Sitting of 19 June 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders Bill,
Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill,
Gas Provisional Orders Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Glasgow and South Western Railway," presented by Mr. MUNRO; read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Thursday, 27th June, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Thirty-sixth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Copy presented of Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under Section 2 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, that they are of opinion that the Provisional Orders for which Petitions were presented be allowed to proceed, subject to such recommendations as they may hereafter make with respect to the several Orders [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local
316
authority, and confirmed, with Amendment, by the Secretary for Scotland:—
Burgh of Glasgow
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

STATES OF JERSEY WAR CONTRIBUTION.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 17th June, 1918, as to the disposal of the Contribution of the States of Jersey to the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS.
Copy presented of the Telegraph (Inland Written Telegram) Amendment (No. 1) Regulations, 1918, dated 27th April, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Potatoes (Distribution) Order, No. 2, 1918; and Milk (Summer Prices) Amendment Order, 1918; made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL STAFF EMPLOYED BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
Return ordered, "showing the number of persons employed in the various Government Departments at the outbreak of war and at the present time, the number who have joined the forces, and the number of men of the military age laid down by the Military Service Acts, 1916, still retained on their civil duties."—[Mr. Beck.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    INDIAN ARMY.

      OFFICERS' INCOME TAX.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether unemployed officers of the Indian Army when employed by the War Office as censors are compulsorily retained on the active list and

      317
      have part of their pay deducted by the India Office and credited to Indian revenues, and yet, although reckoned as serving soldiers for the purpose of this deduction, are denied the privilege of serving soldiers when it comes to the question of Income Tax, and are then treated as if they are not serving but retired, and are refused the privilege of the soldier's rate of Income Tax on the balance of their pay, and are taxed as if they were retired officers in possession of their full unemployed pay; and, if so, will he have this altered with retrospective effect?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Questions concerning Income Tax should be addressed to the Treasury.
      Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman do nothing to help these officers in this respect?
      Mr. MONTAGU: As I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, he is concerned with the question of the interpretation by the Inland Revenue authorities of the Income Tax. I am afraid I have no control over that.

      FRONTIER MEDAL.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India if he will state when it is proposed to sanction the issue of the Indian Frontier Medal to the troops at Peshawar and elsewhere who took part in the operations on the North-West Frontier of India in the early years of this War?
      Mr. MONTAGU: With the concurrence of the War Office, it has been decided to deal with the operations mentioned in the question as part of the great War. As the troops engaged will be eligible for any war medal that may be issued, the issue of the Frontier Medal would not be appropriate.
      Colonel YATE: Considering that there are large quantities of this medal in stock in India, is there any reason why these people should not be given the medal to which they are entitled for that campaign?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. and gallant Gentleman would not suggest that they should be entitled to two medals for the campaign? It was considered better to treat this as part of the operations of the world war in which we are engaged rather than as a separate campaign.
      Colonel YATE: Is there any reason why they should not be entitled to two medals—I see none?

      BHILS IN EAST AFRICA.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that Bhils have been found most useful in East Africa, steps will now be taken to enlist the Bhils from Rajputana, Central India, and Guzarat for service in that and in other such-like jungle-covered countries?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend will be brought to the notice of the Government of India.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      MEDICAL GRADING.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Minister of National Service what proportion of men above the age of forty-one examined at Conduit Street have been passed in Grade 1?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): Of the men of the new military age examined at Conduit Street up to the 13th of June the proportion passed in Grade 1 is 29.1 per cent.
      Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Minister of National Service what steps he proposes to take to make the recent Order M.N.S.R. 53 operative; if his attention has been directed to cases such as that of a mechanic with one eye and born in 1886 and employed in a silk factory, who was placed in Grade 1 at his first medical examination, and on examination recently by the National Service Medical Board was placed in Grade 2, and as such was not liable, in his particular occupation, to be combed out, but who has, notwithstanding M.N.S.R. 53, been called up; and what steps will be taken, in this and similar cases, to correct the mistake made and return the man to his civil occupation?
      Mr. BECK: The procedure consists in calling up in due course those men whose certificates of exemption are withdrawn by the Order. My attention has not been directed to any cases of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend, and I think he must have been misinformed as regards the men whom he has mentioned, as the

      319
      operative date for the cessation under M.N.S.R. 53 of a certificate of exemption is the 22nd instant. Thus, if this man has been called up, it would appear that it was not under the provision of the Order referred to. If, however, my hon. Friend will furnish me with fuller particulars, I will have inquiries made. Even though a man in an occupation to which a Withdrawal Order applies does not happen to be within the age limits of decertification, it does not follow that he is protected from recruiting, and he is liable to be called up for service if any exemption which he has had expires or is withdrawn by the tribunal in the ordinary course.
      Sir A. FELL: I will supply the particulars.

      CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS.
      Mr. CURRIEasked the Minister of National Service, approximately, how many chartered and incorporated accountants were in the United Kingdom prior to the outbreak of war; how many are now on active service; how many have been returned from active service to Government Departments for public work; and whether any steps have been taken in response to the Select Committee's suggestion that large numbers of chartered accountants now with the Colours and in the Navy should be demobilised for Government work?
      Mr. BECK: As my hon. Friend is aware, a conference was recently held at the Ministry of National Service respecting professional accountants, and I am hopeful that the arrangements now in contemplation will secure to the Government Departments the skilled assistance of these gentlemen to a greater extent than heretofore. As regards the figures asked for, the necessary information is not available, but the whole subject is under investigation.
      Mr. CURRIE: Does that reply cover the case of accountants actually with the Colours and the Navy or does it refer only to men of the new military age in civil life?
      Mr. BECK: I understand it covers both.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while some Departments are asking for the release of accountants from the Army, the Army authorities are forcing accountants into the Army?
      Mr. BECK: I must have notice of that question.

    PASSPORTS TO WOMEN.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will say how many passports have been issued to women to cross the Atlantic westward by the Inter-Departmental Passport Committee during the months of March, April, and May of this year; whether any such passports have been issued without the Inter-Departmental Committee being consulted; if so, how many; whether and, it so, how the case of Miss E. Humphreys, of Stoke-on-Trent, was so considered; and can it be reconsidered?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Irrespective of the wives and dependants of Canadian soldiers, whose repatriation is arranged by the Canadian authorities by special vessels, the number of cases of urgent necessity in which passports have been granted to women to cross the Atlantic from this country is as follows: Sixteen in March, sixteen in April, and twenty-two in May. The Inter-Departmental Committee is consulted before any such passports are granted. It has not been found possible to trace the case of Miss Humphreys, but if the hon. Member will supply fuller particulars it will be looked into.

    MEDITERRANEAN NAVAL POSITION.
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state who is the admiral in command of the Allied Naval Forces in the Mediterranean; whether he is in supreme command of the French, British, Greek, Italian, and Japanese war vessels in those waters; and whether, in view of recent naval successes, he can make a statement as to the naval position in the Mediterranean?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to similar questions put by him on previous occasions. There has been no material alteration recently in the general organisation of Allied Commands in the Mediterranean. My right hon. Friend the First Lord does not propose at the present time to make any statement on the naval position in those waters.
    Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the general desire expressed on all sides of the House yesterday for more and fuller information?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I heard one speech, or part of it, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt).
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the desire for unity of command afloat as well as ashore?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will represent that view to my right hon. Friend.

    ADMIRALTY.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a recent Admiralty Order, stating that in the future no temporary clerks engaged for work in Admiralty offices are to be paid the increase of 5s. a week hitherto paid after six months' satisfactory work, applies to the male clerks temporarily engaged who are discharged sailors or soldiers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Until recently 50 per cent. of the members of the temporary office staffs at outport establishments were paid a rate 5s. a week in excess of the minimum. By Treasury decision this practice has been discontinued, and the decision applies also to those temporary male clerks who are discharged soldiers or sailors.
    Mr. HOGGE: Are we to understand from my right hon. Friend's reply that men who have served their country and are doing the same work are not to receive the same pay as people who have not served at all?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No; what it comes to is this: From the 30th May we cannot pay more than the minimum 51s. Up to the 30th May we were entitled to pay 50 per cent., at a rate 5s., in excess of the minimum.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is not what I say quite correct, that men who have been discharged from the forces and are now doing this work for the Admiralty are not to get the war bonus that other people are getting who have never been in the forces?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think so, but I will certainly make further representations to the Treasury about their decision.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is this for the future or is it retrospective?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The date of the Order is the 30th May, and we have not been able to pay any 5s. since that.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any changes have been recently effected in the Board of Admiralty; and, if so, will he state their nature?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir; the changes were announced in the "London Gazette" published last night. As a sequence to the appointment of Lord Pirrie as Controller-General of Merchant Shipbuilding and the separation of the work between the merchant and warship side, it was found that as far as the work of the Admiralty Controller is concerned, the production Departments for warships, auxiliary craft, and naval munitions and armament generally were sufficiently strong and sufficiently completely organised to enable the distinguished civilians who have undertaken the control of them to deal direct with the naval member of the Board responsible for requisitioning what they produce. It has, therefore, been decided to eliminate a separate controller, whose original appointment was necessary in order to organise production; and to place these Departments with their existing civilian heads in direct touch with the Third Sea Lord, who will resume as well the title of Controller.
    The question of co-ordination of labour supply as between the Admiralty Controller's Department and the Controller-General of Merchant Shipbuilding, as also of the priority of materials, has assumed great importance, and Sir Robert Horne, who is in charge of these matters has therefore been placed upon the Board, with the title of Third Civil Lord. The composition of the Board as between naval and civilian members therefore remains unaltered.
    On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I would like to make public acknowledgment of the debt of gratitude which the Admiralty owes to Sir Alan Anderson for the very valuable and efficient service which he has performed, and for the great development of production during his

    323
    period of office as Controller. Sir Alan Anderson has had the invaluable technical advice and co-operation of Rear-Admiral Lionel Halsey, who is leaving the Admiralty to take up an important command at sea, and to whose services as Third Sea Lord my right hon. Friend, the First Lord, wishes to pay a warm tribute.
    Captain Bartolomé, lately with the Grand Fleet, takes up the duties of Third Sea Lord and Controller under the new arrangement.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the precise duties of Sir Robert Home?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. He has been and will continue to be in charge of labour and material, but I will give my right hon. Friend the detailed distribution of business with which he is familiar.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is Sir Robert Horne responsible for the construction of naval ships, and has he any experience of shipbuilding?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think Sir Robert Home is responsible for the design of naval ships. That will be a matter for the Third Sea Lord. He is and will remain responsible for labour and material.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will he be responsible for the out-turn of work?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: He will not be responsible For design. He will be responsible for labour and material, but he will, of course, affect the output, but not the programme or design of ships.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it a fact that he is a Scottish barrister, and what use is a Scottish barrister at the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have only known Sir Robert Horne since he has been responsible for priority of labour and materials, but, if his ability is questioned. I should say he is of great help, and that the highest opinion is held of his capacity.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that Sir Robert Horne gave up for the public service a very lucrative practice as a barrister?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I was not aware of that.
    Sir E. CARSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the particular command to which Admiral Halsey, to whom he has paid such a just tribute, has been appointed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no harm in saying that he goes back to the Grand Fleet, but I will tell the right hon. Gentleman later the precise command.

    THAMES PILOTS.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that when the Admiralty took over and requisitioned the steamers trading in the Thames the licensed Trinity House river pilots for exempted ships were deprived of their means of livelihood and are, in many cases, now on the verge of starvation; what steps he proposes to take to compensate these sufferers for the losses they have sustained; (2) whether, in view of the fact that the exempted Thames pilots, who are all over military age, have been deprived of their livelihood, he will take steps, in conjunction with the Trinity House authorities, to place all pilots on the River Thames on an equality under one body in order that they may share the work with other Thames pilots?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to these questions. The matters referred to had not previously been brought to my attention, but I am communicating with the Trinity House regarding them, and will let my hon. and gallant Friend know the result in due course.

    HOSPITAL SHIPS (ENEMY ACTION).
    Mr. ALBION RICHARDSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the declared intention of Germany to sink hospital ships at sight which are homeward bound from the Mediterranean, the Government will arm such ships or bring them home under escort, and will, in any case, carry on them captured German officers of the highest rank available?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The statement as to the declared intention of Germany to sink hospital ships at sight which are

    325
    homeward bound from the Mediterranean, is not understood. No notification has been received of any intention on the part of the enemy to sink hospital ships which keep west of a line from Lands End to Ushant.
    As regards the suggestion that captured German officers should be carried on board hospital ships, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, to the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division, on the 18th March last.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Spanish Commissioners are sent with ships after they leave Gibraltar on account of the risks run?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Homeward bound?
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Yes.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I was not aware of that.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries? I am informed that is so.

    ZEEBRUGGE AND OSTEND OPERATIONS.

      DECORATIONS.
      Colonel LESLIE WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decorations have been granted to the officers and men who took part in the naval operations against Zeebrugge and Ostend; and, if so, will he say when a list of these decorations will be published?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Recommendations for decorations are now being considered for submission to His Majesty, and when approved will be published.
      Colonel WILSON: In view of the fact that these operations took place nearly two months ago, will not the Admiralty consider the advisability of initiating a system of immediate award, the same as in the Army, for gallant service?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; but some of these recommendations, at any rate, have to go to His Majesty. There will be no delay. We shall have to wait for the Rear-Admiral's recommendations, and then they have to receive the assent of the King.
      General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that awards on the field of action do not have to go to His Majesty? The whole principle of the award is that they are given by the officer commanding the. Expeditionary Force, or the Fleet in this case, and there is no necessity for them to go to His Majesty?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: If I may say so, my hon. Friend is wrong in one particular. There is an award which, although recommended on the field of action, is still a recommendation and has to go to the King in all cases.
      Sir I. PHILIPPS: Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter, because I do not think his statement is correct?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I will.

      SIR ROGER KEYES' DISPATCHES.
      Colonel WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is proposed to publish Admiral Keyes dispatches dealing with the operations against Zeebrugge and Ostend?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The Board of Admiralty have decided with much reluctance that Sir Roger Keyes' dispatch cannot be published, since it contains matter which would be of undeniable value to the enemy.
      I may perhaps be allowed to explain that the Admiralty is confronted with this difficulty:—If the technical methods and detailed organisation of this carefully planned and brilliantly executed operation are published, the enemy will be the gainers. If they were omitted, and the story presented as one of pure gallantry, little would be added to what has already been published, and, at the same time, injustice might be done to the high professional qualities displayed by the Vice-Admiral and his staff and other officers concerned.
      It may, however, be stated that the success of the operation is greater than was at first supposed. The craft at Bruges and in the Bruges Canal are still confined there and are subjected to constant bombing. Twenty-one torpedo boats and destroyers, a large number of submarines, and numerous other craft of an auxiliary nature are penned in at Bruges Docks and in the Canal.
      Colonel WILSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, even if it is not possible to publish the dispatches of Admiral Keyes, it is possible to bring to the notice of the public the names of the officers and men who have been specially mentioned in the dispatches for brilliant service?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, I told my hon. and gallant Friend that there would be a publication of the recommendations for decorations when they had been approved. I now understand that he wishes the names of the officers and men to be mentioned. I will put that point, and it will be considered.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked (1) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the officers of his Department who are in control of shipping at our ports have power to arrest enemy aliens who are suspected of spying; whether any representations have been made by such officers that it is desirable that they should have this power; (2) the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet made inquiry into the statement by Commander Sir Edward Nicholl, Royal Navy, to the effect that our sea-ports are infested with alien enemies; whether any statement can be made on the subject; what action, if any, has been taken; what was Commander Nicholl's position at the time he made the statement; and what position does he hold at the present time?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to answer question 85. I think my hon. Friend must have failed to notice the reply which I gave on the 16th May to a question on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of that reply.
    As regards question No. 13, under Regulation 55 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, any person authorised for the purpose by the competent naval or military authority or any police constable or officer of Customs and Excise or aliens officer may arrest without warrant any person whose behaviour is of such a nature as to give reasonable grounds for suspecting that he has acted or is acting or is about to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or to the Defence of the Realm. These powers are available for
    328
    the purpose of arresting enemy aliens who are suspected of spying. I am not aware of any representation from the officers in control of shipping at our ports that such powers are insufficient for the purpose mentioned.
    Colonel STAVELEY-HILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Helwig Retburg, an unnaturalised German, is still retained as matron at the cottage hospital at Devizes; whether he is aware that the retention of this person causes dissatisfaction amongst the patients in the hospital and the inhabitants of the district; and whether he will take steps to have this individual removed?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): This woman has resided in this country for twenty-one years, and has been matron at the hospital in question since 1911. The chief constable of the county reports that he has no reason to think that her presence causes dissatisfaction to patients or to inhabitants generally. On the contrary, I gather that patients speak very highly of the manner in which they have been treated by her. She is retained in her position by the committee of the hospital, and my information shows that both the committee and the local medical practitioners have expressed complete confidence in her.

