic piece of machinery if we are not to be replied to; it is no use putting down Questions. Therefore you have the censorship of a Question and the discretionary authority of the Leader of the House for the time being, which means the Government, as to whether a Question is to go down at all or whether it is to get an answer.
I have no desire to over-interpret or overweight in any way what Lord Curzon did and what he said in this matter. I should be sorry to do that. I think that every allowance is to be made for every Minister owing to the great overwork and strain which is put upon them by these troublesome days. I also think that I must personally make some excuse for the noble Earl for his comparative newness to the more delicate transactions of the Leadership of this House. Perhaps, too, he may have been uneasy at the back of his mind that from the first in the management of this affair he had made a mistake. All those things are possible, and I make every allowance for them. But I submit that the new dispensations laid upon us the other night will not do. I do not know what other noble Lords think about it, but I shall not acquiesce in any hoc rolo, sic pro ratione voluntas pretensions or pronouncements. I invite the House to share toy view that any such pretensions should be withdrawn as categorically as they were advanced.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think your Lordships will feel very grateful to the noble Lord for having opened up this discussion, and I am sure that in the very temperate manner in which he

77
has alluded to it he does no more than fully carry out the ideas and feelings which are in the hearts of the majority of your Lordships; but I think we must agree that this is a matter of vital importance and one which, in the important affairs in which we are standing at this moment, should not be lost sight of. I am bound to say I fully sympathise with the noble Lord's apprehension that circumstances are gradually bringing your Lordships to finally abdicating those remaining powers which belong to you. The House of Lords has occupied a very honourable position in the State. It can boast a record which no words of mind are required to establish, and we know well that on more than one occasion it has proved itself to be more fully representative of popular opinion than is the House of Commons, and when we consider the action of your Lordships' House in reference to the Declaration of London in the year 1911 we know well that it is due to the action of your Lordships on that occasion that the greatest possible disaster was averted in connection with the war at the present moment. Yet the conscious and sub-conscious thought which is gradually entering into your Lordships' minds is that this House as an effective force, as a necessary balance in the Constitution, as a revising body, and as a cheek to the initiation and passing into law of hasty legislation—that as a force in that direction, your Lordships' Rouse is rapidly ceasing to exist.
I can only say that I welcome this discussion, and there are two particular points to which I would venture to draw your Lordships' attention. I should like to say at the outset that my remarks are more in the nature of an appeal to the noble Earl who leads the House and are certainly not an indictment, and when I appeal to the noble Earl it is because I am aware of the very powerful position which he occupies—a position in which he alone can assist us to retrieve the position of this House. Therefore I would venture to ask him to use his great influence and great powers to establish this House in the position which it should occupy as a legislative chamber in this country. My Lords, the first point to which I wish to refer, and which has been most eloquently stated by my noble friend who sits opposite, is that we have seen that a custom is developing that no Question shall be brought forward in your Lordships' House unless it receives the special sanction and special approval of the noble Earl who leads
78
this House. I agree and fully agree that there are many amenities and courtesies in this House which not one of your Lordships would like to see omitted, but when it conies to what we who are on the outside are inclined to think we are coming to—namely, that the noble Earl should occupy and maintain a complete jurisdiction over the liberty which has been traditionally enjoyed by noble Lords—it seems to me that the main object for which your Lordships' Home exists is rapidly going through a process of complete destruction.
Now, my Lords, our opportunity and our chief duty lie in this direction, that we are able to bring forward any Question on any subject, and that we can receive an answer from the Government to satisfy us on those points. There is a system which we know well in the House of Commons which goes by the name of negotiations behind the Speaker's Chair, and I am bound to say that as a member of the House of Commons I always looked with the greatest suspicion upon those negotiations which took place behind the Speaker's Chair, and when that system is to be introduced into your Lordships' House I am bound to say that I look with still greater suspicion upon it. We know that in this House such negotiations are completely unnecessary, because there is a feature in your Lordships' constitution which I think obviates any difficulties or harmful results which are supposed to ensue from inconvenient discussions, and that is a Motion "that the noble Lord he no longer heard." Now, my Lords, there is one great reason which has been paramount lately, and necessarily paramount, and that is what is known as the public interest, and I would not endeavour to minimise what is meant by those words when used by a responsible Minister. The public interest is something to which we are necessarily bound to bow, but under the shadow of that phrase, "the public interest," I foresee that it is possible to enact the greatest tyranny. I would venture to define what is public interest, but I feel that this phrase is likely to become a habit, and I have seen it very frequently used in the House of Commons as what I may call a "get out" for harassed Ministers.
I claim to be one of those who firmly believe that confidence has never been misplaced in the British people, and I believe that if a little more latitude were given to dis-

79
cussion it would be found very soon that that confidence would in no circumstances be misplaced. I believe that it is far better that questions of broad policy should be discussed, and one usually finds that on these questions on which so much secrecy is insisted there is a great deal more knowledge outside the House than is enjoyed by members of your Lordships' House or of the House of Commons; and when we see that questions are put on one side in your Lordships' House and not brought forward for discussion, I am inclined to feel that most of your Lordships' discussions are carried on more or less in the guise of a secret session. We know very well, whether the position of your Lordships' House is decreasing or not, that the Press do not pay much attention to your Lordships' debates.
Let us consider the position at the present moment. We see the House of Commons wielding autocratic authority and in possession of smaller elements of a representative character than has ever been possessed by any House of Commons in the past. A measure was passed through the House of Commons which enacted that no House of Commons could efficiently carry out its mandate for more than five years, and yet we find the House of Commons enjoying an enormous amount of power after an eight years session, and we also see measures of far-reaching importance wholly unconnected with the war carried out by this moribund assembly. It has proved itself on many occasions a docile and subservient body, and members who are inclined to be critical are usually told that their criticism is unpatriotic, and, what is a far more serious feature, there is a steadily increasing body of Government officials in the House of Commons, and the House of Commons bids fair soon to be a body of Coalition Placemen and nothing more. With regard to some of these appointments one considers that they have not been made on the merits of the candidates, but that those Members of the House of Commons who are inclined to criticise the Government, and be inconvenient in their criticisms and speeches, are much more likely to occupy positions on the Treasury Bench than some Member of far higher intellectual capacity who is inclined to hold his peace. One is forced to the conclusion that the only free and independent assembly—by that I mean your Lordships' House, which is the sole instrument for guarding popular interests, and which, moreover, is the sole vehicle
80
now for the expression of popular opinion—is rapidly going through a process of decay. That is the first point which I would venture to put before your Lordships' House.
The second point is the apportionment of Ministerial appointments between the two Houses. This is a question which it is always very difficult for any one to approach, and I would ask your Lordships to believe that I am bringing this forward entirely on its intrinsic merits. T should not like your Lordships to attribute to me any unworthy suggestion of desiring to be a recipient of one of these posts, although I am certainly going to say that I do not think there is any member of your Lordships' House who is not ambitious, if the opportunity offered and if his conscience was agreeable, to do whatsoever he could, all that lay in his power, in whatever minor or unimportant post, to carry out the duties of the country to the best of his ability. I view with grave misgivings the decrease of what are known as Ministerial appointments in your Lordships' House.
LORD HARRIS: With great respect, may I ask the noble Marquess to consider whether the subject to which he is now addressing himself is germane to the Notice put down by my noble friend?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY:I fully agree with what the noble Lord has said, and I have taken the Question which my noble friend has raised as drawing attention to the position which your Lordships' House has occupied, and whether or not it has those powers which intrinsically belong to this House and which, I believe, it can exercise for the benefit of the country and the Empire. I certainly feel—I say it with the greatest possible respect to the noble Lord who interrupted me—that this question of Ministerial appointments, which I will venture to develop very briefly, is one which strikes at the root of the authority which we desire that your Lordships' House should possess. I would say at once that it always has been the idea, and up till quite recently has been the custom, that in this House we should have the benefit of a responsible official belonging to each of the Departments, or as many of the Departments as possible; and I say that I view with grave apprehension and misgiving a very sinister feature, which is becoming more and more prominent in the Ministerial appointments

81
in this country, and that is that responsible officials are placed in the I louse of Commons while other officials are brought into this House, placed on what is known as the front Bench, and are called upon to give the answers of the Department to which they are accredited.
I think all of us will agree that on the Front Bench of this House there are men who, from their intellectual capacity, from their own records, and front their experience, are capable of occupying the highest posts in the land. I venture to say that there is not one who, if he were a Member of the House of Commons, would not be occupying a very responsible and important position. Yet, because he is a member of your Lordships' House, we find that he is not good enough to be an Under Secretary, but he is asked here to take up those duties in a very patriotic spirit and to give your Lordships the information which it is possible for him to give. It seems to me that the trend of this policy is obvious. It is destroying the power which your Lordships may have for good in this country, and, because the noble Earl who leads this House—fortunately, I may say—occupies a very important and a very powerful position and, apart from a very few positions in this House, stands by himself in a position of importance in the counsels of the State, I would venture to appeal to him to use the power of his great position and also his influence to establish the character of this House and so enable it to carry out those duties efficiently and properly, which I believe are necessary to the good government of this country and this Empire.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend who introduced this subject told the House that he had been a long time a member of it. I, too, have been a long time a member of this House—so long that I think I may, perhaps, be pardoned for saving half a dozen words as to the manner in which the Motion of my noble friend strikes me. I was not present on the occasion of the debate of the 17th of this month, but I have read it pretty carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I say nothing as to the sufficiency of the reasons for which the noble Earl who leads the House declined to discuss the particular Question which had been suggested by my noble friend beside me (Lord Wimborne) for discussion. I say nothing as to that, because I do not know what the reasons of the Government were; nor do I wish to enter into a minute exami-
82
nation of every phrase that was used by the noble Earl. But of this I am certain, that he did not intend to claim, and did not claim, any right to put a veto on the discussion of any subject that a member of this House might desire to discuss.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I find nothing in the words that he used to suggest the idea that he conceived that it was the duty of a private Peer to come to him for permission before a Notice could be put on the Paper or debated. Such a claim, if I may say so, would have been monstrous and absurd, unsupported by any kind of authority. There is one authority and only one authority that can decide whether a particular subject is to be debated or not, and that is the House itself.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It does not rest with any Minister, however powerful; it rests with the House itself. I venture to think that the position was quite fairly summed up by the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Crewe, when he told the House on the 17th that in his view it was part of the ordinary comity of this House that debates on delicate questions should not be attempted without at least giving the responsible Minister a chance of suggesting that the moment was an inopportune moment for the discussion. When I say "inopportune" I do not mean for a moment inopportune because it is inconvenient to the Minister to come down and make a speech. The only plea upon which a Notice can be put on one side would be that the discussion of it was inadvisable in the public interest, and not with reference to the convenience of Ministers.
I have had some experiences of these matters. I was Secretary of State for War at a time when war was going on; I was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at a time when very delicate foreign negotiations were in progress; and I can recall many cases in which noble Lords came to me, or I went to them, in order to consider whether at some particular moment it was, or was not, desirable in the public interest that there should be a debate upon this question or upon that. I am glad to bear witness to the invariable courtesy and to the reasonable spirit in which I was always met upon those occasions.