    JUTE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether shipments of jute through England or directly from India are being consigned to the National Ropeworks, a German-owned factory in Italy; whether such consignments are reaching Germany as hemp viâSwitzerland; and whether jute has been declared contraband of war, so that vessels found by our patrol ships to be carrying this product are brought before our Prize Courts for adjudication?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of BLOCKADE (Mr. Leverton Harris): I will ask the hon. Member to accept my regret for the delay which has occurred in replying to his question, and which is due to the fact that inquiries have had to be made in India. In reply to the first part of the question, I am informed that five consignments of

    329
    jute were shipped to the Corderia Nazionale, of Genoa, which is an Italian company, under licence from India prior to April, 1917, the Italian Government having prohibited the export of jute from Italy. Since April, 1917, no further shipments have taken place. With regard to the second part of the question, proceedings were taken against the company by the Italian Government on the grounds that they had exported jute to enemy-countries under the designation of hemp, and contrary to the prohibition of export in force. The president and general manager were arrested upon a charge of trading with the enemy, but have since been released on the ground of insufficient evidence. The reply to the third part of the question is in the negative, but, as the hon. Member will be aware, jute is a natural monopoly of British India and His Majesty's Government have a complete control over its export and distribution.
    Sir A. FELL: Is it quite certain now that none of this jute is reaching Germany through Switzerland?
    Mr. HARRIS: Yes; so far as we are aware, none is reaching Germany. I believe the Italian Government are taking every precaution.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Mr. F. WHYTEasked the Home Secretary whether the French Minister of Foreign Affairs some time ago appointed an expert commission to investigate the various proposals which have been made For the creation of an association of nations after the War; whether he will ascertain whether the Commission has reported; if so, whether the Report will be submitted to the Allied Governments; and whether any similar inquiry has been set on foot by His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I will certainly inquire what, if any, steps the French Government intend to take in the matter. As regards the last part of the question, the hon. Member is no doubt aware that in this country an expert Committee has been considering the question for some time.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. A. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British civilians now interned
    330
    in Germany and in Holland, respectively, are naturalised British subjects of German birth; and whether the Government will take steps to prevent these men from being sent back to England during the War under any treaty for repatriation of British civilians?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): Exact statistics are not at present available, but the number is known to be considerable. The question of distinguishing between different classes of British subjects in this connection is a difficult one, but I am referring the point to the Home Secretary.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Have any of these men of German birth been brought back to this country?
    Mr. HOPE: I think so, but I should have to have notice. I know one case of such a gentleman being brought back, but he was subsequently interned in England.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Will you intern them all? All Germans are potential spies.
    Mr. HOPE: I am afraid my hon. Friend must wait for the Home Secretary's return.
    Mr. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the transfer of British civilians from Germany to Holland for internment under The Hague agreement has been suspended owing to lack of accommodation in Holland; and whether the Government will make arrangements for this accommodation to be increased?
    Mr. HOPE: The number of places which the Netherland Government undertook to provide for British invalid civilians has been filled. The question of further accommodation is one of many with which the British delegates at The Hague are concerned. The matter is complicated by the food situation in Holland, and it is possible that it will prove easier to proceed by direct repatriation than by any extension of the internment system.
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: Will my hon. Friend consider whether he cannot send food from this country to our prisoners interned in Holland in the same way as to our prisoners of war in Germany?
    Mr. HOPE: I will consider that, but I do not know how to do it. It is one of the

    331
    questions that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have before them during their stay at The Hague.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: We should like to know whether the objections to sending food to our prisoners interned in Holland are raised by the Dutch Government or by our Government?
    Mr. HOPE: I do not think that I can answer that question straight off. It is quite obvious that it must require the consent of the Dutch Government.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: Has it been asked?
    Mr. HOPE: I do not know whether any formal demand has been made by my right hon. Friend, but I know that he and his colleagues were fully seised of the matter when they went there.
    Mr. A. RICHARDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office are now satisfied that many of our men taken prisoners by the Germans have never been reported by Germany as having been so taken, and that such men have been used by the Germans in close proximity to their firing line and have sustained heavy casualties from our shell-fire; and what steps the Government propose to take by way of reprisals to prevent the repetition of these outrages upon the rules of civilised warfare?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies to similar questions on the 30th May last. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend would await the result of the Conference now sitting at The Hague.

    MRS. PANKHURST (VISIT TO AMERICA).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received reports from America of Mrs. Pankhurst's speeches in favour of Japanese intervention in Siberia; and whether, as Mrs. Pankhurst was allowed to go to America in Allied interests, these speeches indicate that the Allies have now decided that Japanese forces will enter and occupy the Eastern territory of Russia?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have received no reports on Mrs. Pankhurst's speeches in America, and know nothing beyond what has appeared in the Press. No inferences as to Allied intentions can properly be drawn from her statements.
    Mr. KING: May we conclude, therefore, that she did not go in the Allied interests in order to advocate any policy or propaganda?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: On whose recommendation was Mrs. Pankhurst sent to America?
    Mr. HOGGE: The Prime Ministers.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think she was sent on anybody's recommendation, but, if my hon. and gallant Friend is anxious to have particulars, I will make inquiries.
    Sir H. CRAIK: By whom was the passport granted, seeing that so many of these passports are at present being refused?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The giving of a passport is a quite different matter from giving it on a recommendation. As to the comparative claims of Mrs. Pankhurst and other ladies who wish to go to America, I am afraid I cannot answer that question. These matters are dealt with by a Committee to which I have referred more than once in this House. I do not know what is the basis on which my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik) would desire a comparison to be made.
    Sir H. CRAIK: To what Department is this Committee responsible? I myself have been sent to no less than three Departments—the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, and the Colonial Office—who have all said that they have no power ever this Committee.
    Mr. BALFOUR: If my right hon. Friend wishes to put a question about the Committee—which has nothing whatever to do with the question on the Paper—I shall be pleased to do my best to answer it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that Mrs. Pankhurst's expenses are not paid out of public funds?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I can give that assurance with perfect confidence.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department refused a passport to a woman to take her

    333
    husband's place who is coming from Canada to fight for this country, on the ground that there was no shipping accommodation, and yet they gave permission to Mrs. Pankhurst to go?

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (EMIGRATION).
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government propose to provide for soldiers and sailors, including the mercantile marine, domiciled in the United Kingdom, and their dependants, who desire to settle in the Dominions after the War, financial assistance to pay their passages; whether they will be given the same financial assistance beyond their passage money as Colonial soldiers on returning home; and whether the decision as to their suitability for settlement in the Dominions will be made in this country or on arrival in the Dominion?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): It is impossible to make a statement on the subject at present. It raises very important questions of policy on which both Parliament and the oversea Dominions will have to be fully consulted.
    Sir R. COOPER: Can my hon. Friend say if this matter is at present under consideration by his Department?
    Mr. HEWINS: Yes, Sir.

    MADSEN GUN TRIALS.

      REPORT OF COMMITTEE.
      Sir CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the new trial of the Madsen gun has yet taken place; and, if so, whether he can state if, as a result of that trial, it is proposed to use this gun extensively?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; the trials took place on Friday last. The members of the Trials Committee separated on the conclusion of the trials, which lasted for six hours, and each member was directed to form an Independent opinion. The Committee reassembled twenty-four hours later to record these individual opinions. It was then found that each member of the Com-
      334
      mittee had separately and independently come to the same conclusion, and had placed the five guns submitted to their judgment in the following order of merit:

      1. Lewis gun.

      2. Light Hotchkiss gun.

      3. Madsen gun.

      4. Heavy Hotchkiss gun.

      5. Berthier gun.

      Representatives of the firms whose guns were being tested were present, and were given facilities for explaining the qualifications of their weapons and firing them. They expressed themselves as satisfied with the conditions laid down. From what they saw at the trials, the Committee do not feel justified in recommending a change of light machine-gun armament for our Army at present. It is satisfactory, therefore, to know that our men have had the best weapon available at their disposal.
      Sir I. PHILIPPS: Has the right hon. Gentleman himself read the Report of this Committee?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have.
      Sir I. PHILLIPS: Then can he tell us whether all the tests that were put down were carried out?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I think every single test. I was present at the trials myself.
      Sir I. PHILIPPS: Was there a test for a large number of rounds; was it a 5,000 rounds test?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think there was a 5,000 rounds test, but there was certainly a 1,200 rounds test.
      Sir I. PHILIPPS: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter?
      Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I beg to give notice that in consequence of the answer I have received, I shall endeavour to call attention to this matter in the Debate on the Vote of Credit.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (SILVER BADGE).
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he will make arrangements for supplying men who have been discharged from the Army as unfit for military service and who are employed in recruiting offices with a

    335
    distinctive badge to show that they have served in the Array or Navy, and thus prevent them being subjected to objectionable remarks from persons who visit these offices?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think the case of these men is already met by the silver war badge, which is awarded to all individuals who have been discharged from the Army during the War and are permanently unfit for further military service. No other badge is available for issue.

    VENEREAL DISEASE.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of admissions to hospitals for venereal disease in the British Army for the years 1915, 1916, 1917, and the first four months of 1918; and how many cases of venereal disease were being treated in hospital on the latest date for which figures are available?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that complete figures are not available, and in any case it is not desirable to publish such information.
    Mr. KING: Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the figures, so far as he is aware, are of a reassuring and not an alarming character?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No; I cannot add anything to the answer which I have given.

    LAND ACQUIRED BY WAR DEPARTMENT (CIPPENHAM).
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Undersecretary of State for War if the land taken near Slough for a repairing factory on which the growing crops have been destroyed had been manured and prepared for a rotation for the production of food for the next two years, but that the valuer has informed the tenant that this outlay will be disregarded in assessing compensation; and whether it is the policy of the Government to requisition property on the principle of confiscation?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: A very small area of growing crops has been destroyed, and it is hoped that at the outside not more than 50 acres will be used before the crops
    336
    over the whole area have been harvested. Of the 50 acres, a considerable portion is clover, which will have been cleared before the Department enters. As regards the second part of the question, no such suggestion has been made by any valuer attached to the Directorate of Lands, nor is the basis suggested that on which the Government requisitions property.
    Colonel DU PRE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these tenants have been told to send in their claims for compensation on the basis of seed and labour only, and will he see that some further compensation is accorded them?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand that in all these cases any claim for compensation would go straight to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission.
    Mr. McNEILL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if instructions have been given to the tenants to make out their claims on a certain basis, excluding unexhausted improvements, that is the same thing as a notice that they will not receive compensation for them?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No; I do not think so. It does not matter what instructions have been given to the tenants, the whole of the relevant facts connected with the case will be considered by a judicial tribunal—that is, the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission.
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how long it is since the officials of the Lands Directorate began negotiations for the acquisition of the site at Cippenham, near Slough, for military purposes?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: A representative of the Directorate of Lands, acting under instructions, personally served notice on some of the tenants on the 24th May, and notice was sent to the remainder of the owners and tenants on the following day, of the intention of the Department to occupy the lands in question.
    Mr. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what steps he is taking to remove the impression among farmers and allotment holders that the destraction of growing crops in Buckinghamshire by the Government indicates that there is no need for exceptional effort to produce a maximum cultivation of the land?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): The necessity for all possible efforts to produce the maximum amount of food is accentuated rather than diminished by the proceedings referred to in the hon. Member's question. The Board hope that farmers and allotment-holders will realise that those proceedings could only be justified on grounds of such military urgency as, in tile opinion of the Government, outweigh all other considerations.

    ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT (ACTING PAYMASTER).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Lieutenant D. E. charles, late Army Pay Department, has been deprived of his commission without any form of trial or inquiry; and, if so, for what reasons?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Mr. Charles was an acting paymaster serving on a contract terminable at a month's notice, but holding a commission pro forma while so employed. His contract of service was terminated after due notice because after full experience he was found unsuitable for pay office duties, and his commission then lapsed. The case was fully inquired into at the War Office in the ordinary course.
    Mr. HOGGE: Arising out of that absolutely unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question to-day.

    OFFICERS' SERVANTS.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether every married officer in this country is entitled to, or at least allowed, one soldier servant; if he can give the number of such soldiers so employed; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of finding better employment for such men?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No difference is made in the allowance of servants, whether an officer is married or single. A mounted officer is allowed one servant, who also acts as groom; dismounted officers are allowed one servant between five officers, except where there are less than ten officers together, when one servant is allowed between three officers. Certain
    338
    exceptions are made in the case of disabled officers. I am afraid I cannot state the number of soldiers so employed, and it would necessitate a large amount of clerical labour to obtain the figures. The number varies with the number of officers serving at home, and any return would be obsolete before it could be finally compiled. A system of special inspection ensures that the scale of soldier servants authorised is not exceeded.

    THRESHING MACHINES (HIRE).
    Mr. WILSON-FOXasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) how many threshing-machine or engine owners-signed the agreement with the Forage Committee for the hire of engines or balers in the years 1915, 1910, and 1917, respectively, and how many of such agreements are now in existence; whether, having regard to the rise in the cost of wages, repairs, etc., the Army Council would be prepared to reconsider the rental paid under such agreements; (2) whether his attention has been called to the number of sales of threshing tackle by men who feel they can no longer continue in the business owing to the treatment they have received by the Forage Committee working under the War Office; and whether he can take any steps in the interests of agriculture to restore confidence to the trade?
    Mr. FORSTER: The facts are as follows Seventy-four owners signed agreements with the Forage Department in 1915, 276 in 1916, and 309 in 1917. Of the 659 agreements, 491 still exist. Of the 491 now in existence, only thirty-eight involve provision of labour and full maintenance of plant by the contractor, the balance of engines being hired at a flat rate per week, whereby the War Department is responsible for all repairs and upkeep other than fair wear and tear. These contracts were specifically made for "the duration of the War." As regards question No. 42, I am not aware of the existence of any complaints.

    COMMANDEERED PROPERTY.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether his Department propose to take over another large hotel near Hyde Park; if so, for what purpose it is to be used, what rent it

    339
    is proposed to pay for it annually, and if it is proposed to spend any money on alterations, and, if so, how much; and can he state what staff it is proposed to house in this building?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works to a similar question asked by my hon. Friend on Monday last.
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Defence of the Realm Losses Royal Commission have now assessed the compensation to be paid to the 122 firms in Kingsway dispossessed by the Government in order to house the Aircraft Production Department of the Ministry of Munitions; and, if so, will he say what is the total amount?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am informed that the Commission have received two applications. One of these has been determined without a hearing, a lump sum of £64 1s. 9d. and a recurrent payment of £954 per annum having been awarded. It is proposed to appoint an early date for the hearing of the other. The Commission have also sanctioned payments on account amounting to £7,707 10s. to five other applicants whose applications have not yet come forward to them for final hearing.

    VICTORIA CROSS AND DISTINGUISHED SERVICE ORDER.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he will state the number of persons in the Navy and Army that have been awarded the Victoria Cross and the Distinguished Service Order during the present War?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The totals for the Navy and Army are:

    Victoria Cross

    …

    446

    (Bars)

    …

    2

    Distinguished Service Order

    …

    7,347

    (1st Bar)

    …

    296

    (2nd Bar)

    …

    9

    (3rd Bar)

    …

    1

    NURSES (MILITARY HOSPITALS).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the annual allowance for uniform made to nurses in military hospitals?
    Mr. FORSTER: I presume my hon. Friend is referring to nurses of the Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service and the Territorial Force Nursing Service. The allowance to those serving at home is £8 per annum. In practice, the first year's grant includes an advance of £4 in respect of the second. A further allowance of £1 per annum is made when a nurse proceeds abroad.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the war bonus allowed to nurses in military hospitals; and whether, after the first completed year, the bonus is payable for any portion of a subsequent year during which nurses may leave one institution for another before its completion?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not quite clear what the hon. Member has in mind. Perhaps he could give me further particulars of the case.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I want to know whether a nurse who leaves before the completion of her second year for another appointment is entitled to the bonus for that portion of the year for which she has served?
    Mr. FORSTER: There is no war bonus that I am aware of in the case of nurses. I think it would be much better if the hon. Member would give me particulars of the case and I will have inquiries made.

    KING CHARLES'S STATUE.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Commissioner of Works if he can give the reason why the statue of King Charles in Trafalgar Square is being built up and over with timber, and the base protected by sandbags; and, if such quantities of timber are available, why temporary huts are being built of 9-inch brick instead of wood?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): It is desired to afford some measure of protection to this beautiful and historic monument from the effects of lateral concussion of bombs and from falling pieces of shrapnel. The amount of timber being used is about five-eighths of a standard, which is much less than would be required for the construction of one typical hut.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is the same procedure going to be followed with respect to the Nelson monument?
    Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member must be aware that that is impossible.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no timber is expended on protecting statues of the German Royalties which disfigure the Metropolis?
    Sir A. MOND: It is not my present intention to protect any other monuments except that which is being protected.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are you a Legitimist?

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether any measures are being contemplated by the Government in order to abate the growing national expenditure, the increased dislocation of public business, and the lack of co-ordination between various Departments?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I would ask the hon. Member to await the Debate this afternoon.

    YOUNG WOMEN (GOVERNMENT OFFICES).
    Mr. F. WHYTEasked the Prime Minister whether special consideration was given to the question of the remuneration of young women now in official positions who have received an academic training; and, if so, can he explain the reason for the scale of salaries paid to women in responsible positions in all the new Ministries?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir. Scales of remuneration have been fixed for women with academic or other good educational qualifications employed during the War on administrative work, comparable to those of the junior officers of the permanent classes whom they are replacing, and special salaries have been fixed for women with technical or administrative experience where necessary.