83
I think something was said with regard to the practice, which is sometimes resorted to, of meeting an undesirable Motion by silence on the part of the Minister responsible for the Department involved. That, no doubt, is the last resort. If the Peer persists with his Motion, and the Government are unable to discuss it, they are obliged to take refuge in silence. It is a very disagreeable solution of the difficulties for all concerned. It is not pleasant for the Peer who desires to provoke the discussion, and it certainly can never be pleasant for the Minister concerned. The Minister concerned will always feel that, if he declines to open his mind, he is liable to the suspected of shirking a difficulty. I am sure my noble friend behind me remembers the line in Pope's "Ode to Silence," which I think runs thus—
And routed reason finds a safe retreat in thee."
I daresay the Minister who, for reasons of prudence, is not able to say what he might like to say, feels all the time that he is liable to an imputation of that sort.
But, if I may sum up what I want to say, I do so by expressing my belief that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred these difficulties can be overcome by amicable discussion out of doors, as they have been overcome in the past. I am not very much alarmed by the picture which my noble friend drew just now of the diffident Irish Peer. I have never observed such diffidence, which can scarcely be said to peculiar to members of that race, and I doubt whether any Irish Peer is likely to be deterred because of the awful reception he might encounter from some member of the Front Bench. I do not believe the difficulties are really as formidable as my two noble friends suppose. I venture to express my hope that, as these misgivings have arisen, and probably do exist in the minds of a good many of your Lordships, the noble Earl who leads the House will take an opportunity of reassuring them, and saying (as I am sure he will be able to say) that it never entered into his head, or into the heads of the Government, of which he is so distinguished a member, either to menace freedom of speech in this House or to attempt to shirk that Ministerial responsibility to which, in all parts of this House, we attach such a great amount of importance.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I propose to confine myself quite closely to the Question of my noble relative opposite, and not follow the excursion into the general powers of your Lordships' House to which we have listened. My noble relative began, and I entirely agree with him, on the great importance of preserving not only the liberties of the House as a whole but of preserving the liberties and privileges of each individual Peer. I am afraid I find myself rather parting company front him if he thinks that those liberties are, at the moment, in danger, and therefore I find myself much more in agreement with the noble Marquees, Lord Lansdowne.
I have been a member of this Assembly for thirty years, and I have occasionally in the course of that time put down Questions which I am sure have been inconvenient and disagreeable to the Government. Indeed, they were often not intended to be agreeable. I have never been approached by any member on behalf of the Government on the ground that my Questions were disagreeable or inconvenient and asked to remove such Questions from the Paper. What I understand the noble Earl the Leader of the House to say—and I agree—is that in the case of delicate matters, and particularly in the case of foreign affairs, the mere putting down of Questions might, in itself, be against the public interest. That is a matter on which the Government must be the judge, and in cases of that sort they would naturally approach any one who had put down such a Question and would ask him not to press it. I think I shall be right in saying that there is no member of our Lordships' House who would not, in those circumstances, leave the responsibility to the Government and not press such a Question.
In passing may I say, lest I should be thought reflecting on the noble Lord in connection with whom this Question arose, that I am quite sure it was not clear to him that the Question would be embarrassing to the public interest; otherwise I could not imagine it would have been pressed. It is, of course, necessary also for the liberties of this House that when we are offered that advice the decision should be acted upon, and remain in the last resort, with the individual Peer. If he likes to take the responsibility, and if he thinks in the public interest, and his own conception of the public interest and his duty

85
to the country, he must take the responsibility of pressing some Question which he is told is embarrassing then, undoubtedly, he must be at liberty to press it; otherwise if that were not so, it is quite obvious the Government could suppress what many people would regard as legitimate debate. I very much doubt whether your Lordships have any reason to complain in the past as to the non-compliance on the part of any Peer with such a request.
Let me add where, I think, the mis-apprehension arose. The noble Earl the Leader of the House rather suggested the other day—I have not studied the language in Hansard, but I was present at the discussion—that you must not put down a Question if it is inconvenient. I am sure what he meant to say was, that you ought not, and of course you would not, to put down a Question if your attention was directed to the fact that it was against the public interest. To that I do not think your Lordships could take any exception, although the ultimate decision must remain with the individual Peer. I trust that the noble Earl when he replies will make it clear that he meant no more than this. It has been in my experience of this House the invariable practice, and I think in that case we shall have really nothing to apprehend. It is true that in another place, as in the Press, we are suffering from a great deal of muzzling, and it is very important that in this House we should retain completely in theory full liberty of discussing anything we like, inconvenient or convenient to the Government.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I only want to say a word or two because the other evening I intervened when this Question was raised. I said that several times I wished to put down Questions about Persia, and have been asked to postpone them by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. When I made that interjection it was not by way of complaint, but only to show the noble Viscount, Lord Wimborne, that it was nothing unusual for any Peer to be asked not to press his Motion or Question
I remember perfectly well that when the noble Earl was in Opposition and I wanted to put down a Question to the Minister responsible and that Minister had asked me to postpone it or remove it, if I consulted the noble Earl he always said, "Of course, you must post pone it; you cannot possibly ask the Question if the Govern-
86
ment say it would be inopportune." It seems to me that this evening a most exaggerated and highly coloured description has been given of a very ordinary incident indeed—an incident which is ordinary both in this House and in another place. It constantly happens to members of both Houses that they are told that it would be against the public interest that a particular Question should be put. I think that the noble Earl behind me did not know what were the exact words used the other evening. What the noble Earl then said was—
"What I did was to ask him not 14, pursue it in the public interest, and to that appeal he turned a deaf ear".
I can only imagine that the noble Lord who has put down the Question this evening has introduced this subject again because on an occasion that I remember—although I was not present—he had down what I thought was a very indiscreet Question—a very improper Question—in connection with the war and having a fellow-feeling I suppose he thinks it necessary to raise this topic again. I think that it is most unfortunate that such a debate should have been again raised, and also that it should have been brought forward in two such very exaggerated speeches covering a very ordinary incident of Parliamentary life.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, may I say one word. I am sorry to stand between your Lordships and the noble Earl, but the noble Earl will see the reason directly. It is perhaps fitting that I should say a word, because I am one of those who have been getting into hot water for putting down on the Paper a Question which, I am informed, is not in the public interest. I wished to ask a certain Question—I will not say what it is, because it is as undesirable to allude to it now as it was then. I informed the noble Earl, and he wrote to me a certain letter to which I did not send any answer. I intended to come down to the House and tell your Lordships that I did not mean to press my Question. I wish to tell the noble Earl now, and also your Lordships, that in not having answered the letter of the noble Earl who leads the House I was guilty of something which was worse than a crime. It was not only a mistake and a breach of good manners, but it was a tactical blunder. Since then I have had a friendly meeting with the noble Earl, and

87
I then expressed my regret to him for not having answered his letter. I shall be very glad if your Lordships will allow me this opportunity of expressing my regret now.
But in the letter which the noble Earl wrote to me he raised an important point, To that point, without however desiring to introduce anything of an acrimonious character at the present moment, I should very much like to direct the attention of the noble Earl. There are two ways of looking at this matter. 'There is, first of all, the influence that a member of the Government or the Leader of the House has when a Question has been put down upon the Paper which he considers it detrimental to the public interest should be put. There is also the tradition of this House. Nobody for a moment will question the right of the Leader of the House to ask a noble Lord who has put down such a Question to withdraw it. Then, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, it is open to the member to decide whether he will proceed to the bitter end and raise a debate.
The noble Marquees, Lord Crewe, referred to the position of the noble Lord who wished to do that the other day, and said that there might be a case in which a member of your Lordships' House might desire to persist in a Question, and it might even be, from his point of view, in the public interest that he should persist in it in spite of the fact that the Minister for the Government desired that the Question should be withdrawn. That is a matter for private judgment which every member of your Lordships' House has a right to exercise. Those who persist in asking Questions of that kind might perhaps be adjudged to be guilty of a lack of patriotism or a lack of good taste. That is one position. But quite another position arises out of these debates, and that is this. In the letter which the noble Earl wrote to me he seemed to think that before Questions of a certain character were put on the Paper he should first be consulted as to whether he thought them desirable. I can quite see from the view of the noble Earl and of the Government that he would like that to be done, and that it would be a convenience. But that theory, may I say with profound respect, I do not accept. For one thing, it would be difficult for any noble Lord who wished to put a Question on the Paper to destinguish between those Questions which he could take direct to the Clerk at the
88
Table, and those which the noble Earl thinks that he ought to be consulted about even before they are put on the Paper. Upon that point I hope that the noble Earl will say a word in explanation.
When my noble friend Lord Londonderry made his extremely able and statesmanlike speech he was interrupted by the noble Lord opposite, because, in the view of the noble Lord, he was bringing forward considerations which were not germane to this exceedingly important subject. I say with all the force that I can command that the speech of Lord Londonderry, to which I listened with very great pleasure, as also I believe did your Lordships, was exceedingly apposite, and bore most acutely upon the public position at this moment. If your Lordships search for what is really at the back of the industrial unrest, and of the general lack of confidence which exists among the disaffected elements of this country, you will find two kinds of persons. There are first of all the people who are far worse than the aliens—people who are dead against England, first and last and all the time. I could name them; everybody knows who they are. There are, in the second place, other people who have been led astray by the Bolshevists in this country. The reason that they have been led astray—I have had conversations with some of them—is that they are not confident that they are being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the war.
I am well aware that there are things in the public interest, interpreting that term in its highest sense, which it is impossible for your Lordships to reveal. But let me tell the noble Earl with all the sincerity and all the respect at my command—and no one has a greater respect for him than I have—that there are a great many of our fellow-subjects in this country who are in a state of unrest to-day because they are being kept in the dark, or think that they are being kept in the dark, and because they are not quite sure whether the Government are really "bitter-enders," and whether they are out to destroy and humiliate—yes, I will deliberately use the word "humiliate"—the power and position of the German Emperor and the whole German race.
I put this consideration to the noble Earl with the very greatest respect. These questions which sonic of us have asked here, which have been suppressed, in our humble

89
view have been put forward in what we conceive to be the public interest, because we have been asked to do so by people outside who feel that they have been kept in the dark, and it is because these people feel that they have not such access to the intentions of the Government as they ought to have that some of them feel that the Government have been backward in their endeavours to win the war.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will excuse me if I do not follow the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat into the disquisition with which he concluded the less relevant portion of his harangue. Neither will I pursue the details of the incident to which he referred in his opening remarks. I will only say this, that I think it would be the initiation of a somewhat unfortunate practice in your Lordships' House if noble Lords felt themselves at liberty to come down here and either to quote or to refer in debate to private letters that have passed between members of your Lordships' House on other occasions.
I do not at all deprecate the raising of this discussion by my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale. His eloquence is always agreeable, even if it was not to-night positively urbane. My noble friend appeared to-night in what to me was a most unusual garb. We are accustomed in his speeches to a humour which every one enjoys, and to raillery which not even his victims resent. But to-night he appeared for the first time moving on the high platform of constitutional orthodoxy, discoursing to us at some length and with almost professorial gravity upon the great principles of freedom of speech and Ministerial responsibility. I must confess that I was some what startled at the exordium of the noble Lord's oration, and I was anxiously looking forward to the moment when, after some quarter of an hour or twenty minutes of high principle, we were coming down to the charges against me.
But though the noble Lord invited me to recede from what he described as an untenable position he did not inform your Lordships' House what that position was. He did not quote a single sentence from my remarks. The only sentence from my speech the other day which has been quoted to-night was quoted by Lord Lamington. To that I adhere. It cor-
90
rectly described the situation on that occasion. From it I have no intention to recede. And really when the noble Lord, having delivered this exordium about free speech and Ministerial responsibility, and having failed to supply any substantiation whatever of the implied charges against myself, then gave way to my noble friend Lord Londonderry, and when my noble friend Lord Londonderry enunciated as my doctrine that no Question can be put down that does not meet with my approval, and that I claim a complete jurisdiction over the proceedings of your Lordships' Houser, I must confess I was still more astonished. Not a shadow of foundation was offered by either of those noble Lords for this preposterous and ridiculous charge. It was not borne out by any other noble Lord who spoke. It was not borne out by my noble friend Lord Russell, who I thought alluded, if I may say so, both with candour and correctness to the facts of the situation, or by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, who laid down, in language which impressed all who heard it, the true doctrine of the relations that exist between the Leader of this House and those whom he is proud to call his followers.
What is the position? In so far as I have been invited to state it, I will endeavour to do so to your Lordships' House. The constitutional position, consecrated by immemorial practice, is this—that it is in the power of any noble Lord to put down any Question, Notice, or Motion that he pleases. That I admitted the other day, although I also stated—and who can dispute the proposition?—that it is not in the power of any noble Lord to compel any member of the Government, if he regards it as not in the public interest, to give a reply. How is the whole matter regulated in this House? There are certain tacit limitations on the liberty that we enjoy here which are generally acted upon in the spirit of courtesy and friendly understanding that always prevails between the members of your Lordships' House. That understanding is not written down in books; you will not find it in the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House: it is a kind of unwritten code of manners. It regulates the proceedings of every one in this House front the highest to the lowest, and without it I venture, oven from my short experience, to say that the business of this House could not be amicably or successfully carried on from day to day. This unwritten code is.