    POSTS CREATED DURING WAR.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he will be prepared to publish a list of all posts created since August, 1914, with the names and qualifications of the occupants of such posts and indicating in what way they secured their appointments?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative. The value of such a return would not, in my opinion, be commensurate with the amount of work that its preparation would involve.
    Mr. WATT: Is this request refused because of the shortage of paper?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is refused on account of the work which it would involve.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public impression is that many of those posts are filled by persons who could not command their present salaries in the open market?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That may be the hon. Member's impression, but I should be very sorry if it were the general impression, and I believe it to be quite unjustified. There is great difficulty in getting suitable people, and many of them are working for nothing.

    GOLD (PRICE).
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the closing down of a number of the gold mines on the Rand, owing to the increase in the cost of production and lack of labour, is now imminent; whether the price of gold should remain fixed while the cost of producing it has so enormously increased; and has he any means at his disposal to prevent the diminution of the output of gold due to the causes mentioned?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for East Nottingham on this subject on the 22nd April last.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it in the power of the Government to fix the price of gold?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; to a certain extent it is—gold produced within the Empire.

    PUBLIC SERVICE (DECORATIONS).
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the many thousands of decorations which are being conferred for public service, sometimes of an inconspicuous and temporary character, he will recommend to the

    343
    proper authority that the French precedent be adopted and faithful and continuous service to the private individual or firm should entitle the giver of such service to decoration or other mark of recognition from the State?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

    GERMAN BANKS.
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation during the present Session for the purpose of making it illegal for our present enemies to open banks or to carry on the business of banking in the United Kingdom after the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It would be impossible to deal with the question of banking alone and the Government do not propose at present to deal with the general question.
    Mr. McNEILL: Has the Government any intention of dealing with the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The general question must certainly be dealt with, but obviously I should have thought at the present stage of the War it would be more important to find the money.
    Mr. MCNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance on behalf of the Government that it is part of their policy to carry out legislation on these lines?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I say, the matter has not been considered by the Government, and it is impossible, therefore, to give the opinion of the Government as a whole. It is obviously a subject which must be dealt with, but whether it will be dealt with by this Government or a later one, I cannot say.

    LUXURY DUTY.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make arrangements through the Foreign Office to obtain a Report with regard to the working of the Luxury Tax in France, showing, particularly, whether experience so far indicates that the yield of the tax is equal to what was anticipated; whether the system of collection is found to work
    344
    easily; and whether any serious friction has been caused, either amongst the trading classes or the general population, by the attempt to carry the new law into effect?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Foreign Office has already asked for a Report as to the working of the Luxury Tax in France and the results so far obtained.
    Mr. LOUGH: Will the Report be laid before the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say until I have seen it. I have asked for it for my own information to guide me in our own Budget.
    Sir M. BARLOW: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance, if it going to be available, that it may be available before the second Finance Bill comes on for discussion, so that we may be properly informed what the position is?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly; and if the Report is of a nature which I think will be useful to the House, I shall certainly have it circulated.
    Mr. LOUGH: Will not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it would be desirable for the House to get as much information as possible?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Most certainly, it will be my desire that the House shall have all possible relevant information. It is very difficult to get in war-time, and the Report may be of such a nature that it may not be useful to circulate it.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Sir MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the fact that some 270 Members of this House of all parties have-given their names in support of the Motion on the Paper that pension administration should be kept free from the influence of political parties and have asked for a day for its discussion, he can now see his way, in accordance with his promise, to set aside a definite day for it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I cannot yet name a day, but one will certainly be given,
    Sir M. BARLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Government, Labour, and

    345
    expert pension authorities in the United States have concurred in supporting the passing through Congress, on 6th October, 1917, of the War Risk Insurance Act, with the Object of placing the whole question of pensions or insurance for men killed or disabled in the European War on an entirely different footing from the previous American pension laws; whether he is aware that, by Section 312 of this law, the then existing pension laws are made not to apply to American soldiers and sailors fighting in the European War; and, seeing that this change was expressly made in order to avoid the political and other difficulties which arose in the administration of the American pension laws applicable to those who fell or were injured in the Civil or Spanish Wars, will he consider the advisability of taking action with the object of preventing such difficulties in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid I can add nothing to my reply of the 16th May last on this subject, to which I would refer my hon. Friend.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Pensions Minister if he is aware that discharged soldiers who have to attend a medical board for the purpose of having their case reviewed and their pensions reassessed have, in many cases, to lose time and wages in so doing; whether under these circumstances he will, where time is lost, compensate these men for the wages they lose; and whether he will also allow them railway fares in cases where they have to travel over two miles to a medical board?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): When a discharged soldier is called up for re-examination by a medical board he can now be given compensation for loss of remunerative time up to a limit of 1s. an hour or 10s. a day. Evidence must be furnished, by means of a certificate from the employer, as to the actual time lost and the rate of wages. Men called up for re-examination do not have to pay their own railway fares.

    SWAN HOTEL, WOTTON-UNDER-EDGE.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General whether the proprietor of the Swan Hotel, Wotton-under-Edge, or one Faller, the unnaturalised
    346
    German manager thereof, has a contract for carrying His Majesty's mails; and, if so, whether he will explain why the mails should be so carried?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): Faller is not a mail contractor, and I am informed that he has nothing to do with the mans.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at all events the man drives the mails?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am informed that his duties at the hotel are as caterer and waiter.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      WILD FRUITS (SUGAR).
      Mr. SOMERVELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he anticipates that provision can be made in due time for the supply of an extra allowance of sugar for the preserving of wild fruits, especially blackberries, thus compensating in a degree those classes who have no fruit gardens but have access to common land?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): This matter, although beset with many administrative difficulties, is receiving sympathetic consideration. The importance of it is fully appreciated.

    SOAPMAKERS' ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that 80 per cent. of the whole output of soap in this country is produced by firms or companies either owned or controlled by Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, and Messrs. Brunner, Mond and Company, Limited; and, if so, will he take steps to see that the proposed executive committee of the new Soapmakers' Association, which is being formed in the national interest at the request of the Government, contains adequate representation of firms or companies having no connection, either direct or indirect, with these firms, and that every branch of the soap industry is represented?
    Mr. CLYNES: I may refer to the Written Answer given last Monday to this question. I can only repeat that in any

    347
    scheme which may be put forward for the control of the soap-making industry every possible precaution will be taken to safeguard the interests of the smaller manufacturers.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE.

      AVIATION ACCEPTANCE PARKS.
      Major DAVIESasked the Undersecretary of State to the Air Ministry the total number of aviation acceptance parks constructed and partly constructed; how many of these have been used for the original purpose for which they were intended; and how many are used partly for the acceptance of aircraft and partly for other work; and whether, in the case of Loch Doon, the Air Board cannot take any disciplinary measures because the officers in question are under the jurisdiction of other Departments of State?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): I regret that it is not possible, in the public interest, to give the figures asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the second and third parts, all the acceptance parks which have been completed are in use as originally intended and all those which remain to be completed will be required for the erection or storage of aircraft. In regard to the last part of the question, I regret that I cannot add anything to the answer previously given.

    AGRICULTURAL TRAINING.
    Major DAVIESasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether his attention has been drawn to the schemes for agricultural training and land settlement which are now being considered and developed by the Ministry of Pensions, the Department of Agriculture, and by the Irish Office and Colonial Office, respectively; whether this subject was intended to come within the province of the Ministry of Reconstruction; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): Yes, my attention has been drawn to the matters mentioned in my hon. Friend's question, and these questions have been and are being considered in the closest co-operation with the other Departments concerned.

    PETROL (MILITARY HOSPITAL ENTERTAINERS).
    Major LANE-FOXasked the President of the Board of Trade why it is permitted to use petrol for conveying entertainers to military hospitals if they are giving the entertainment as professionals and for a fee, whereas it is not permitted to use it if no fee is paid and the performers are going as amateurs, even though a guarantee of bonâ fide is given by the committee responsible; and whether he is aware of the hardship involved to many hospitals by this rule in country districts where the patients have very little other chance of entertainment, especially in view of the very small quantity of petrol asked for?
    Mr. WARDLE: The use of petrol is governed by the Motor Spirit (Consolidation) and Gas Restriction Order, 1918. The Petrol Controller has been advised that the Order permits the use of a motor car by a professional artiste for the purpose referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, in a case where the journey to an entertainment cannot otherwise be reasonably and conveniently accomplished, but that it does not permit a similar use by amateur performers. It is not considered desirable to alter the Order in this respect.
    Major LANE-FOX: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Leeds Committee, who made this request, are prepared to be responsible for the bona fides of the entertainment, and are perfectly prepared to accept any reasonable limit of amount which may be laid down?
    Mr. WARDLE: If the hon. Gentleman will send me the papers of the matter I will look into it again.
    Major LANE-FOX: I have been corresponding with the Petrol Committee for weeks, and can get no satisfaction.
    Mr. WARDLE: I have not had a copy of the correspondence. If the hon. Member will send it to me, I will look into the matter at once.

    BOARD OF TRADE.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a man named Kettner is employed by the Board at Rouen; and, if so, in what capacity?
    Mr. WARDLE: So far as I can ascertain nothing is known in the Board of Trade of the person referred to in the question.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (DIVIDEND'S).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade how much money in the form of dividends or otherwise, deposited with the Public Trustee under the Trading With the Enemy Act, has been remitted by him to Switzerland or other neutral countries; and what is the average monthly amount still being remitted?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The amount already remitted by the Public Trustee to neutral countries is £385 6s. 2d. for account of enemy subjects and £2,127 13s. 11d. for account of persons who are not enemy subjects. The average monthly remittance to neutral countries for account of enemy subjects is now about £52 for purpose of maintenance. Remittances to persons who are not enemy subjects arise from special circumstances and no monthly average can be stated.
    Sir R. COOPER: Can the hon. Gentleman say why any money, however small, should be allowed to go out of the country on account of enemy subjects?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I shall be very pleased to answer in Debate, but it is rather a long question.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any instructions have been given by the Public Trustee to secretaries of British companies to remit dividends and interest on stocks and shares belonging to enemy aliens to them direct so long as they give an address in neutral countries?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer is in the negative.

    TIMBER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Timber Supplies Department in September, 1917, offered £5,700 for the timber on certain farms near Machynlleth, such offer being subsequently increased in November, 1917, to £6,400, and to £11,850
    350
    in March, 1918; whether he is aware that the timber has been purchased by a private firm for £15,000; and whether he will grant permission for its sale?
    Mr. WARDLE: Informal offers of the lower amounts were made in the autumn of 1917 based upon rough estimates of the amount of timber involved. After negotiations and detailed valuation, £11,850 was offered on 12th March. This was refused, and, in view of the urgent need of such timber for colliery purposes, the timber was requisitioned on 8th April; price will therefore be determined by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. It was not until 23rd April that application from a private firm for permit under the Standing Timber Order, 1917, without which no sale could be made, was received. This was necessarily refused, the timber having been requisitioned a fortnight previously.
    Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the valuer of this timber knew anything about timber, seeing that the valuations were so different from the market price?
    Mr. WARDLE: It was a question of the amount of timber involved.

    SCHOOL TEACHERS (PENSIONS).
    Sir M. BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Education whether he could give any information as to the promised Pensions Bill for teachers; and when it is likely to be introduced?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cambridge University on 31st May, of which I am sending him a copy.

    WOMEN CIVIL SERVANTS.
    Colonel Sir J. CRAIGasked the Secretary to the Treasury why no reply has been sent to the offer, made 27th April, of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board to hear the claim of the Federation of Women Civil servants for increased remuneration?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The necessity of consultation with the Departments concerned has caused some unavoidable delay in

    351
    considering the claim of the federation which has been received through the Conciliation and Arbitration Board, but I hope that a reply will be sent very shortly.

    COLONIAL FORCES (ALLOWANCES FOR WIVES AND CHILDREN).
    Colonel Sir H. GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the wives and children of officers below the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the military forces of the Crown under his administration do not receive the extra allowance granted in 1917 to the wives and children of officers of the same rank in the forces under the War Office and under the India Office?
    Mr. HEWINS: Officers of the King's African Rifles and the West African Frontier Force, to which forces I presume the hon. Member refers, are paid at special rates, the minimum pay of a subaltern being £300 a year. As these are consolidated rates, children's allowance is not given, but when officers of these forces are placed on British pay children's allowance is given.

    Dublin Sorting Office.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Postmaster-General whether complaints have been received from the Association of Irish Post Office Clerks relative to the conduct of the senior superintendent of the Dublin sorting office towards the assistant-superintendents, overseers, and staff under his control; whether these complaints have received consideration; whether it has been requested by the association that this officer should be removed from the sorting office to some other duties consonant with his rank; and, if so, will he say what steps have been taken in the matter.
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: A number of complaints have been received, but on inquiry they have generally proved to be either exaggerated or devoid of foundation. I do not propose to remove the officer to other duties, more especially as he is approaching the age for retirements.

    National Health Insurance (Tuberculosis Cases).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commis-
    352
    sioners, if he is aware of the state of the Tregaron Tuberculosis Hospital and that complaints are made of its condition, also that conflicting accounts were given at the meeting of the Carmarthen Insurance Committee; and whether he has taken any steps in the matter?
    Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to these questions. His attention has been drawn to the statements referred to in the question as to the tuberculosis hospital at Tregaron, and he is arranging with the Welsh Insurance Commissioners to investigate the circumstances at once.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether he has received a resolution passed at the London District Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters protesting against the insufficiency of the provision for the treatment of tuberculosis amongst insured persons; whether increased grants have been provided; and whether the waiting list for London has now been effectively reduced?
    Mr. PRATT: My hon. Friend has not, at present, received any resolution passed by the London District of the Ancient Order of Foresters with reference to the treatment of tuberculosis amongst insured persons. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the waiting list of the London Insurance Committee, my hon. Friend is informed by the committee that the number on the list has been effectively reduced.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Arthur Sanders, for the County of Somerset (Bridgwater Division).
    BILL PRESENTED.
      WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL,
      —"to provide for the payment of compensation in the case of workmen who suffer death or disablement or are suspended from employment owing to the disease known as fibroid phthisis or silicosis of the lungs," presented by Mr. BRACE; supported by Sir George Cave and time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will the Leader of the House say whether the House is to sit on Friday, and if so, what business will be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. I am sorry that it will be necessary to sit on Friday. The first business will be the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which is purely formal. Then we shall take the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, and, if time permit, we shall also take two small Bills—the Juries Bill and the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Bill).
  Mr. KING: In what form will the discussion on the Irish question take place next Tuesday? Will it be on a Motion or the Motion for the Adjournment?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It will be on the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will it not be convenient to introduce the Irish Home Rule Bill en Friday.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think so.
  Mr. KING: Will the Prime Minister be here himself on Tuesday, if not before?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope that he will be here on Tuesday. Whether he will be here before will depend on other engagements which it is necessary to keep.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Report of the Committee of Supply [18 th June] and of the Committee of Ways and Means [18 th June] be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  SUPPLY.— [18TH JUNE.]
    SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1918–19.

      NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (CONTROL).
      Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £500,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred
      362
      during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1919, for General Navy, Army, and Air Services in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business, and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and re-sale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the Ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This is a convenient and suitable occasion on which the House might consider a matter which is causing grave concern both to the House itself, and to the country at large—the question of the better control of national expenditure. The Select Committee which the House has set up to deal with questions of national expenditure has now presented six Reports. We have dealt with a large proportion of the Government Departments. We have not limited ourselves to criticism. We have been anxious to make constructive suggestions where we thought matters were at fault. We have, indeed, in the course of those Reports presented over 100 specific recommendations for adoption by the Government.
      It is right to say, at the outset, that we have found the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government Departments very ready to adopt the suggestions which the Committee have made. So far from resenting them, they have, as a rule, welcomed our suggestions, because they realise that we, on our side, have not been seeking opportunities for attack, but only seeking opportunities to be of assistance. Before I refer to larger matters relating to the general control of expenditure, I should like to invite the attention of the House to a small number of outstanding questions as to which the Government have not met the suggestions of the Committee, or have met them only in a partial and insufficient degree. First, with regard to the swollen

      363
      staffs of the Government Departments themselves. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was good enough yesterday to give me a reply to a question which indicated that the total number of Government officials and Government clerks in this country at the present time is certainly over 100,000. The incomplete return which he gave came to a total of 94,000, but the items excluded from the list will certainly bring the whole sum above 100,000. That relates only to the Government Departments that have expanded owing to the War, or to the new Departments that have been created, and does not include such very large staffs as that of the Post Office.
      It is, of course, necessary, in view of the immense volume of work now to be transacted by the State, that large staffs should be employed. When you are manufacturing or purchasing munitions of war at the rate of £2,000,000 worth a day, when you are dealing with 1,000 new claims for pensions every day of the year, when you are dealing with the man-power of the country by the million, and when you are regulating the food supplies of every person in the nation, obviously there is an immense amount of office work to be accomplished for these and similar purposes. But we formed the opinion that in some cases the staffs have been swollen beyond all measure, that they are frequently ill-organised, and that there is much waste of labour, and consequently of money, in connection with these establishments. We came to the opinion that the Treasury had not risen to the occasion during the War. The recent Report of the Treasury Committee, to which I will refer in a moment, states that there has been no special organisation created either at the Treasury or elsewhere to watch and control the growth of that staff, from the general standpoint. There ought unquestionably to have been from the beginning of the War an expanded Treasury keeping a far more active watch than has been the case over the growth and development of these new Departments.
      The Select Committee in December last recommended that the Treasury should hold a series of inquiries into the numbers and organisation of the large clerical staffs recruited during the War. Two months later a Treasury Committee was set up, and in my judgment that Committee began at the wrong end of the
      364
      problem. Instead of appointing officers to go into all the various Departments at once, to see how they were organised, to measure the amount of work done, to consider the constitution of the staffs, they devoted their attention for four or five months to the method to be adopted in future for recruiting additional staffs, and obtaining returns from the Departments themselves. After 100,000 clerks had been already recruited, the Treasury Committee has been four months considering what should be the future method of recruiting additional staffs. I have no quarrel with their conclusions, but I should have thought it to be unnecesaary, at all events on any large scale, to recruit any additional staffs at all, and that if these Departments needed increased men-or women-power, it could have been obtained by economies of staffs already existing, and by the Departments transferring labour force from one to the other. I very much regret that six months should have passed since our recommendations were laid on the Table of the House, and nothing effective done to reduce these large staffs to which I refer. Inspectors have now been appointed, but I gather from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they were appointed only quite recently, within the last few weeks, and so far as I am aware no result has yet been seen from their labour.
      In our Report of December last year we dealt also with the question of the increased expenditure due to increased profits and to increased wages, and we spoke very frankly on both those topics. With regard to excessive profits, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Greenock, to whose indefatigable labours the Select Committee and the House owe so much, will, I believe, have something to say later in the Debate. With respect to wages, we found that the whole situation had been almost from the beginning of the War very greatly prejudiced by the fact that the Board of Trade published, and subsequently the Labour Department also published, month by month, figures which were understood to give the increase in the cost of living. Those figures, as a matter of fact, were based on a collection of household budgets of the working-classes, more than five years ago. They allowed nothing for the changes in the direction, or in reduction of consumption during the War, or for one article being substituted for another, and some of the figures dealt with the increased

      365
      prices of food alone. Nevertheless, the working-classes became impressed with the idea, as they thought, on official authority, that the cost of living had gone up by something like 100 per cent., while as a matter of fact the expenditure of the working classes due to the increased cost of living had probably gone up to between not more than 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. All the arbitrations and negotiations between employers and employed were prejudiced from the beginning by the argument being used—no one meeting it—that the working-classes' expenditure had been increased owing to the War by 100 per cent. and that wages ought, in consequence, to be increased to an equal degree. The matter is one of great importance and urgency. We recommended last December that the Government should set up an expert Committee to investigate this subject, and to give an authoritative guidance to opinion as a whole, as to what has been the real increase in the cost of living owing to the War. In January we were told that a Committee was to be appointed; it was not, in fact, appointed until March, and I asked a few days ago when the Report of that Committee would be received. I was told that, although much progress had been made, it was not possible to indicate when the Report would be received. So here, again, six months have elapsed, and speedy and expeditious action, which the circumstances required, I regret to say has not been taken.
      4.0 P.M.
      In the same Report, we recommended with respect to wages that while we realised that the increased cost of living must in many cases justify an increase in wages, there were very many eases in which increases were paid that had no relation at all to the cost of living, but owing to the fact that in some other trade or grade an advance of wages had been secured. We unanimously recommended that the strongest case should be required to be established before any advance is to be conceded on any ground other than the rise in the cost of living, and, further, that a single policy under the general direction of one authority should be adopted in all industries for the determination of wages questions. It was quite plain that any advance conceded to one portion of an industry instantly, almost inevitably, affected other portions, a wave being set going which covered the
      366
      whole field. The Government appointed a Conciliation and Arbitration Board for the purpose of dealing with the wage advances to the pre-war and post-war staffs. It was formed of a representative of the employing class and a representative of the workers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby was the chairman. The tribunal did much good work. It took a judicial survey of the whole field, and made many awards, which were accepted. They have recently found that the whole position has been undermined by, once more, the 12½ per cent. which the Minister of Munitions, now many months ago, perhaps with insufficient consideration, granted to certain classes of munition workers. The Minister of Munitions gave that 12½ per cent., not only to manual workers, but also to clerical workers. The Admiralty found themselves obliged to extend it to the dockyards and to certain clerical classes in those dockyards, and the consequence has been that, as in the case of a stone thrown into a pond, the waves have extended wider and wider, and at last have submerged the tribunal of which my hon. Friend was chairman. He has found himself in such a position that he was unable to deal with any of these matters in a judicial fashion, as they had been prejudged, and he has therefore resigned the chairmanship of the tribunal, much to the regret of all of us. I hope that the Government will, nevertheless, take steps to secure that the recommendations in the Committee's Report last September will be adopted and enforced, and, while there may be in very many cases an equitable claim on the ground of the increased cost of living, yet where claims are made for increased expenditure the whole matter shall be carefully and scrupulously examined, and only where an overwhelming case is made out shall the taxpayer be asked to provide the necessary funds.
      An even greater ground of complaint is in connection with the military staff of the War Office itself. I would invite the serious attention of the House to this matter, because an important question of principle is involved. When the War broke out the military staff of the War Office numbered 218 officers. During the first two years of very rapid expansion of the Army the War Office staff naturally and necessarily increased, and the number grew from 218 to 588. I do not think any complaint is to be made of that. But

      367
      during the following fourteen months after the War had been going on for two years, and when, although, perhaps, the Army had not reached its maximum, at all events it was expanding far less rapidly, the figure of 588 was multiplied nearly threefold, and the number of military employed in the War Office itself increased from 588 to 1,504. A Sub-committee of the Select Committee inquired into the matter and was not satisfied that all these officers were really necessary. We had an impression that they were to some extent in excess of the needs, particularly in view of the very large staffs employed in the various local commands throughout the country. In the field it is the duty of the General Staff to review the establishment from time to time, and to curtail it when it is found to be in excess, but in the War Office it is no one's duty. When the staff of a particular branch has increased owing to some new work being thrown upon it or to some great pressure the increase is submitted to the Finance Department and to the Treasury, but if, months afterwards, the work contracts and some of the additional men are surplus to requirement it is no one's specific duty to review the matter and to require the curtailment of the staff. It is left to the individual discretion of the head of the branch to act or not to act as he thinks fit.
      We thought any outside inquiry would probably be ineffective. Certainly we ourselves could not go from room to room to see whether any officers were employed there whose time was not fully occupied, or who were engaged on work that did not need to be done—perhaps a more important source of possible waste. We recommended, last December, that the War Office should hold an inquiry of its own under the direction and authority of the Secretary of State, and that the whole matter should be reviewed. That was in December. On 7th January we were told the War Office were undertaking such an inquiry. In May, in an answer given in this House to a question put on behalf of the Committee, we were told that the Army Council had appointed a Committee of its own to make the investigation, but it found it could not give the time which was necessary for a detailed investigation. We had not in mind, however, a Committee of the Army Council. We had in mind one or two officers chosen for the purpose of going through the establish-
      368
      ments, and seeing what was necessary or not. The Army Council had appointed an officer to go through various Departments and make recommendations. I believe he set out on the work full of zeal and energy, and was in process of making very interesting and useful proposals, but when the matter had reached that stage he was sent to Palestine, and another officer was appointed to continue his work. Hardly had he become fully seised of it, and was also making some impression on the staff of 1,500, when he was, by a strange coincidence, given a military command elsewhere. The answer given in May was that no progress had been made but it was hoped to proceed shortly with the investigation. The Committee thereupon wrote to the Secretary of State (Lord Milner) drawing his attention to the matter and asking whether steps would be taken before their next Report was presented to the House. But no reply other than a courteous acknowledgment was received to that communication, and we reported to the House in May what the facts were. In the interval the staff of the War Office had increased another 20 per cent., nearly 300 more officers having been added, after allowance is made for the transfer of the whole branch of the War Office which dealt with the Air Service to the Air Ministry. The remaining branches had in fact increased by 289 officers. On 15th May we reported to the House what the facts were, and we expressed our regret that the matter had been dealt with by the War Office in so unsatisfactory a manner. A month later, in June, we put down another question asking what had been done, and the reply was that nothing could be added to the previous answers, and that the matter was being pursued.
      We have regretfully come to the conclusion that in this matter the War Office, or the military chiefs at the War Office, have been adopting a deliberately obstructive attitude. The subject has been twice reported on to the House. Three questions have been asked in Parliament on behalf of the Committee. The personal attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to the whole matter, and the only result has been that the staff of the War Office shows a steady, un-diminished increase. We feel that the War Office has been playing with this matter. It has been playing with a Committee of the House of Commons. Such an attitude ought not to be tolerated, and will not be tolerated. Committees of this

      369
      House have very large powers. We shall make a further inquiry after a very brief interval, and we trust by that time adequate steps will have been taken, and that, it will not be necessary for the Committee once more to bring to the direct attention of the House what has become a public scandal.
      There is another matter on which we have some ground of complaint against the War Office. It relates to another recommendation made in our first Report in October last. We then made two recommendations, after a careful survey, dealing with the troops maintained in the United Kingdom. There was one large issue involved and one small issue. The larger question was the number of units maintained hero—in fact, the total forces maintained in the United Kingdom. That was, of course, not a matter for our Committee. We reported that it was not a mutter for us to deal with, but we were impressed by the fact that the, number maintained was very large, and we suggested that the War Cabinet and the General Staff should give it fresh consideration. Fresh consideration was given, and I believe suitable action was taken. The other point was of very much more modest dimensions, and it fell within the strict purview of the Committee. It relates to the actual numbers of many small establishments maintained throughout the United Kingdom, scattered here and there, ten in one place, fifty in another, a hundred in a third, and a thousand in others. They are all War Office establishments of one kind or another.
      In France a most useful inquiry was made into the numbers of similar establishments by a general officer of high authority, Lieutenant-General Lawson, who had also visited the theatres of war at Salonika, Egypt and elsewhere, and had made a series of valuable reports suggesting economies here and there. They were made mainly from the point of view of man-power, but as man-power is economised so also may expenditure be economised. We suggested that an officer of similar rank should visit the establishments in the United Kingdou and do the same sort of work, and we felt convinced from what we heard of the result of General Lawson's inquiry, that such an investigation in the United Kingdom would bear good results. We drew attention to the matter again in our subsequent Report, but nothing has been done by the War Office, and when we have
      370
      asked about it no direct reply has ever been given. The War Office has always combined the two recommendations as though they were one. The question of the large number of troops maintained in the United Kingdom is a big one, and obviously in the public interest, no public statement could be made regarding it. But the smaller question of a detailed review of particular establishments stands on a different footing. However, although the two questions have always been put separately they have been replied to in one answer, which has been to the effect that it is not in the public interest that information should be given on the point. It is quite clear from the action of the military chiefs that the War Office are quite satisfied with the existing situation. Apparently they cannot conceive that any suggested alteration by a fresh mind would be to the advantage of the public purse. Again I would press on the Government the desirability of an inquiry such as I have described being made in this country.
      The last point dealing with the War Office to which it is necessary for me to refer relates to the employment of German prisoners of war. We made an inquiry into this matter in France, and we have also taken some evidence with regard to their employment here. We found that the methods of giving inducements for good work and the methods of imposing deterrents for bad work varied very much from place to place, very often according to the opinion of the individual officer in command. There has been no general survey of the whole question of the best method of employing prisoners of war, and it seemed to us that very frequently the methods employed were exceedingly imperfect. In consequence, in December, we proposed that a small Committee should be appointed, including persons accustomed to the organisation of large bodies of civilian labour, to inquire whether the existing methods could not be improved and to collate the experiences of various places and compare them—to look into the methods adopted, not only in the United Kingdom, but also in France, and compare them. Quite recently the matter has been handed over to the Prisoners of War Employment Committee, under the Ministry of National Service. That is a purely official body, and does not contain any contractor or experienced business man—
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Yes.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I understood that no one had been appointed. If so, it must have been within the last two days.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; one, at least.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Better late than never. I am glad that even one has been appointed with experience of civilian methods and of handling large bodies of labour. There is another great defect in regard to this Committee. It has not taken into its cognisance the whole question of the employment of prisoners of war in France, where there are many tens of thousands, and where, in many respects, the methods employed may be susceptible of even greater improvement than in this country. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that the reference to the Committee should be enlarged, and that either they or a similar Committee should be required to review the matter in relation to the prisoners employed in France as well as in this country. I should like, very briefly, to refer to two points dealt with in the very valuable Reports received from the Sub-committee over which my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) presides, which deals with the Board of Trade, the Food Department, and other similar Departments. One relates to the bread subsidy. It appears from evidence given before that Sub-committee that when the Cabinet took its decision to subsidise bread, costing about £40,000,000 to the Exchequer, there was no preliminary discussion at all with the Departments concerned who would have to administer and distribute the subsidies. The question is one of great difficulty, but it appears from the investigations of my right hon. Friend and his Sub-committee that in all probability many millions of pounds a year, possibly £10,000,000 a year, are now being absolutely wasted in paying unnecessary subsidies to the bakeries. The question is one, I know, of very considerable difficulty, but it seems that the matter has hitherto been dealt with clearly on wrong lines, and I think my right hon. Friend will describe to the House more fully how the matter stands, but I wish to emphasise the urgent importance of giving immediate attention to this question.
      The other relates to the arrangements made by the Controller of Coal Mines in
      372
      respect to the execution of the agreement that was entered into between him and the mine-owners last year. The House will remember that there was a Bill presented to Parliament in the latter part of last year, the Coal Mines Control Agreement Bill, which gave rise to a very considerable amount of discussion in this House at every stage. That agreement guaranteed certain profits to particular classes of coal-owners. I will not trouble the House with details. We were very anxious that the trade itself should be self-supporting, and that the Exchequer should not be asked to make good any guarantee of profits to coal-owners, and the Government gave us an assurance that their intention was that the whole scheme should be self-supporting, and that the prospect was very remote indeed of the State ever being called upon to find any money in order to guarantee those profits to owners of coal. We pressed the matter very strongly at every stage, and those assurances were specific and were definite. But what occurrs? My right hon. Friend's Sub-committee reported to us, and we reported to the House, that, questioned as to the financial effects of the inter-colliery compensation under the Government scheme, the Coal Controller replied that "he would not like to say that very heavy liability might not fall upon the State, as the situation becomes more difficult every week." That shows that the fears expressed in this House were not altogether unfounded, and I think that, in advance of any claim being made upon the Exchequer, we should make it abundantly clear to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Coal Controller that they must be held accountable to Parliament in this matter, that they will be expected to make good the assurances which were given when the Bill was before Parliament, and that they must not suppose that failure of management will not matter because the House of Commons, as a matter of course, will foot any bill that may be incurred. We secured from the Government a promise that if any loss should accrue, and if these profits were to be made good out of the Exchequer, the money should not be taken from the Vote of Credit, but that a special Bill should be laid before Parliament for the purpose. I can assure the President of the Board of Trade and the Coal Controller that if

      373
      ever such a Bill is laid before Parliament it will be scrutinised with a most jealous eye.
      There are two or three comparatively small points which arise on our Report on the Ministry of Pensions. They are too technical and too detailed to trouble the House with now, but I should like my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will be good enough to do so, again to look at our recommendations numbered, two, seven, and eight, which the Government have said they are unable to accept, and to consider whether, if they cannot be accepted in that form, some alternative to meet the objects we have in view could not be devised. Other members of the Committee will deal with other specific points that arise, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to wait for his reply until they have been able to make their points to the House. Finally, I should like to say a few words on the general question of control over expenditure at the present time. I think every member of our Committee, which has now been sitting for the best part of a year, and which, with its Sub-committees, has held literally hundreds of meetings, has come to the conclusion that that control is very insufficient, and insufficient in three directions. The control of the Treasury as a department is inadequate, the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is inadequate, and the control of the Cabinet is inadequate. We recommended some time ago that the Treasury ought to be strengthened. The effective manpower of the Treasury before the War numbered only thirty-three, and a few months ago we reported upon that matter, and it then numbered only thirty-eight. While all the spending Departments had been expanding with immense rapidity, the Department whose duty it is to keep a watch and to put a brake upon expenditure had expanded hardly at all. That is not a true method of enforcing economy, to keep the forces that make for economy at a minimum. We recommended that outside men of ability and business experience should be added to assist the Treasury in its labours. Some additions have been made, and I invite my right hon. Friend to tell us to what extent the Treasury has been strengthened, and whether he himself is satisfied that it is now adequate to perform the vast tasks thrown upon that Department. With respect to the
      374
      Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, I think the country suffers very much from having a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is so amiable. It suffers in two ways. In the first place, he is not stern enough with the spending Departments, and, in the second place, he commands the good-will of all of us in this House. His candour, his conciliatory methods, and his courtesy tend to disarm criticism, but criticism ought not to allow itself to be disarmed. He, after all, is the man ultimately responsible, and the stern fact remains that during his tenure of office of eighteen months our national expenditure has increased by 50 per cent., from a rate of £2,000,000,000 a year, a sufficiently appalling sum, to what it now is, £3,000,000,000 a year.
      Lastly, there is the question of Cabinet control. I ventured early in this Session, on the second day of the Session, to address to this House, not on behalf of the Select Committee, but purely in a personal capacity, a speech of criticism of the many cases in which the performance of the present Government had fallen short of promise. I did not, however, make a speech that was intended to be critical without any constructive suggestions, and I ended by indicating the probability that these many questions of maladministration were largely, perhaps chiefly, due to the fact that the War Cabinet as an instrument of government was really a failure, that it had attempted to accomplish far too large a task, that it was physically impossible for any group of men so small, no matter how high might be their personal qualifications, at one and the same time to deal with all the problems that arise out of the conduct of this world-wide War, with our relations with our Allies, with the Dominions, and with India, and at the same time to have the supreme management of all questions of domestic administration, the co-ordination of the various Departments, the settlement of disputes amongst them, and all the matters that must come before this House relating to the United Kingdom. It is right, therefore, that I should say now, with respect to one of the matters of which I complained, that the indications at that time that the position was less satisfactory than it should have been have since been falsified. I refer to the Food Production Departments. Then the figures which had been supplied me by the Boards of Agriculture in answer to