91
really the corollary and consequence of the great liberties and advantages that we in this House enjoy. I doubt if your Lordships thoroughly realise how remarkable, I might say how unexampled, are the privileges and prerogatives as regards debate that we possess in your Lordships' House. Let me give an idea, from the point of view of a Minister of course, of what those advantages are, and let me compare them for a few moments with those which are in existence in another place.
As regards Questions in the House of Commons, the Speaker of that House may refuse or modify, although he does it in very rare cases only, the terms of a Question when it appears on the Paper. Here no such power exists. In the House of Commons a Question is a Question and no more. It is put without even being read by the Member who desires to put it. It is answered in a sentence, and very often the Minister declines in the public interest to give any reply at all. Here a Question is very often not a Question only; it is the material upon which a speech may be hung, a speech of a quarter of an hour, or half an hour—I have even know speeches of an hour delivered upon what, as it appears on the Paper, is a Question only. In the House of Commons there is a Speaker in the Chair, who compels relevance to the subject of the speech or the Motion that is being made. If we had such a functionary in this House he would never be idle. He would have had a very busy time this afternoon. I sometimes wonder whether you realise the enormous advantages that you enjoy in the relative impotence of the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack. Here in this House there is no one, unless we have some vigilant noble Lord like my noble friend Lord Harris, to call any one to order. And we frequently have this situation, that a Question is put upon the Paper about one subject and the noble Lord who puts the Question makes a speech entirely upon another. Still further, a noble Lord in this House may conclude his Question, as a noble Lord did ten days ago, with a Motion of the terms of which he had given no notice, and which was not divulged until the conclusion of his speech.
Then in the House of Commons a Question may, it is true, give rise to supplementary Questions, but supplementary Questions are only allowed in correction or in pursuance of the original Question, and it is a privilege that is very sharply restricted by Mr. Speaker. Here a Question
92
apparently small and innocent, may give rise, not to a series of supplementary Questions, but to a series of speeches. And, again, in this House noble Lords, in, I am sorry to say, flagrant defiance of the Standing Order, continually arrogate to them-selves the right of reply. May I take this opportunity, as we are all inquiring how far we observe the rules written or unwritten, of your Lordships' House, of reading to you Standing Order No. XXVII:—
"No Lord is to speak twice to any Bill, at one time of reading it, or to any other propositions" [and this, of course, includes a Question] "except the mover in reply, unless it be to explain himself in some material point of his speech (no new matter being introduced) and that not without the leave of the House first obtained."
I trust the House will pardon me if, having drawn its attention to this rule, of which I am certain from my experience in this House that nine-tenths of your Lordships must be in innocent ignorance, I express the hope that it may be better observed upon future occasions.
Lastly, my Lords, a noble Lord in this House may choose his own time and date for raising any subject whatever that he pleases in debate. In the House of Commons a Member of Parliament can only raise a question—I put aside, of course, discussion on Bills, and I put aside Questions at the commencement of Parliamentary business—a Member of Parliament there can only raise a particular question, say on Foreign affairs or Irish affairs, either on the Votes for the Department concerned, or on a Motion for the adjournment of the House, or on one of two or three strictly limited occasions—the Appropriation Bill, the Consolidated Fund Bill, and the Adjournment of the House for the holidays, or, of course, on moving the adjournment of the House and getting forty Members to rise in their places to support it. Here no such restriction exists, and any noble Lord is at liberty to choose any day, any week, that he chooses for putting down any Motion that he pleases. Now these are—I think I have correctly stated them—in brief the great advantages which we enjoy. They are without parallel, I believe, in any legislative Chamber in the world. We would not voluntarily part with them. They are one of the attractions of this place; and they explain to us, I think, how noble Lords who perhaps in the evening of their life come up to us from another place to the ampler ether, the diviner air of your

93
Lordships' House, enjoy themselves so immensely here. It is like roaming about in a spacious park after being confined to the trim alleys of a Dutch garden.
Well, my Lords, those are the advantages which we enjoy, but I submit to your Lordships that these liberties can only be exercised without damage by the existence of the kind of restraint to which I was alluding a little earlier—namely, by the recognition of certain mutual understandings as to the way in which noble Lords use the great opportunities that are open to them. Otherwise your Lordships can easily see that liberty might well degenerate into license; and if the doctrines which have been laid down here to-night were pursued to the extreme, it would be possible for any noble Lord or any group of noble Lords to hold up the Ministerial Bench and hold it up at any hour or time that they please.
Lord Russell, quite fairly I think, drew some distinction between the claims of foreign affairs and the ordinary subjects that come before your Lordships' House. It is obvious that any noble Lord can, in the enjoyment of the privileges to which I have referred, raise a debate on foreign affairs whenever he chooses. He can select a moment, no doubt without premeditation on his own part, which may be a moment of extreme delicacy in international relations. He may choose a moment at which it may be quite impossible, or at which it may be seriously detrimental to the public interest for the spokesman of the Government to give him a reply. And, my Lords, the case is stronger, I think, in cases where the Foreign Office has not a direct representative in your Lordships' House. For many years, for the best part of the last century, the Foreign Secretary had a seat in your Lordships' House; he was here himself to say then and there whether it was or was not desirable that the matter should be raised. But during the last ten years, or more, the Secretary of State, in the person of Sir Edward Grey, and subsequently of Mr. Balfour, has had a seat in the other House of Parliament. And, my Lords, undertaking as I have done, simply as an act of respect to your Lordships' House and of regard for my colleagues, the task of representation of the Foreign Office in this House, my position is not rendered easier by the fact that the Secretary of
94
State is not here for me to consult at any time, so that I can refer to him and get his opinion upon the opportuneness of the moment that is chosen for discussion, or of the subject itself.
Observe this, too, about foreign affairs, that whereas if a Question is put in the House of Commons the Minister who replies can dismiss it in a sentence or can even say that he must ask the House to accept his assurance that it is not in the public interest to pursue the matter, this is hardly open to the spokesman of the Foreign Office in your Lordships' House. And for this reason. When the noble Lord who has put the Question resumes his seat, not after putting a Question, but, very likely after making a long speech, there rise after him two or three or four noble Lords who may pursue the subject for a number of hours, speaking with great responsibility, knowledge, and authority. I have often wondered to myself if noble Lords realise the position of an occupant of this Bench, having no notion in advance other than the terms on the Paper of what is going to be raised, coming down here with the material for a five-minutes' reply to a Question, such as would be given in the House of Commons and then finding himself confronted with a series of speeches by some of the most formidable speakers in this House, to which he is called upon to reply at decent length and in measured tones and with a due sense of responsibility. The position is one which I do not think anybody can be very keen to occupy.
My Lords, these are the circumstances that render it, I respectfully submit to your Lordships, desirable to pursue a somewhat different practice about Foreign Office affairs, about Foreign Office Questions, from that about other matters. They explain the procedure which was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, and which within my knowledge has been the invariable practice of your Lordships' House. I have only had the honour of occupying my present position for a year and a-half, but I sat on that [the Front] Bench opposite for some years, and one of my most absorbing interests has always been foreign affairs. Did I ever put down a Question upon foreign affairs without going to the representative of the Foreign Office? Never. Did I ever pursue a Question if the representative of the Foreign Office asked me not to? Never. I did not talk about freedom of speech and

95
the rights of debate and all that rubbish in your Lordships' House; I accepted the advice of the responsible representative of the Foreign Office. I can recall on one occasion when Lord Morley was representing the Foreign Office in your Lordships' House I was very anxious to raise a debate, I think it was about Persia. Three times the noble Lord asked me to take the subject off the Paper. I did not get up and make a speech here; I acquiesced in his decision, and not until he gave me permission to put it down did I venture to bring it before your Lordships' House. I could give Scores of similar illustrations.
And here let me thank noble Lords for the general consideration which they have shown to me in this respect. There are noble Lords sitting in this House now who have wished during the past few weeks or months to raise questions of this sort. They have most courteously come to me in advance and asked whether it was opportune that it should be done, and I have either said "Yes, by all means," or I have asked them to desist. That is the way in which these things are done. I make no claim that they should be done in any other way. I am merely carrying on to the best of my ability the old traditions of immemorial courtesy and amity which prevail in your Lordships' House.
I do not know that I need say anything more. I should be very sorry if noble Lords, by a perfectly legitimate although an undue insistence upon their rights, were to drive the spokesman on this Bench to the position which was so wisely and rightly deprecated by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne. One does not want to be put into the position of ignoring a speech when it is delivered, still less of moving that the noble Lord be not heard. I should be ashamed if any Leader of this House were forced to take up such a position as that. And as regards not giving a reply, the case in which I declined to give an answer the other day was one in which I had tried without success to secure that the Question should not be proceeded with. But I am most reluctant to adopt that course. My desire is everywhere not only to give information but to give the maximum of information. Noble Lords must do me the justice to admit that. But if there is an obligation on the Leader of this House—and I frankly accept it—not to exercise any influence he may possess, not by any pressure to restrict the full rights
96
and liberties of your Lordships' House, equally, indeed I think I may say even more, is there an obligation on the part of noble Lords to respect the confidence which he endeavours to repose in them, to listen to the appeals that he may think it his duty to address to their feelings, and, in the event of his representing that it is not in the public interest to pursue a matter, to defer, not to his orders, but to his responsible wishes. No other claim do I make, and the principles which I have ventured to lay down in the remarks that I have addressed to your Lordships, entirely agreeing with the outline of them given by Lord Lansdowne, are, I believe, principles which the great majority of the House Will unhesitatingly accept.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to make one or two observations on the Question which has been asked by my noble friend opposite, particularly as he alluded to me in some of his opening observations. I know very well that my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale is a most jealous guardian of the liberties of the House, and, like the noble Earl who has just spoken, I am sure nobody will complain that this subject has been brought up again. On July 17 last, when I said a few words, I then expressed a hope that the subject might be allowed to drop, but it is quite evident that the minds of a good many noble Lords were somewhat exercised upon the subject, and therefore no doubt it is well that has come up again.
It is well for this reason, that somewhat extreme views have been entertained by various members of your Lordships' House, and to some extent expressed. There is no doubt that the noble Earl who leads the House has been regarded by some as taking a too strict view of the right of the Government or of the representative of the Government to limit the putting of Questions on various subjects, especially those connected with foreign affairs. On the other hand, some noble Lords have been supposed to entertain and perhaps express in excess the right of all members of your Lordships' House to in the first place initiate and afterwards pursue debates on any subject on which they may desire to be informed. I am quite certain that neither the noble Earl nor my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale in reality hold those extreme views.