      375
      questions indicated that the amount of land to be ploughed up would fall very short of the estimate. It is most satisfactory to all of us and to the House to realise that that now is not so. I paid a tribute then to the efforts of the President of the Board of Agriculture and those working with him, and to the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the President of the Board in Scotland, for the admirable work that was already being done and only expressed regret that it had not come up to their and to our expectations. The figures which have quite recently been laid before the House show that the acreage which will be put under arable this year is likely to total the immense number of 4,000,000, and I think the whole House will desire to congratulate most cordially the President of the Board, the Director of Food Production, and others concerned on this most remarkable achievement. I say so much because earlier in the year I used words of criticism on that particular point.
      Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask if there is anything being grown on the land?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I dare say the produce will not be in proportion to the increase of acreage, but unquestionably a very large increase of foodstuffs will have been obtained. The fact remains that when the War Cabinet was first constituted it was anticipated and intended that its members should be able to devote their minds to the conduct of the War and nothing else, that they should be fresh minds, not fatigued with a multitude of other comparatively minor questions, and that they should have leisure to think and plan on the great problems of diplomacy and military matters arising out of the War. I suggested that there should be a Home Committee dealing with home matters, leaving the War Cabinet free to deal with foreign and military matters, and I ventured not only on that occasion but on two or three subsequent occasions, in season and out of season, to urge the same pleas until at last I exhausted the patience even of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and with all geniality he suggested that dishes which had been twice cooked, thrice cooked, were neither pleasant to the palate nor wholesome to the digestion. He did not use those precise words, but that was the effect of what he said, but it seems now that that dish at
      376
      last is to be eaten, and that a Home Committee is to be set up. My right hon. friend the Member for East Fifeshire (Mr. Asquith) was about to take that step within the week when he resigned office, and it is a thousand pities that that was not done a year and a half ago or at any time during the succeeding interval. I should like to address to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question on this head, and to ask him whether it is the case, as we are told from the sources from which we are accustomed in these days usually to get our information, that a Home Committee of Ministers is to be set up, and, if so, how it is to be constituted, what will be its relations to the present War Cabinet, and what will be its functions? I see it is suggested—I hope it is not the case—that these two bodies, the Home Committee and the War Cabinet, are not to be parallel bodies, but that the War Cabinet is still to be superimposed upon the Home Committee; in fact, that we are to adopt the two-chamber system of government within the Cabinet. If that is so, we may have more delay and not less. If the many matters on which Departments cannot agree when dealt with between the Ministers, have to go first to the Home Committee and afterwards to the second chamber of the War Cabinet, we may find that we have introduced only another complication in the machinery of government, and that there is more delay even than now. I trust that the two bodies will be dealing, each within their own sphere, with the matters referred to them, and that where there is difference of opinion, or where the topics dealt with overlap between the two, as in many cases they must necessarily do, the matters will be decided by a joint sitting which will be something in the nature of the old Cabinet. I wish to ask, lastly, in connection with the Home Committee, how finance is to be represented upon it, because that is a matter of very great importance, if the Chancellor is not able himself to give the time to attend? I think the House will be probably glad to learn that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in whom, I think, we all have great confidence, will be able to attend the meetings of that Committee and protect the interests of the public purse.
      Those are the matters upon which I wish to invite the attention, not only of the Government, but of every Member of

      377
      this House. I believe that we, in common with the whole nation, are unshakably determined to see this War through to the end, which we have resolved from the outset to attain, but I submit that, where we see maladministration, or where we see waste, our duty to the country is not to adopt a timorous or subservient silence, but to let the voice of criticism be heard, because, for the sake of the prosecution of the War, it is not only necessary to have an effective diplomatic and military policy, but it is necessary also to have efficient, businesslike, frugal administration at home. I believe I speak the mind of the whole House when I say that we are not satisfied that that is at present being fully obtained, and we require that, whatever changes may be necessary to secure it, whether they be comprehensive or whether they be detailed, whether they be in the machinery of the Government itself or in the working of the machinery, they should be resolutely and speedily made.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure the members of my right hon. Friend's Committee that it is through no feeling of discourtesy to them that I rise now, before they have taken their part in the Debate. I do so because, in spite of the detail with which my right hon. Friend has spoken, he has dealt with the broader aspects of finance, and I think that I should at this stage make a statement on that general question. In any case I could not, of course, on the spur of the moment, deal with detailed criticism in connection with the Departments, and if it be necessary, as the Debate goes on, those responsible for the finance in the Departments will themselves take it up. As regards the speech of my right hon. Friend, I say at once that his speech, like the action of the Committee of which he is the head, is one in regard to which no Government can find any fault. I say also that no member of the Cabinet—and my right hon. Friend was a member of one in the early stages of the War—any more than anyone outside, doubts that in this immense expenditure—in the emergency and urgency with which it has to be carried out—there must be a large amount of money spent which could be saved. That must be so, and certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer more than anyone else has it as his duty to welcome any measure by which greater control and some chance of saving can be secured in this immense expenditure.
      378
      For that reason I welcomed the appointment of this Committee. I welcomed it on the understanding, which has been adhered to, that it would be set up for the purpose of helping in this matter, and not for the purpose of finding material with which to criticise the Government.
      I am going to deal with the particular points raised by my right hon. Friend, but I shall deal with them very briefly, because there is a real danger—and the speech of my right hon. Friend illustrates it—that in dealing with this big question we may be so lost, in details that we shall not be able to "see the wood on account of the trees," and it is the business of the House to look at the larger aspects as well as the smaller aspects of this question. My right hon. Friend was good enough to say that the Government have tried to carry out the recommendations of this Committee. That is so. Not only the Departments concerned, but in every case each of those recommendations was examined in the Treasury, and looked into by myself. We asked those Departments what they were going to do respecting their answers, and scrutinised and criticised them before they were given to the House of Commons.
      I shall take, first of all, the most important one. It is in regard to the Question of staffs. That is very important, not only on account of the amount of money involved, but for another reason. In all this kind of discussion—it is inevitable and it is right—there is a distinct danger which the House ought not to leave out of account. If there be an exaggerated view of the faults in this respect, immense harm is done, and it is used as an excuse in every direction for people not helping in the War, as, for instance, lending money to the State in the way they otherwise would do. It is therefore essential that, while legitimate criticism should take place, it should not be exaggerated, and the position should not appear worse than it is. As regards staff, the amount of money involved is great, but, in comparison with the immense expenditure in other directions, it is comparatively small, but it is of immense importance, because everybody knows of this growing number of officials, and it is looked upon as a test of extravagance everywhere. For that reason, when the Committee made this recommendation—it is very likely it should have been done earlier; I do not deny that—but the moment that recommendation was made, I determined

      379
      to appoint a Committee which should secure real results. For that purpose I asked, in addition to business men who are very competent and gladly gave their services, Sir John Bradbury, one of the heads of the Treasury, and Mr. Fisher, who is in the Inland Revenue Department, and has had great experience of organisation, to take part in this Committee. It was almost unfair to ask them to do it. They are overworked men, but they were willing to do it, and they agreed that if anything was to be done there was more chance of the recommendations being carried out if those at the head of the Department for which I am responsible were themselves admitted to it, and were themselves determined to see it through.
      My right hon. Friend complains that there has been delay, and also that they began at the wrong end, but I do not think he should too hastily come to that conclusion. I set up this Committee. I thought they were as competent certainly as myself, or as any member of the House of Commons, to judge as to the best way of dealing with it. They took that view. It is true they have only given one Interim Report. They had to deal with the system on which the staffs are recruited. My right hon. Friend suggests that if there were sufficient economy, there would be no need of recruiting. There is recruiting going on all the time, and when the Departments come to the Tresury with demands for this additional staff—for let the House remember that in this respect there is Treasury control in the old sense—they make a case, which is unanswerable to my officials, that the additional staff is necessary to do the additional work, which, the House must remember, has been growing steadily in every stage of the War.
      This Committee has reported, and, as a result, has secured a system of recruiting, but I admit at once that the bigger problem is the examination and control of the existing staff, with the view of finding out whether or not they can be reduced and the work correlated so that economies may be secured. It is true there has been delay in that too. But it is not easy to do things with rapidity at a time like this. It is a fact—the recommendation came from the Chairman, Sir John Bradbury—that we have set up already eleven panels consisting in nearly
      380
      every case of business men and Civil servants, very often retired Civil servants, who are dealing now, and have been dealing since the beginning of May, with Departments and Sub-departments. They are hard at work. They will go on as quickly as they can, and it is certainly the intention of the Committee, as it is mine, that anything feasible in that direction shall be done. In regard to this, I may say that the one Department where, on the face of it, I should consider that this examination was necessary, is that of Munitions. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary had already set up a Committee of this kind before the Treasury took action. We at once decided that we would wait for the Report of that Committee, but, in the meantime, we asked Mr. C. F. Wood, a well-known business man in the City, who has been giving us his services at the Treasury for some time, to join the Committee as representing the Treasury, and this work is going on. There may have been delay, but we are doing our best to deal with the subject.
      I come to the next two items where there has been delay. They have to do with the War Office. My right hon. Friend referred to the question of horses, but, as he pointed out, that was not a fit subject for this Committee, for it involves in the most intense degree military considerations, which I am quite certain my right hon. Friend remembers, for it was discussed even in the Cabinet of which he was a member. Civilians in the kind of war which is going on were always inclined to think that Cavalry could not be used immediately, and were not likely to be so useful. We have all been urging for years that the number of horses should be reduced.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I did not refer to horses. I said "forces."
      Mr. BONAR LAW: After all, this observation is not thrown away. It is an instance, which the House will understand, of the kind of subject which has been constantly before the Government with a view, not only of cutting down the use of unnecessary ships, but with a view also of saving unnecessary expenditure when we are not able to get results from it. That was not dealt with by my right hon. Friend, but he made some very strong criticism of the action of the War Office in regard to specific recommendations of his Committee. As I said, I saw

      381
      myself the answers which the War Office gave to the recommendations of this Committee. I shall take the smaller of them first. It is the case that General Lawson was sent out by the War Office to examine the branch establishments with a view to cut down unnecessary men. Of course, from a military point of view, apart from money, and from the point of view of the War Cabinet, that is vital, for it means saving man-power, which is our great difficulty at the present time, and to whatever extent you can save man-power you will inevitably also save money. The answer given to me was, not that nothing was being done, but that the problem at home was being dealt with. The Commander of the Home Forces, the heads of the different Departments were themselves going into this with a view to cutting it down. I say—and if my right hon. Friend or the House desires to consider it as a proof of the effectiveness of the House of Commons I am quite willing that he should do so—on account of the questions he put to me, I saw Lord Milner personally with regard to this matter, and I confess to the House that, in view of the situation in which we are, in view of the enormous problems facing us in connection with the War, I have hesitated very much before interviewing Lord Milner personally, but he is as alive, as far as opportunities permit to these considerations as the House of Commons, and he has now agreed that this will be done, and, if possible, General Lawson will be appointed to do it.
      The other question is a more difficult one. It is the question of the staffing of the War Office. My right hon. Friend talks of frankness, and I myself am liable to fall into it. Nobody can go to the War Office without feeling what an immense number of people there are there, and wondering what they are all doing. Lord Milner himself told me he had the same feeling. Yes; but it does not follow that it is not justified. Remember it is a fact, which anyone with any knowledge of any of the Departments of the War knows, that, though the War has now been going on for three years, every additional month seems to bring additional work in every direction. When I tell my right hon. Friend, as was told to me by the War Office, that, in spite of this great increase of staff, the amount of work done by the War Office, as judged by the number of papers dealt with, is
      382
      twenty-six times greater than in the first months of the War, it will be seen that it is not such a simple problem as at first sight one would be inclined to think. What was done? My right hon. Friend described it correctly. The Army Council thought, at first, they would be able to do it by a Committee of their own. They found it was too much, and they gave it up. They appointed another Committee. My right hon. Friend suggested that because of their dislike to men being employed on these Committees, they have been sent away to other employment. I really do not think the House should draw that inference. I certainly draw another. It is this: If this work has to be done, as the right hon. Gentleman says it can only be done, from within the War Office itself, they naturally try to get competent men to do it, and, as the needs of the War grow and the competence of these men was shown, they thought at last that their ability was required in more vital fields. They were, therefore, taken away for that reason, and, I think, for no other.
      The position is this: This Subcommittee has now prepared a Report. This Report is going to be submitted to the Army Council first, then to the Secretary for War, and finally to myself as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord Milner is himself going to try, by taking personal note of the matter, to see whether he can help this work. I can assure my right hon. Friend that, as far as the heads of the War Office are concerned, there is a real desire to get rid of unnecessary staff at the War Office, as we all desire should be the case everywhere else. As regards prisoners of war, that is not, as my right hon. Friend knows, a big problem from the point of view of the amount of money involved. What has been done by the Committee which is dealing with this under the Ministry of National Service? There may have been delay, but they are going on, and Sir Edward Pearson has now agreed to serve. It is quite true it is only to-day, at my request, that he definitely agreed to do that. But he was asked a good many weeks ago. He was uncertain whether he could do so or not. But the work is being done.
      The next question is a bigger one, the question of the Coal agreement. When this Bill went through the House, the view of the Board of Trade and the Government was that it must be self-supporting. That

      383
      was the intention. It is still the intention of the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade tells me he has no doubt he can so arrange matters that it will be self-supporting.
      Sir J. WALTON: Without State interference?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I will say something as to the effect of leaving things without State interference later, if my hon. Friend will allow me, but I wish the House to understand that at this moment there is probably no problem—and this is a War problem—which is more difficult than that of the supply of coal. That difficulty has been rendered very much greater by the necessity under which we believed we were placed, in spite of the need for coal, of allowing a considerable number of men to leave the mines and take their place in the fighting ranks. It may be said—and, of course, if we were discussing this problem by itself, I am sure the majority of those who speak would say it—"You ought not to take away men from coal." Well, Sir, the front line is the first line. We have to deal with that first. In coming to that decision the Government took the decision which they thought was right in view of the emergency. This increased the difficulty. It may be that this will mean more difficulty than was expected in making the accounts balance, but, at all events, it is certain that if there had not been controlled coal, and if it had been left, as suggested by my hon. Friend who owns coal mines, to the free play of ordinary economic law, not only would the State have paid many times more, but we would not have had the coal which is necessary now for the needs of the nation.
      Sir J. WALTON: That is done under the Coal Prices (Limitation) Act to which I never objected.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: We considered, after very close examination, that this method was more effective. We still think so.
      The only other point of detail is the bread subsidy. There is one general observation I should like to make on this. With the exception of the bread subsidy, there is not one of these specific items dealt with either by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, or by the Committee, which do not refer to events that took place not later than the year 1916. As a
      384
      matter of fact, therefore, we are dealing with a state of things in the earlier stages of the War. As I have said before, there has been a great deal of improvement since then. Take this bread subsidy. It is perfectly true—I have said it before—that there is room for great difference of opinion as to the wisdom of this subsidy. But I can tell my right hon. Friend that it had to be done. The Report of the Committee suggests that much could have been done, and that a saving of something like £10,000,000 could have been made. I am absolutely certain that is incorrect, and I shall give my reasons why. My attention was first called to this by an interruption of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. L. Jones). The Treasury got into communication with the Food Controller. The mailer has been dealt with between them, Sir Robert Chalmers acting on behalf of the Treasury. I myself had an interview with my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Department. And this at least is certain, that if the subsidy is to be given at all, the method of saving suggested by the Committee is absolutely impossible. Their proposal is that the whole price given to the bakers should be raised.
      What are the facts? It is perfectly true that the best equipped bakeries can make at the price at which the flour is sold profits which are altogether too high. On the other hand, there are altogether something like 40,000 bakers, and the ordinary ones are able to make only a reasonable profit on this scale. If, therefore, you were to raise the prices all round in this way, the effect would be that in large parts of the country it would be utterly impossible to sell the loaf at anything like this figure, and the one object of making the subsidy—that is of trying to prevent discontent in the masses of the people who have to buy bread—would entirely disappear. That method is not possible—I am sure of that! There is one consideration which I do not think my right hon. Friend took into account. I am sure if he had thought about it he would have done so. It has been pointed out—I do not suggest it as a reason for doing nothing, but it is a vital factor—that the bakeries which are making these big profits are the bigger ones, with the most up-to-date machinery. Every one of them pays Excess Profits Duty, so that it is not too much to say that of this excess, in the case of the