97
But it must be remembered that there are two sides to this question which have to be carefully borne in mind. In the first place, it is undoubtedly a temptation to the members of any Government to regard as contrary to the interest of the public Questions which are inconvenient to themselves. It is a temptation which everybody who has held office must recognise, because it is not always easy to separate the interests of the Administration from the interests of the public in such a matter. It is the natural instinct of all Governments to avoid discussion on awkward subjects. I s appose the most classical instance is that which we remember in another place in the years 1904 and 1905, when His Majesty's then Government absolutely forbade, and succeeded in forbidding, any discussion of the fiscal question. Here, on the contrary, with the liberty which my noble friend has just mentioned, we used to discuss it at stated intervals. That danger does no doubt exist. On the other hand, it cannot be disputed that there are persons who are so desirous of opposing the Government or its policy on a particular subject that they are apt, in the interest which they feel, to forget the possibility of public inconvenience or even public danger.
I am not at all, in mentioning this, saying de te fabula to the noble Lord opposite, or to my noble friend below the gangway, with reference to the debate in which he engaged. This particular case of a discussion on foreign policy—because war policy is foreign policy in these times—was considered to be untimely by the noble Earl who leads the House, and he acted accordingly. I only hope that we shall not fall into the way in this House of considering discussions on foreign policy or war policy untimely in themselves. I can remember, although I was not a member of the House, some of the great days of discussion on foreign policy in this House when speeches of great power and eloquence were made on subjects of the greatest delicacy affecting the foreign policy of this country. I am speaking of the time of the Russo-Turkish war and of the kindred history of the Afghan troubles which followed that war. Those debates were obviously carried on upon the thinnest of ice, but I never remember hearing that Lord Beaconsfield, who led your Lordships' House, objected to them on public grounds. Again, later in the early and extremely difficult days of the troubles in Egypt in 1882–3 continual debates were carried on in your Lordships'
98
House. I should therefore most greatly deprecate any assumption that discussions on foreign policy, and indeed on war affairs, should be considered improper in your Lordships' House without definite reason shown why they are not in the public interest.
The point as to whether the particular subject which was brought forward by Lord Wimborne on the last occasion was unsuited for public discussion must be a matter of opinion as between individuals; but I am bound to say—although I was not present in the House at the time—that, having read his speech, it seems to me that the noble Lord put his case with great care and discretion, and, I venture to think, not in a manner which the noble Earl who leads the House or anybody else could have regarded as dangerous. But I still adhere to the opinion that if it is at any time desired that a noble Lord should refrain from dealing with a particular subject, it should be a matter of private and friendly communication outside.
The noble Marquess who spoke early in the debate, Lord Londonderry, from his House of Commons experience expressed some suspicion of arrangements behind the Speaker's Chair. Such arrangements, however, are of a different sort from those which can be carried out here with courtesy and confidence in such instances as these. At the same time, I quite see the difficulty which the noble Earl who leads the House may find in invariably conducting such conversations himself. But the Ministers of the Crown are now extraordinarily numerous. They are approaching in number the tale of the wives of Solomon, and they may be supposed to have as close an access to the fountain of wisdom as those ladies could ever have possessed. Why does not the noble Earl tell off some Minister, who can regularly be informed upon foreign affairs—if those are the matters which it is specially desired to safeguard—who, when there is a question of an inconvenient discussion, should seek an interview with the noble Lord who placed the subject on the Paper and explain to him at full length why the discussion is not desired at that particular moment? Nobody, of course, would admit as a general proposition—as the noble Earl has so frankly acknowledged—that it is for His Majesty's Government to say whether a subject ought to be discussed here or not; but, of course, equally every private