      385
      great bulk of them, 80 per cent. of it comes back to the Treasury in the form of Excess Profits. That, at all events, should be taken into account in the Estimate. I quite admit that in every direction this is not a method one likes in fixing these prices. I believe that something can be done, though not on the lines of the Select Committee's Report. It is being considered now, both by the Treasury and by the Food Controller. I am not going to deal with the suggestions which have been made, but I can assure the House that if there be any feasible way by which this discrepancy can be got over it will be adopted as soon as possible. I think that covers all the questions of detail with which I have to deal.
      I should like to come to the more general question. My right hon. Friend gave my amiability as one of the weaknesses of the present financial position. Well, that may-have its advantages, but it is not altogether a crime. I quite admit—and I have noticed it in the House—and if it were serious it would be something that would have to be put an end to—I do not think hon. Members have any pleasure in annoying me for the sake of annoying me—and to that extent, perhaps, I do escape some criticism. Possibly that is a bad thing! But I ask the House to remember this: The question of the amount of money that can be saved must apply to the big items, and not to the details which we have been discussing. I ask the House to remember also that even in peace times the Treasury made no attempt to control contracts in connection with which the greatest extravagance was likely.
      They could not do it. That had to be done within the Department, and, of course, it is obvious that it requires an immense expert staff, and no amount of increase of Treasury staff could possibly have any effect in regard to this matter. I came to the conclusion that the only way in which one could hope to avoid this waste of money was in two directions—I mean on the part of the Treasury. The one is to make as certain as you can that a good system exists in the Departments. That is the first direction. But something else is essential. A system is no use unless you have a competent man who understands the work to deal with the system in the new conditions which have arisen. If I were not a member of the Government, I could have made a speech like that of my right hon. Friend. Possibly I might have made a stronger speech. I had that
      386
      view long before I was a member of the Government. In the first months of the War I expressly asked to see Lord Kitchener, and I told him that in every war that has ever been in this country there was extravagance, and the man at the head of the Department responsible got into trouble. I suggested to him that the way to deal with the War Office was to get the best business man he could, to put him at the head of it, and make him responsible—leaving the work to be done by him. In my belief that is the only way you can save great sums of money.
      5.0 P.M.
      Before I say what has been done in this direction, I would like to draw the attention of the House to one particular consideration which I really believe is doing a great deal of harm. Most of the Press comments upon extravagance have been caused, not by the Report of the Select Committee, but by the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. That is because it is not under-stood what are the Comptroller and Auditor-General's functions. His Report is not a final judgment on this question, and it is not to be taken as proof that the things to which he calls attention are wrong. His business is to present to the Committee on Public Accounts any accounts which he thinks should be examined. It is his business to present to that Committee any primâ facie case that requires examination. Think what that difference means! They come before the Committee on Public Accounts and, in many cases, it is found that a primâ facie case does not exist, and that is no reflection on the Comptroller and Auditor-General. But what happens in the public mind? Everything said in the Auditor-General's Report is taken as the final verdict, and the Press is full of that. The Public Accounts Committee see the Report, and while a great deal will be found not to be of importance, they will dwell on other things which are found defective; and what seems to be an entirely new set of scandals appears in the public Press, and they are multiplied in that way. I notice in a letter to the Press a case which bears out all these points put by the Auditor-General, and in which they are summarised. They come to a total of upwards of £17,000,000, and the letter treats it as if all this was a waste of money. As it happens, these matters have now been examined before the Public Accounts Committee. There are members of that Committee present

      387
      who, I am sure, will corroborate what I am saying. I shall give my experience. The Treasury is represented at the Public Accounts Committee. I went into this matter and I have been given a report—
      Mr. L. JONES: The Public Accounts Committee has not reported upon this matter, and I think this point is very important. We are bound over to absolute secrecy until we do report. I am speaking in the absence of the Chairman of that Committee, but I may say that the documents are marked confidential, and we are not entitled to refer to them or to quote them until the Public Accounts Committee has reported.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my right hon. Friend is right. I shall not go further than to say that these are events which took place before March, 1917. They all began in 1916; they are only primâ facie cases, and the House is not to assume that there is any evidence in any one of these cases that a single penny of public money has been lost on account of what has been done by those Departments. I think that is very important. I now come to the general question as to how you are to attempt to save money. The first thing which I did on going to the Treasury was to send to the three principal spending Departments, asking for an account of their methods of dealing with expenditure. I went into it with the officials of the Treasury, and I came to the conclusion again that the only chance of saving money is by a good system obtaining in those Departments, and by having good men to carry it out What has been done? In the War Office we have now the very position which I think is the only possible one if money is to be saved. We have Mr. Andrew Weir, who is responsible for these purposes. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Samuel) has come into contact with this gentleman in connection with the War Office in his position as Chairman, and I say to the House, without fear of contradiction, that the methods adopted by him mean simply an immense saving in the large sums involved.
      I am not going into details, but I will give the House one or two illustrations. In regard to the question of purchases, there is still a certain amount of purchasing by tender, which, of course, is the best way; but under present conditions
      388
      there could not be free economic play. They have set up a system of costs, and by a Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act they have the power to requisition everything. This Act was passed a long time ago, and it gave them this power. The result is that every tender of any consequence is examined from the point of view of what the cost is, and if it seems above that cost the seller is asked to bring it down. In every case there is this power. The real question of whether money is being lost or saved depends upon something else which is now almost universal in industry. This is control, and it is a question whether this control is exercised wisely or unwisely. I will give one illustration. In the case of Army boots, the price this year, in spite of the general rise in wages and in everything else, is 2s. less than it was last year.
      Let me take a bigger saving in money, and I will only give one illustration. Wool is now controlled. Anyone who has any experience of business, and knows the difficulty of combining business methods with Government Department methods, will realise how difficult is the problem in dealing with an article of this kind. What has been done is that the whole of the clip of the wool of this country, and—thanks to the co-operation of our Colonies, in Australia, New Zealand, and, to some extent, South Africa—is now under control, and it is no exaggeration to say it would have been impossible that the world price could have been paid. It is a fact that the total amount spent on wool last year was £100,000,000, and if that had been bought at anything like the world price, it would have meant an addition of at least £20,000,000 to the amount paid by the nation. It is in that kind of way that big sums of money have been saved. As regards the Admiralty, we have adopted the same principle. There the evil was not so great, because the extension of the Navy has not been in the same proportion as the Army; but there we have secured a business man to control contracts, and he is actually doing the most useful work. There also is a Treasury Committee dealing with Admiralty matters, which meets, I think, twice every week, or once, at all events. It goes into every question of that kind, and is there to control expenditure.
      Now we come to the Ministry of Munitions. I wish the House of Commons

      389
      and the country to realise what is the position of that Department. Everyone admits now quite freely that you could not scrutinise too closely the financial methods in the early stages of the setting up of that Department. Urgency was the first thing, because the goods had to be got. It is quite true that the War has lasted so long that there is a general feeling that everything ought to be stabilised on a permanent general war basis, but that cannot be done. Every now and then there is an urgent remand for some big article, involving a large amount of money. For instance, it is true in regard to the tank programme and aeroplanes that you cannot delay production whatever else you do. In the Ministry of Munitions there was not anyone in supreme control. I think that was a bad system, and it was condemned by the Select Committee as a bad system. That has been changed, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions has been appointed to do that work and that alone, and be responsible for it. He is, in fact, to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Ministry of Munitions. That is a very difficult task, with as great responsibility almost as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Kingdom. The amount of money over which he has control is three times greater than the total expenditure of this country before the War. It is vital that this work should be well done, and if there be any detailed discussion of this Department I hope my hon. Friend will explain the steps which he has taken, to show to the House that, at all events, a real effort is being made to grapple with this question.
      I would like to say this about the Ministry of Munitions. Account keeping is essential to good business of all kinds, but remember—and this is true all through the Service—that the experienced clerks who did that work have been taken away, and you have in their place inexperienced people and inexperienced women. It is inevitable that a much larger staff is required to do the work. It is inevitable, in the second place, that mistakes are far more likely to occur, and it is far more difficult to prevent mistakes which create an impression on the public mind. I am certain that any business firm would agree that the system of accounting which has now been established will give reasonable security that the money is being properly spent. After all, the House of Commons ought not to look at
      390
      this question entirely from the point of view of the mistakes that are pointed out, for there is something bigger involved than that. In the Ministry of Munitions there are some of the most competent business men in the country. They are rendering great service to the State, and in my view nothing would be more unfair to them than to convey the impression that their work on the whole was being badly done.
      In the Ministry of Munitions, as in the case of the War Office, the real question of the saving of money is the way in which the big business is done. It is the way in which the output is produced and the way in which affairs are controlled. That is the real test, and I shall give to the House proof of how that test turns out. It is quite easy to do it. I shall take the big items which were produced in 1915, and compare them with the same article produced in 1918, and compare the cost. That in reality is the test as to whether the work on the whole is being done well or badly. I shall take first of all the 18-pounder gun and the 4.5 howitzer. I tried to get a general statement of all guns and ammunition, but that was impossible, because so much had been changed during the War. These remain constant. In 1915 the price of an 18-pounder gun was £2,100. Last year it was £1,900. The price of a 4.5 howitzer was £2,115 in 1915; it was £1,790 in 1918. Coming to ammunition, in 1915 the cost of 18-pounder ammunition was 62s. 3d.; in 1918 it was 42s. 6d. High explosive shell for the 4.5 howitzer was 106s. in the first year, and 66s. now. Put this in a bigger way. If you take a supply of ammunition for these two weapons in the year 1918, and assume that you would have paid for it at the price that would have had to be paid in 1915, the result is that the cost to the nation would have been £45,000,000 more than the actual price paid.
      Mr. ROCH: Increased output reduces cost.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course. My hon. Friend must not suppose that I am meaning to imply that they ought to have remained at anything like the old prices. That would have been ridiculous. The output is so much greater, but that is the real test as to whether the extent to which we cut down cost is efficient; and I am confident that if it were examined from that point of view it would be found that on the whole, taking all the difficulties into

      391
      account, the men responsible for production in the Ministry of Munitions deserve well of the country which employs them. When my hon. Friend (Mr. Roch) pointed out that the output must reduce the cost, while that is true he must remember that there have been other factors in the other direction. There has been a rise in the cost of all material and of wages, and you must take that into account in dealing with the whole matter. I am very unwilling to give the impression that I am minimising either the importance of this or the possibility of still greater improvement, but what I wish the House of Commons to bear in mind is that the particular strictures apply to a long time ago, that an immense effort is being made to improve them, and that it should not be assumed that great improvements have not been made, and are not constantly being made in connection with this matter.
      Sir J. WALTON: What about increased Treasury supervision?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: If my hon. Friend will have a little patience, I was going to tell him one respect in which a change is being made. The Select Committee recommended that the question of contractors' costs and prices paid should be examined. A Committee was appointed, consisting of Lord Inchcape, Sir Peter McClellan—who has done good service at the War Office—and Lord Colwyn. They presented a Report, which has been carefully considered by the Government and the Departments. It is evident that there is still, though much less than there was, a considerable amount of overlapping in buying, and it is to co-ordinate that that the efforts must be directed. The Committee point out, as anyone would in their place, that the ideal method would be to have one Supply Department for all Government, services. That had been considered by the Government before the Report. Its advantages are obvious, but there are great risks in making a change like that in the middle of the War, and we have not felt justified in doing it. The Committee recommended as an alternative that the heads of the contracting Departments of the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Ministry of Munitions should be formed into a Committee with an outside man as chairman. That has been done. Lord Colwyn, who will have to give up other work, has undertaken to be the chairman of the Committee, which will
      392
      consist of Mr. Weir, Sir H. Livesay, and Sir John Mann, and, in addition, we are putting on Sir Hugh Levick, a business man of high capacity, who has proved himself of great assistance. He has been helping the Treasury for more than a year, and will represent it on that Committee. I hope that if the work be undertaken with good will by the Departments, it will be very useful, as I am sure it will. One result will be that each Department will see everything that the other is doing, and it is my hope that they will rise to the level of the best Department, whichever it be. I shall be greatly disappointed if a great deal of useful result does not come from that Committee. I am not going to say anything more—
      Mr. SAMUEL: The Treasury staff.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Treasury staff has been increased—I cannot say to what extent. We have, in addition to the names I have mentioned, three or four business men, who are giving us their whole time. My right hon. Friend must know that the difficulty of increasing the Treasury staff is that it is all special work, and is done by special people. It is not at all possible to throw in a vast number of men, and say, "You are to assist in the control of the Treasury." What we do is to increase its efficiency as much as we can, and I believe we have had considerable success.
      That raises again the problem which would be quite big enough for a speech by itself—the question of the constitution and work of our present Cabinet system. My right hon. Friend's speech is pretty much the same kind of speech we have had from him before. I am not now going to make a long speech in reply, but I say this at once to the House: I can understand that kind of speech, as we had it the other day from, I think, a Member for Sheffield—from a Member who has had no experience of the ordinary system of Cabinet government. I really cannot understand it from my right hon. Friend. The old system was not very effective in peace. It absolutely broke down in war, and that was admitted by everybody. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith), who was then Prime Minister, was making constant efforts to improve it. He set up the War Committee, and in the very last days of his Government other changes were proposed about which there was difference of opinion. One of them was that to

      393
      which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Samuels) seems to be wedded, of having two more or less independent Cabinets. I was really surprised to hear his suggestion that there should be a joint meeting between them when there was any point of difference. I cannot imagine any method more unsuitable for carrying on a war. The one thing above all others needed is that there should be central control, and that there should be no doubt about it. If you had a really independent Cabinet Committee to deal with internal affairs, what would be the result? In the first place, where would you draw the line? A Department which is in its essence a Civil Department is drawn into the War in every direction, and at every point comes into consideration where the War does arise and where there would be a conflict between authorities.
      Take another case. If you are to have this Home Department, which is to be more or less independent, to deal with special things by themselves, is the Prime Minister, are the Leaders of both Houses, to be on it? If not, how can it work; and if they are on it, are they also to be on the War Cabinet? How can it possibly work? There is not a question of any great importance which may not at any moment be raised in this House. It is inconceivable that the Leader of the House should not take a part in coming to decisions for which he has to be responsible when they are raised in the House of Commons. Whatever other plan is possible, that plan would absolutely break down, and I am perfectly sure would never be adopted by any Government now that was responsible for carrying on the War.
      Let me point out another difficulty. It has been suggested that a better method would be a comparatively small Cabinet, with a War Committee dealing with the War alone. How could that work? The Cabinet is to be in that case in the end responsible. It is impossible for them to accept responsibility for decisions which were unknown to them, and over which they had no control. In effect, if you are to have a body which is at once doing the work and responsible for it, it must be a small body, and it must have full responsibility. It is assumed that the Cabinet is in arrears in all these questions. That is absolutely not the case. What happens is that there is now in connection with the Cabinet a Secretariat. It is, in fact, a general staff
      394
      for the Prime Minister. The secretary of at staff has the duty of bringing to the notice of the Cabinet any questions submitted to him by one of the great Departments. He at once makes efforts to get it dealt with. It would be perfectly impossible for the Cabinet to deal with these questions if they were to go into them all themselves. That never has been done.
      The system on which the Cabinet works I think it might be as well to explain to the House. It meets every day. The first business is to get reports of the military situation from the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Air Board. The next is to get a report from the Foreign Office. Afterwards it deals with the subjects on the agenda. How are these questions dealt with? The system has grown. First of all there were great arrears, which took a long time to overtake, but now the method by which we deal with them is twofold. We either submit questions to particular Cabinet Ministers, with power to decide them, or bring them up again to the Cabinet, or submit them to ad hoc Committees. They deal with them. In nineteen cases out of twenty there is agreement between the Departments, and they never come again to the Cabinet at all. If there be disagreement, then they come to us, but they come with the case thoroughly sifted, where we have only to decide on questions of principle, and it does not usually take a very long time. But even that method is giving place to another method of standing Committees that has grown up under our system. We have already a number of them. We have one, for instance, a very important one, dealing with all questions of priority. It is a permanent Committee which meet regularly. We have others dealing with all economic questions. We have a Committee dealing with military questions in the East.
      That is how business is done. There are no arrears, absolutely none. When there is a talk of arrears it is about questions like Home Rule. Is that a question the decision of which depends upon the inability of Cabinet Ministers to deal with it? It is a question the difficulty of which is inherent, and it is not want of time which prevents us dealing with it, as every Member of this House knows. That is not the kind of question in which the House is interested in the main. It is interested in carrying on the War, and I would remind the House of this, that there is probably no other

      395
      country engaged in the War that has attempted so much legislation as has been attempted by this Government. I am not at all sure that we have not attempted too much; but, at all events, I can say that there is no delay whatever, absolutely none, in any question which directly or indirectly affects the conduct of the War. I would ask the House—I am making no criticism on the previous system—to contrast that method with the old Cabinet system. I gave the House before the figures of attendance at Cabinet meetings. In the last five months of the Government of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) the War Committee met forty-one times. The Cabinet Committee met eighteen times in five months. What possibility was there of co-ordination?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The Cabinet itself?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; the Cabinet itself.
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: Surely my right hon. Friend knows that there were other Committees which met during that time!
      Mr. BONAR LAW: And does my right hon. Friend not think that Committees are sitting now at the same time?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: No; I did not say there were not.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not the point. The question is one of co-ordination. Does my right hon. Friend suggest a Special Committee for the special purpose of dealing with co-ordination? Of course he does not! The only possibility of coordination in that sense was in the meetings of the Cabinet. But, as a matter of fact, everyone connected with the Government knew that was a problem which at that time rested on the Prime Minister. All the Departments came to him, and he had the burden of dealing with them. That was a system which could not last, and I say to the House of Commons that what has been talked about as a "Cabinet Committee" under this Government is entirely a mistake. It is nothing of the kind. It is simply another ad hoc committee, appointed to deal with definite sets of questions. It is not independent. The ultimate authority on every question will still be the Cabinet. It is just a further development of a system which is going on in other directions, and, after an experience of both systems, I am convinced that the real method of getting the work
      396
      done is by a small body which has the final authority, and that the question of efficiency depends upon the extent of the devolution, or the way in which they can delegate their work. That is being improved all the time. Finally, I want to say, without any hesitation, that we are not afraid to be judged by the results of what we have done, and, if the House of Commons wishes to know the result, let them look at the Report given of the immense work which was done last year in every direction, and, as a sample, take the 4,000,000 acres to which my right hon. Friend has referred, and judge by that whether or not essential work is being done at the present time.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the present Cabinet are not in any arrears with their business, but the charge that has been made against them is not that they are in arrears with their business, but that they decide matters without giving them proper consideration. From the very nature of the case, a small Cabinet consisting of six members, charged with the tremendous responsibility of carrying on the War, cannot possibly give time to weigh the pros and cons, of the different questions which the Cabinet are being constantly called upon to decide in interdepartmental disagreements, and the criticism which I have to make in regard to the Wheat Commission, which has been prominently referred to in these Debates, is that the Cabinet came to their decision, not after delays and with slowness, but immediately without consulting the people really concerned in the question and without asking their views. They said that bread was to be sold at the uniform price of 9d., and, as a result, a very heavy expenditure has been thrown upon the people of the country. That is the charge that we make against the present system of Cabinet government. All the House who listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech must have noticed a singular contrast between the beginning and the end of it. In his opening words, he posed almost as a monument of patient suffering. He acknowledged that the investigations of the Expenditure Committee had revealed weaknesses in the existing system, which, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had been only too glad to welcome, and to give effect to throughout the public service. He admitted that there had been great defects, and he said that he had

      397
      tried to put them right and he was going to put right the other points which have been referred to by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Samuel). At the end of his speech his tone entirely changed.
      Mr. BONAR LAW Mr. BONAR LAW indicated dissent.
      Mr. JONES: I think it did. I listened with amazement when the Chancellor of the Exchequer became a positive apologist for expenditure. Perhaps it was the unfortunate result of the double capacity my right hon. Friend occupies. In the early part of his speech he was a most correct Chancellor of the Exchequer, but in the latter part of it he was a member of the War Cabinet who in many respects are responsible for the waste of which we have had to complain. My right hon. Friend indulged in a criticism of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which I very much regret, and which I cannot but think that he on reflection will also regret.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I did not. I really cannot allow that to be said without trying to correct it. I said nothing of the kind. I said that there was a misunderstanding of his functions, which was not to judge of the expenditure but to bring it to the Public Accounts Committee to be judged by them.
      Mr. JONES: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I apologise if I have in any way misrepresented him. It is most important that nothing should be said by the Leader of this House in any way in derogation of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is a great officer of this House, who reports to this House, and whose Report the Public Accounts Committee is appointed to consider.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not do so.
      Mr. JONES: And I am heartily glad to know that I slightly misunderstood my right hon. Friend, and that there was no such intention. The Public Accounts Committee in due course will report upon the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon all these Departments, and I do not doubt that this House will take them into consideration and deal with them. My right hon. Friend in the latter part of his speech endeavoured to give the impression that this expenditure of which we complain relates to matters of the distant past and that there is nothing going on now which calls for the same criticism. Having served upon the Expenditure Committee, I should like to
      398
      say that I most gladly recognise that there is a great improvement in the spending Departments at the present time. There has been a very great effort made in many Departments to improve their financial system and to prevent wasteful expenditure. In many ways some of the new Departments are now organised with a financial system on paper which really could not be better. It has been my duty, for instance, to investigate the accounts of the Ministry of Food, and I should like to confirm the claim made by the Undersecretary (Mr. Clynes) the other night, when he said that I had, as Chairman of the Special Committee charged with the investigation of the affairs of his Department, approved of the financial system which has been set up in that Ministry. They have a financial system there which if it is carried out as it is on paper, and I have no reason to think otherwise, will result in the expenditure being as closely watched as it possibly can be. They have set up in that Department—I should like to see some of the other Departments follow suit—a financial secretary who is the accounting officer responsible for matters of cost and accounting and the examination of traders' books throughout the country, and in each of the administrative divisions of the Ministry there is an assistant director of finance directly responsible to the Financial Secretary. The Financial Secretary, or these assistant directors who are responsible to him, are associated with all spending from the very outset. The opinion of the Financial Secretary, according to the evidence given to us, is asked upon all schemes for spending money. He is allowed to criticise before they are embarked upon, and he and his officials watch the schemes while they are being carried out, and they are accountable for them to this House and to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. If that system of the association of finance with the inauguration of schemes, with the working of them out, and with the accounting of them is really kept up, I do not see what more can be done in the way of accounting to safeguard expenditure, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) upon having secured this system in the Ministry of Food.
      After all, it is matters of policy more than anything else which, in the end, determine whether or not there is lavish expenditure, and it is there that our criticism of the War Cabinet comes in. I refer

      399
      especially to the affairs of the Wheat Commission. I will ask the House to recall the establishment of the Wheat Commission, and the way it was worked. It was set up towards the end of 1916, and its purpose was to buy wheat all over the world and secure the wheat supply of this country—it was subsequently extended to other cereal crops—to co-ordinate the demands of the Allies, to economise shipping, and to avoid competition in buying. The purpose which the Commission set before themselves was to achieve all this without any cost to the taxpayers of this country. The Wheat Commission worked for nearly a year. They built up a great wheat reserve, which they said in evidence before us would cost, through wastage and through the fact that there were no suitable buildings for storing, about £2,000,000, but they were selling to the public wheat at a price which, if they had closed up their account, would have wiped out the loss on the wheat reserve and would have left the account balanced. The Wheat Commission would have discharged their functions of supplying the people of this country with cereals, of caving shipping, and so forth without any cost to the taxpayers of this country. Suddenly a matter of policy was decided by the War Cabinet without consultation, and the most extraordinary part of the business is that, as far as I can find out, nobody on the Wheat Commission was consulted as to the decision of the War Cabinet that bread should be sold at a uniform price of 9d. throughout this country.
      I have to say, as the result of the evidence that was put before us, that if the War Cabinet had had more time at their disposal, and if, instead of disposing of their business with that rapidity and swiftness of which the right hon. Gentleman boasts, they had delayed in order to take the evidence of the Wheat Commission and of people throughout this country in regard to the method of selling bread, the price of bread, and so forth, they would never have reached that decision to sell bread at a uniform price of 9d. throughout the country. The whole mischief arises very largely from their insistence upon the same price of bread for every part of the country. The country was not accustomed to have bread sold at the same price—in the very North of Scotland and in London. It was not accustomed to the same price in the rural and in the town areas. There-
      400
      fore it was an unwise thing for the War Cabinet to lay down a general rule at the outset without exploring the problem. That was the first blunder that was made, and it was due to the insistence of the War Cabinet in deciding matters offhand so as to have no arrears. The problem ought really to have been explored with infinite care, especially seeing that it involved an outlay of £40,000,000 of public money. I do not blame the War Cabinet for not having accepted the decision. They had no time to go into it, but they are responsible for the system under which that decision was taken; therefore we must hold them responsible for the loss of public money which has ensued as the result of their action.
      I want to trouble the House—I am sorry to do it because it is wholly a matter of detail, but as the right hon. Gentleman holds out no hope of accepting the recommendation of our Committee that the price of flour should be raised as we suggest, although he hopes to attain part of that aim by other methods—I must trouble the House with the reasons which induced our Committee to make the recommendations which the right hon. Gentleman will not accept. The way the Wheat Commission proceeded to give effect to the Cabinet's decision to subsidise bread and sell the loaf at 9d. was this: They endeavoured to ascertain from bakers what price they could pay for flour, provided they were compelled to sell the loaf for 9d. The price arrived at was 44s. 3d. per sack of flour, with an allowance for cash payments in regard with which I need not trouble the House. The important factor in that decision was the cost of baking. It all turns on the cost of baking a sack of flour. The Wheat Commission estimated the cost of baking a sack containing 20 stone of flour, with a normal profit, at 23s. per sack. The investigations made by the Committee which went into this matter point to that average being considerably too high. The 23s. which is allowed for bakers is a great deal too much for many bakers, although it may be too little for certain bakers. The evidence given to us by the Wheat Commission was that the cost of baking varied between 10s. and 25s. per sack. The average cost was probably not more than 15s., according to them. The allowance made by the Wheat Commission was 23s. Our Committee thought and think that that allowance was a great deal too

      401
      high. But we have discovered something else. The cost of 23s. was based on the baker producing from the sack of flour eighty-nine loaves. That was a great deal too low on the average. The evidence given to us was that it is probably nearer ninety-six loaves on the average.
      Sir W. RUTHERFORD: It all depends on the quality of the flour.
      Mr. JONES: The hon. Member is perfectly right there. He understands the question, and I put it to him that ninety-six loaves to a sack is not a very high number for a baker to produce. Many of them produce 100.
      Sir W. RUTHERFORD: It ranges from ninety-two to 106.
      Mr. JONES: That is so. The calculations of the Wheat Commission were based on an average of eighty-nine; therefore, on the lowest of the hon. Member's figures, there is 2s. 3d. more to be allowed to the bakers, while in the view of the Committee 4s. or 5s. more would not be an unreasonable amount to allow on that head.
      Sir W. RUTHERFORD: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say that I do not know how many can be produced out of the rubbish they call flour nowadays?
      Mr. JONES: I will give the hon. Member an instance. I had a letter sent to me a few days ago. I do not intend to give the gentleman's name to the House, as he did not intend the letter for publication, but I will show it to the right hon. Gentleman, if he would care to see it. It is a letter from a leading miller in the North of England, who read our Report and wrote to say that we were quite right. He says:
      "As regards the turnout of bread per sack of flour, ninety-six 4-lb. loaves would be a correct average. I have had two tests made by two bakers in this town with my flour, which they had on hand, and one is 100 4-lb. loaves and the other ninety-six…. The cost of baking is well covered by 7s. per sack."
      If my right hon. Friend is going to look into this question himself, he will see that there is more in the Report of our Committee than he supposes, and that if we are right, as I think we are, in thinking that the Wheat Commission estimated altogether too high the bakers' costs, then there is a possibility of raising the price of flour to bakers without increasing the
      402
      price of the loaf. That is the whole issue between us. The Committee thought, and still think, that you can raise the price of flour 4s. or 5s. per sack to the baker without increasing the price of bread on the whole. I do not deny that when we come to deal with the bakers in the more remote parts of the country, who have no up-to-date plant, the cost of production in their case is very much greater than that of up-to-date bakers. That is a matter which will have to be dealt with in any reorganisation of the scheme. But if the Government would remember that four-fifths of the bread is produced by one-tenth of the bakers they will see that the problem remaining of the smaller bakers is a comparatively little one in extent, although the number of those bakers is very considerable. I urge upon the Government not to make us an utterly un-conciliatory answer, and not to reject altogether our Report in its present form. I am still not sure that the best way of dealing with the question is not to raise the price of flour from 43s. 9d., say, to 48s. 9d., and to allow the price of bread to adapt itself to the level of the price of flour. I do not think the variations would be so large as the right hon. Gentleman fears. It is true that you would not have a 9d. loaf all over the country. You would have an 8½d. loaf in some parts of the country, and, perhaps, a 10d. loaf in certain remote districts which are ill served by up-to-date bakers, but, on the whole, the country could save easily £10,000,000 on this head, because every 1s. a sack you put on the price of flour means a saving of £2,000,000 to the taxpayers of the country. Therefore it is worth while to do it.
      So far as I know, the Government have not considered the question of controlling the bakers, or of installing up-to-date plant in those places where there is none. The cost of baking plant is very small, indeed, compared with the figures of the subsidy. You could equip every bakery in this country with up-to-date machinery, capable of supplying the people with bread as good as the flour will make it—I agree with the hon. Member opposite (Sir W. Rutherford) that it is not very good—and save a sum of between £5,000,000 and £10,000,000 on the whole, while you are paying at present £40,000,000 a year in order to get the 9d. loaf, if, indeed, that is the limit of the expenditure. I press this very much upon the

      403
      Government, because here is a large lump sum which could he saved by the Government if they will act promptly, go into the matter thoroughly with their experts, and co-ordinate the whole business, instead of doing, what they have done up to now, that is, leaving the Wheat Commission altogether outside the purview of the Ministry of Food, or really only connected with it by a sort of liaison officer, if I may use a fashionable term.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It is definitely under it.
      Mr. JONES: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is a little content with paper arrangements. I wonder how much responsibility the Ministry of Food is prepared to take for the decisions of the Wheat Commission and the functions of the Wheat Commission. I have had the accounting officer of the Ministry of Food before me. He is not the accounting officer for the Wheat Commission; they have an accounting officer of their own. The accounting officer of the Ministry of Food, though he said he was informed of what happened at the Wheat Commission, utterly declined to take any responsibility for the condition of the accounts, for the form of the accounts, or for the work of the Wheat Commission in any respect whatever. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is entirely mistaken if he thinks the Wheat Commission is really under the Ministry of Food. It is one of those instances of the lack of coordination that exists because of the haphazard way in which these Departments have grown up. It is not the fault of the Government, nor the fault of the Department, nor the fault of the Wheat Commission, nor the fault of the Ministry of Food. Let the right hon. Gentleman be sure of this, that there is rivalry between the Wheat Commission and the Ministry of Food. There is a want of a clear demarcation of functions, there is a need for greater control somewhere over the Wheat Commission. I beg the Government to take this matter into their serious consideration immediately, and to have it put right. It is a matter of exceeding importance to the public service, for the sum involved is very large.
      I will only trouble the House with one other point which came before our Subcommittee on which I feel bound to say a word, because the right hon. Gentle-404
      man was very unsatisfactory upon it in the few words he said about it, that is, the working of the coal compensation scheme. Very specific undertakings were given in the House when the Bill was before us that no expense was going to fall upon the public as a result of the Coal Compensation Scheme. Some of us were sceptical upon the point. I remember that I myself expressed some doubts and ventured to give as an illustration the working of the Wheat Commission, and pointed out to the Government that, though it worked well enough so long as the War Cabinet let it alone, yet the moment the War Cabinet came upon the schene the immediate result was that the Wheat Commission showed a deficit of £40,000,000 on its accounts. I ventured to prophesy that the Coal Compensation Scheme might be in the same state, that they might be willing and able to prevent expenditure from falling upon the public, but that they might not be able to take the necessary steps because of decisions given by the War Cabinet. Well, the situation has arisen. My right hon. Friend knows that the Coal Compensation Scheme at present is not paying its way—that there is a loss, I believe, of many hundreds of thousands of pounds a month falling upon the public purse at the present moment.
      Mr. J. WILSON: Not many hundreds of thousands of pounds.
      6.0 P.M.
      Mr. JONES: It all depends what my right hon. Friend means by "many." At any rate, several hundred thousand pounds a month are now being charged to the British taxpayer owing to the working of the Coal Compensation Scheme. I want to know from my right hon. Friend—we are entitled to ask him this—is the Coal Controller going to be told to work his compensation scheme—that is, to sell his coal at such a price to consumers that the scheme shall be self-supporting, or is a subsidy going to be given to the coal trade in order that coal may continue to be sold at present prices? It is a very important question. It amounts to several hundred thousand pounds a month. The amount is rapidly rising; therefore it will be more difficult to deal with the question if it is postponed. Perhaps, as the War Cabinet has no arrears, it will be able to decide the matter straight away or tell the Coal Controller that he may decide it for himself, provided there is no burden