99
member of the House and everybody on this Bench admits that where cause is shown, where His Majesty's Government are prepared to state that it is not to the public good that a particular Question should be put, the member will refrain and will keep silence, even from good words. I am quit certain that it is only by these colloquies outside the House that friction can be found that no such troublesome incident occurs again as that which we have been discussing this afternoon.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Lansdowne laid down the clearly doctrine of this House in respect of the matter which lies at the root of the speech of my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale, and as I understood the Leader of the House to accept that doctrine in its most unqualified form and to make no reservations about it, we may all congratulate ourselves that we are unanimous in agreeing as to what is the real practice and privilege of this House in these matters. But I think Lord Crewe touched on a very real point when he told us that it is not always easy to distinguish between the public interest and the interest of the Administration. All Governments must be liable to the temptation to consider their interests the interests of the public, and therefore we, on our part, should be jealous and retain to ourselves the right of personal discrimination.
We are not prepared to accept from any Government their opinion as our guide to what is or what is not in the public interest. It must always rest with the individual judgment of any member of your Lordships' House to decide that for himself. But in the present instance—and I am sorry my noble friend the Leader of the House is not here; perhaps the Lord Privy Seal will be good enough to tell him what I say—in this instance there is a third consideration, personal to my noble friend the Leader of the House. It is this—that he is so overworked a man, he has such an immense burden of responsibility put upon his shoulders (the whole duty of answering authoritatively for the War Cabinet rests upon him alone) that naturally it is difficult for him always to consider quite dispassionately whether a subject should be brought up on a given day or not.
I thought Lord Londonderry was abundantly justified in enlarging the scope of
100
this debate and bringing in, as he did, the question of the representation of the Departments on the Front Bench. Indeed, the Leader of the House himself admitted that, because in an eloquent passage he appealed to your Lordships to try to realize the difficulty it was for his colleagues on the Bench, who had been provided with a five minutes reply by a Department, to confront some member of your Lordships' House on a subject on which he was a great authority. That really is almost the root of this whole matter. What I would ask my noble friend to believe is that this debate is a sign of a certain amount of restiveness and hostility in this House, not to my noble friend as the Leader of the House, but to the attitude of the Government, of which he is an ornament, towards this House.
There is a very strong and growing impression that the present Government show very scant consideration for the convenience of this House, very scant consideration for its rights, and show us very little courtesy. I mean the Government, not the members of the Government who are sitting on the Front Bench opposite. I mean the Prime Minister and Mr. Bonar Law. Look at the enormous size of the Government; yet how many members are there sitting on that Bench who in any debate can answer authoritatively of their own knowledge? I believe my noble friend the Leader of the House and Lord Milner are almost the only two, and of the others of my noble friends there is not one who is not qualified, by his experience and his ability, to hold high office in the Government. The places they ought to be filling are filled by Members of the House of Commons, often of quite inferior ability and experience, and my noble friends here speak with no authority, have no opportunity of mastering the subjects they are so qualified to master, but are only able to speak from a brief furnished them for the moment by the Department which they are set to represent. That is the position, which is being more or more resented in this House, and there are other instances to which I need not call your Lordships' attention now. But that feeling does exist, and this debate is a witness to the impression that unless my noble friend who leads this House stands up for the rights of this House with the Government of which he is a member, your Lordships' House will receive very little courtesy and very little consideration.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I believe, under the Standing Order which the noble Earl himself read out, that I have the right of reply, but I am going to be very short because of the important Notice in the name of Lord Sydenham which is next on the Paper. The noble Earl disagrees. Well, perhaps I may be given a ruling; we are all under the Front Bench——
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I was merely asking my noble friend beside me why the noble Lord has a right to reply.
A NOBLE LORD: Lord Ribblesdale has by the indulgence of the House.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: Then may I go on by the indulgence of t he blous—I am most anxious to keep right. I was merely proceeding to say that I was sorry the noble Earl, a very old friend of mine, found me dull. Of course, that one cannot help; but I am still more sorry that he found me disagreeable. A great part of his speech was directed to very old jokes about the latitude enjoyed and and taken advantage of by speakers in this House in conveying arguments out of Questions, but I should like to tell the noble. Earl this, that there he is very much at variance with Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone was very kind to me when I first came into this House, and he said to me, "Now remember one thing. You are going into a House which will give in you very great opportunities. Questions in your House are not put down to elicit information; they are lout down to convey arguments. You be a wise man and take every possible advantage of that." Lord Curzon, I think, deplores very much that that should be the case; and I have no doubt in his own case, as Lord Selborne said, being a very much overworked Minister, he has suffered a considerable amount of inconvenience from that awkward habit which we claim from right immemorial. He spoke about my not having referred to various phases and incidents of duly 17. That was for this reason, that I thought it was an incident which was more or less closed. I looked at this much more from the larger aspect which I put forward of the rights of the House to free speech, and the importance of Ministerial responsibility. This Lord Curzon did not like, of course. I am bound to say that on a good deal which the noble Earl said I am as unlikely to meet him as opposite angles. I do not agree with a great deal that he told us.
102
I am animated by that certain feeling of mistrust to which Lord Selborne adverted just now, and I am still more so after the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Curzon. I do not at all understand that Lord Curzon accepted the noble Marquess's statement of the case. If he did, that would remove some of my objections; but why I still feel nervous is this. Lord Curzon seemed to tell us that because we had secured certain privileges, or, as he called them, advantages, we were to be good boys; and having got these advantages we were not to attach Importance to them or to be suspicious of any invasion of them. To that I do not subscribe. I am quite impenitent about the manner in which I have brought forward my Motion. I objected at the time to Lord Curzon's pronouncement, and I object to it still.

INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM had the following Notice on the Paper—
To draw attention to the Report of the Viceroy and the Secretary of State on Indian Reforms; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Motion deals with matters which are vital to the interests of the people of India, and also vital to our own people, if they only knew. At, this late hour I feel that I cannot do justice to them, and unless this important question can be dealt with as it deserves I think it would be better not to deal with it at all. I therefore ask the permission of your Lordships' House to postpone my Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I venture to ask the Leader of your Lordships' House a question arising out of what has fallen from the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches, although probably the noble Earl will not be able to deal with it at the moment. This Motion, as the noble Lord said, is one of the first importance, and I do not know whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House is able now to tell us if and when there is any possibility of its being taken, in view of the long list of business before us to which reference was made the other evening.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I should not like to give a definite reply on the spur of the moment, because

103
the only date available for Motions of this sort is Wednesday, August 7, on which day Lord Beauchamp has put down a Question of some importance, and he would have priority. Without disputing the wisdom of Lord Sydenham I am rather sorry that he has not persisted in his Motion this afternoon, because if we are to lay down the doctrine that a debate of first-class importance cannot be taken at half-past six I confess that the proceedings of this House are likely to be very sensibly curtailed in the future. I had been making arrangements this afternoon to secure, if possible, a good attendance after dinner to-night, with the hope that the debate inaugurated by my noble friend, commencing at 6.30, might have gone on till 11 o'clock, or to whatever period he and his friends thought desirable. I can only say, on my own behalf, that I have no responsibility in the matter, and express my regret that my noble friend has decided not to pursue his Motion this afternoon.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following thirty-seven Bills received the Royal Assent—

Finance.

War Loan.

Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis).

Solicitors (Articled Clerks).

Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland).

Deputy Lieutenants.

Land Drainage.

Labourers (Ireland).

Expiring Laws Continuance.

Flax Companies (Financial Assistance).

Juries.

Parliament and Local Elections.

Small Holding Colonies (Amendment).

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation.

Land Drainage (Pinchbeck) Provisional Orders.

Land Drainage (Woodwalton) Provisional Order.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2).

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders.

104

Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Continuation.

Aldershot Gas, Water, and District Lighting.

Railway Passengers Assurance Company. Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board.

West Bromwich Corporation

London County Council (Money).

Belfast Harbour.

British Gas Light Company (Norwich).

Morecambe Corporation.

Londonderry Corporation.

County of London Electric Supply.

Sligo Corporation.

Nelson Corporation Water.

Calthorpe Estate.

Hamilton Estates.

Scarisbriek Estate.

Miles Divorce.

GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.

TO-MORROW'S SITTING.
THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until to-morrow afternoon at half-past three.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of July 29.

COUNTY OF LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
SCARISBRICK ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
HAMILTON ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
  MILES DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes past seven o'clock.