      405
      thrown upon public funds. We have had an undertaking from the Government that if any burden is to be thrown upon taxpayers, we are to have a Bill brought before us. That in itself will Joe a deterrent to the Government in the matter. The House is to be congratulated on securing that undertaking. I understand that they will not take the money out of the Vote of Credit. The undertaking is that if it is necessary to use public money to keep the scheme going, then the Government are coming to the House. That in itself will provide the Government with a strong motive to adopt the course I recommend of telling the Coal Controller that the consumers of coal can well afford to pay the necessary price for making the scheme a self-supporting one, and that they must not look for any help from the taxpayers of the country. I am thankful that the right hon. Gentleman did not say to-day that any of us who are engaged in this attempt to prevent wasteful expenditure are nagging at the Government. It is not in that spirit that the Committee approached it. We recognise to the full the great difficulty which the Government has in spending wisely the vast sums of money which are passing through its hands. We desire to help it. We claim that we have helped it, and that makes us put forward this further claim that the Government should give our suggestions careful and favourable consideration.
      Mr. SHERWELL: I do not propose even to attempt to cover any considerable part of the area which the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer covered, not because I do not find it tempting, but because I am aware that for me to attempt to do so would be to encroach upon the time of hon. Members who, with considerable public spirit, have devoted time and study to this question of national expenditure. But I wish to make one comment upon the chief illustration upon which the right hon. Gentleman relied in his case for the Government on the positive side—that is to say, the argument as to the savings effected by various systems of control introduced by the Government. He quoted the special case of wool as his main illustration, but I was amazed to find him putting his case in this form. He said you see at once the great savings effected if you contrast the
      406
      price of Government wool with the world price. Surely he had momentarily forgotten the essential fallacy in that argument, because he knows that the Government, by its system of control, has destroyed the world price, and the only contrast he could make was with the current price of the limited amount of free wool from the Cape and from South America, which, I admit, does, in reference to the South American price, give an appearance of success to the Government scheme of control. But when you acquire absolute control of eight-tenths, say, of the full world supply of wool, the inevitable economic consequence is to send up, arbitrarily and artificially, the price of the remnant of 20 per cent. of free wool. But in reference to some part of that free wool the case is quite different from that which he suggested. He is probably unaware that Cape wool, for some months past, has been sold at a price considerably below the Government price. The cost of South American wool, where the price is comparatively high, is due to the purchases of our enemies, and it is, solely due to the enterprise of Germany in regard to the market for South American wool, not proportionately a very considerable market, that has raised the price to a point higher than it would have been under the automatic effect of the Government control. I admit that the Government by its statement of accounts will, in connection with the system of wool control, show at the end of the year a considerable margin of profit, but it is a false margin as compared with private trade, because from that total of profit there will not have been deducted the 80 per cent. of excess profits which would have fallen upon them had they been left in the hands of private traders and manufacturers. So it is altogether misleading to quote, as the Government Department has quoted, the great profits made during the year under the system of Government wool control as net profit which would not otherwise have been received. The destination of the wool exported from Australia and New Zealand is the only thing that is essential in the control of the woollen industry. If that trade had been done by the existing manufacturers a profit would have been made, though not so great a profit, but from every £1 of profit so earned the State would have received back eight-tenths in the way of Excess Profits. I make this passing

      407
      comment in order to suggest that the actual success achieved by the Government in the main illustration used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is much more fallacious and misleading than his words would suggest.
      Mr. J. MASON: I desire to call attention to three specific points, one dealing with the Admiralty, another with the Ministry of Munitions, and the third with the general scope of the work of the Expenditure Committee. In the third Report of this Committee the Admiralty Sub-committee has gone into the question of overtime on Government work in the Admiralty, and found that a very unsatisfactory system was in vogue by which men habitually worked less than the normal day but, in spite of that, worked overtime at an increased rate of pay. We found it was quite common to knock off a quarter of an hour in the morning and work the quarter in the evening at the increased rate of pay. We took a somewhat serious view of that circumstance, and we called attention to it in the Report in the full belief that some change would be made. No man is justified in getting an increased rate for overtime until he has worked the full normal day for which he is paid. If that practice were allowed to become general it would tend gradually to turn night into day, for if a man can knock off a quarter in the morning with a view to working it in the evening there is nothing to prevent him from knocking off a full half-day. This is the reply we got from the Admiralty to our suggestion that this practice should be abolished:
      "The payment of overtime, irrespective of whether a full normal day has been worked, is a long-established practice in shipbuilding trades and any attempt to change it would in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty meet with considerable opposition."
      I feel that it is my duty to call attention to that fact and to press for some radical dealing with this matter, and for a change which certainly seems to me to be overdue. If it is an old-established practice, that only makes it worse.
      The next point I want to deal with is the question of subsidies. The principle of giving State subsidies, by which articles are supplied to the public at less than their real cost, is an injurious and a false state of things. We have seen the first great step taken in the subsidy on wheat, and we are told that it is coating something like £40,000,000 a year. The
      408
      effect is simply that the cost of the bread, instead of falling on the person who consumes it, falls on the body of taxpayers in general. A justification to a certain extent may be made out for bread, because it is consumed by all, and it is paid for by all in this other way. But when that principle of subsidies is extended to other articles which are not of general consumption, we are in danger of adopting a very iniquitous system. I find this principle has been adopted in the Ministry of Munitions, and in certain cases the makers of articles required by the Ministry, instead of being paid the full price which would be necessary to cover the cost of production, are selling those articles to the Government at less than their cost price, and receiving a subsidy to make up the difference. So long as the whole production was consumed by the Government there would not be very much harm done except in the matter of principle, but of course the principle applies in a minor degree to articles which are sold to the public. The particular article I am thinking about is steel. What happened was that certain controlled prices for steel were fixed. Then we had large increases in the cost of raw material, and especially of labour, which was due very largely to the action of the Minister of Munitions. This produced the position that the makers of the steel were no longer able to produce it at the controlled prices. They very naturally went to the Government to ask for an increase in price, but instead of getting it they were told to keep on their original price and to receive a subsidy instead. Obviously the private individual who buys a boiler, or some other article into which this subsidy enters is getting it too cheaply, and the whole body of taxpayers is making up the difference—a principle which, of course, is entirely wrong. Let us admit that the principle of subsidies is a wrong one. If I am told it has been adopted only as a temporary expedient, and that when the existing contracts run out it will be abandoned and the controlled price will be regulated to suit the requirements of the new contract, I shall be satisfied, but I want particularly to guard against this principle growing into a general custom.
      It is suggested by a Resolution now standing on the Paper that the terms of reference to the Expenditure Committee should be broadened, and that it should

      409
      be empowered to report on the financial aspect of prospective legislation as well as on expenditure which has already been incurred. I am one of those who hold that the French system of committees controlling Ministers is wholly untenable. It is not suited to this country, and I think the effect of reducing Ministerial responsibility entirely outweighs any other advantages which that system may have; but I cannot help thinking that if it is possible to make use of the machinery of this committee system merely for the purpose of drawing the attention of this House to the financial aspect of projects which are brought before it, it would be the duty of such a committee, immediately when any legislation or scheme was brought before this House, to go into the financial aspect of it, so that the House might be enlightened and informed as to the commitment involved in regard to it. I think we have suffered for a long time from the fact that a great many of the schemes brought before us are argued with a total neglect of their financial side. We are not told sufficiently what things are going to cost. In most cases the Government themselves, when they propose things to us, have not even gone into the cost, and I cannot help thinking that if it was the duty of some body of Members immediately to examine the financial aspect of the case, it would not only be giving useful information to the House dealing with the scheme as a whole, but the mere fact that that committee would be able to ask immediately for papers and estimates would necessitate the making of those estimates in good time, which very frequently does not take place. In that way, I think, it would tend to a more general regard to the financial aspect of the matters brought before the House, and by that means we should be able to exercise economy in control and administration.
      Colonel COLLINS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon covered in detail several points raised by my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. Samuel). There was one reference to the Comptroller and Auditor-General which I regret he made. He seemed to me rather to question the accuracy of recent or past Reports by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I quite agree that those Reports are only primâ facie, as he stated, and that they have to come before the Public Accounts Committee for that body to report to the
      410
      House; but I regret the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman referred to this public servant.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think I said definitely that I was making no reflection upon him. I pointed out that there was a misunderstanding as to what his function was. That is all I said.
      Colonel COLLINS: I am glad to have that assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I am sure he, like this House, appreciates the very difficult and onerous task which that official and his subordinates do in the Government Departments throughout the year. I have no desire to refer in detail to the Ministry of Munitions. We have had a recent Debate on that Department, and we have the assurance of the Government, of the Ministry of Munitions, and of the Financial Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions, that they are going to take every possible step to place that Department in an efficient state. We are content with that assurance, and I am sure that the Financial Secretary will only expect us to judge that assurance by the results which we hope will be achieved in time. In the earlier part of the Debate reference was made by my right hon. Friend who opened the Debate, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the staffing of Government Departments, and reference was made to the Return which has been presented to this House. It may have escaped the attention of hon. Members that those figures were asked for by the Treasury Committee in February last, and in some cases they are not yet complete. In other words, Departments which were asked for a statement of their staffs in February last have not yet supplied the information, several months afterwards. In glancing through this statement I find that the Ministry of Food is costing £620,000. The staff of that Department has increased considerably both in numbers and in cost since then, and, if my information is correct, the cost of the staff of that Department is now nearly £2,000,000. Since this Return was issued I have been making a calculation to try to find out the total cost of the staffs of these Government Departments, and by the total cost I mean not only the cost of salaries, but the cost of buildings, etc. If my calculation is correct, the total cost of the staffs in these Departments amounts to a sum nearly equal to 6d. in the £ on the Income Tax. In other words, when the taxpayers come to pay

      411
      6s. in the £, they know that 6d. of that sum is used by the Government to pay for the staffs in the Government Departments and the buildings in which they are housed. I think this is a very serious matter. In addition to that a large part of this clerical staff, as the House knows, is situated in London. I assume that London will become a great bureaucratic city in which every inhabitant will be working in one or other of the Government Departments. Whether the business men and working men in Lancashire, Yorkshire, Glasgow, and Scotland will appreciate being taxed while this great bureaucracy grows in London is well open to question. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer on several occasions quotes some of the sayings of Burke, may I remind him of one saying of this great man many years ago. Speaking on the subject of economical reform, he said:
      "It is impossible for a man to be an economist under whom various officers in their several Departments may spend just as they please as contributing to the importance, if not the profit, of their several Departments."
      I think this is the real question which baffles the Government in solving this problem that officers in these Departments consider only the importance of their offices. They gather round them large staffs which are not entirely necessary, and the psychological question arises how best to reduce those staffs. We are glad to have the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there are these various Committees at work to-day in the interests of the Government Departments, and we hope that those Committees will have the assistance of the heads of those Departments, for without the assistance of the heads of the Departments I am afraid their work will be in vain.
      I am anxious this afternoon not to refer in detail to any of the points quoted to this House by the Sub-committee on the Ministry of Munitions, but I would like to say, in fairness to the Minister of Munitions, that the Report published by the Comptroller and Auditor-General during the past few weeks refers to a period previous to which the Ministry of Munitions was not responsible. In other words, the present Minister of Munitions is not responsible for the mistakes, or the alleged mistakes, which the Comptroller and Auditor-General reports. I am anxious to make that statement in fairness to the Minister, more especially in view of the recent letters to the Press on
      412
      this subject. So far as I can understand the Minister who is more responsible for the construction of the Ministry of Munitions, especially on its financial side, is the Minister of Reconstruction. Let us hope that he will be happier in his methods of reconstruction than in his constructive methods at the Ministry of Munitions. Undoubtedly he left certain gaps in that Ministry. Whether he will continue to leave gaps in the new state of society which he is about to set up is well open to question. The Debate this afternoon has revealed very clearly the fact that the House of Commons is anxious to assert itself in the realm of public finance, and undoubtedly the public feeling which exists outside to-day finds expression in this House, because directly after my right hon. Friend had opened the Debate, we had a long speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who met point by point the arguments advanced.
      On many occasions during recent months the Government have appealed for unity. That appeal for unity, coming from the Government, implies, I think, an obligation on their part to meet the reasonable demands of the House of Commons. They cannot successfully appeal for unity unless they are prepared to meet the reasonable demands of this House. The House of Commons in this matter, and I believe in every matter that concerns the War, is anxious to assist the Government, and on every occasion on which the House of Commons has asserted its authority, that authority has led to increased success and increased efficiency. Yesterday this House appealed for facts, for more knowledge, for more light from the Treasury Bench. The House of Commons exists to inform the country as to the true situation. Democracy itself can only exist if it knows the facts. Listening to the Debate yesterday, it occurred to me that it would be well worth the consideration of this House whether we should not set up a Select Committee to review the military situation, and the question of man-power, and report to this House. I think something in that direction will be necessary for the Government and the House to regain confidence in the public interest. The Government yesterday referred to the temporary failure of our cause. The temporary failure of our cause does not weaken but stiffens our resolve, and Britain to-day is showing the same spirit that she showed 100 years ago, but with this

      413
      stiffening and increased determination there is arising, and there has arisen in an acute form, a desire by the country for increased efficiency in Government Departments. I am anxious to press that point of view upon the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer having regard to a remark he made yesterday. He said, "I think the possible production in this country has nearly reached its maximum." In other words, that all our great internal resources are now organised for war. If that be so, a new situation has arisen. We can only increase our efforts by increased man-power. We have an assurance, or rather a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is no possible increase of our productive effort.
      Therefore, to increase our productive effort we must economise in other channels, and every Department which is employing labour in an uneconomic manner is weakening our war effort. That leads me to the point which I am anxious to bring before the House, and that is the machinery we had to control while our expenditure was £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a day is insufficient for an expenditure of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 a day. The powers that make for control and the powers that make for economy in Government Departments in many cases have not sufficient power or sufficient assistance. In peace times, with closed Estimates, the Minister of the Department is always anxious to consult the financial authorities. He knows that if he can save money in one direction he can utilise those savings in another direction, thereby getting increased efficiency. The position to-day is that the financial authorities where they exist in Government Departments are subordinate to the Ministers. There is no necessity for the Minister to consult or confer with his financial authorities. Therefore the main factors in a Government Department which make for efficiency, which by their criticism enable increased efforts to be made in other directions, have neither the power nor the position to make their criticism effective, and also the central force which makes for economy—that is, the Treasury itself—is also weakened. The Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon told us of the steps which he was taking recently to coordinate the working of these Departments. I am anxious, however, to bring a further point before his attention, and I am encouraged to do that by a speech,
      414
      delivered on the 29th of January last in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr Chamberlain). The right hon. Gentleman referred to recommendations made by this Committee dealing with Treasury control, and he said:
      "There is no man in the Treasury who has any time to think about anything but his daily round and common task,"—
      And further on he says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should
      "take to heart this paragraph of the Committee and see even in the stress of these times if he cannot strengthen the Treasury, both for the purpose of economy control and above all the thinking out of the great problems that are going to confront him and us within a short time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1918, cols. 1490 and 1491, Vol. 101.]
      Will the right hon. Gentleman who gave expression to these views, when speaking as an independent Member of this House a few months ago, support them now that he is a member of the War Cabinet? Will he put his precepts into practice? Will he confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether it is not possible so to increase the power of the central authority as to be a check on and an assistance to the great spending authority? Twelve months ago in this House I suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not the time to give to the study of these problems. We all recognise that the Leadership of the House demands his unlimited strength and all his time. In addition to that he is, as I understand, Vice-Chairman of the War Cabinet. A public expenditure of from £6,000,000 to £7,000,000 a day cannot be, and never will be, controlled properly while the one person represents the Government in this House, represents the Government in the War Cabinet, exercises the power as Chancellor of the Exchequer in his taxing capacity, and finds a certain amount of time to check expenditure in Government Departments. We must, at the very centre and source of our public expenditure, create new machinery. I say this in no spirit of hostility to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. I have expressed these thoughts many months ago. I criticised the Government severely last year, and now this afternoon the Chancellor has said that he has welcomed our criticism, and I again appeal to the Government to appoint a Controller of Expenditure, either in the War Cabinet or in the new body that

      415
      they are going to set up; give him the full powers of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. Divorce entirely from him any taxing power. Place in his hands and in his hands alone the power to supervise every Government Department, the power to insist that the public interest and the public service shall be safeguarded by the numerous Departments. At present every Department is a law unto itself, whether it be on questions of staff, or rate of wages, or rate of profit.
      I understand that the Ministry of Labour are going to take into their own hands the exercise of increased supervision over the rates of wages in this country. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether that is going to be done or whether it is going to be left to the numerous Government Departments? I would be very glad to have some assurance that this matter is going to be centralised in the hands of one Department. I am not sure whether the Chancellor is going to centralise it or not. I would also press upon his attention the necessity of centralising, or rather giving direction from the centre, as to the rate of profits on contracts placed by the numerous Government Departments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, drew attention to the large sum of public money which, in his opinion, and in the opinion of the Select Committee, the Government are wasting by the method of the bread subsidy. This is one instance in which a Department did what no doubt it thought best in the public interest, but in which, I think, if its actions were reviewed by someone acting in the public interest and with the power to insist that his will should become law, such a state of affairs would not have arisen.
      Mr. L. JONES: It is only fair to the Wheat Commission to say that it was not their decision, and that it was forced on them by the War Cabinet.
      Colonel COLLINS: But the method by which it was to be carried out was left to the Wheat Commission. The machinery set up to carry out the policy of the War Cabinet should be supervised by someone representing the public purse who has the interest and only the interest of the taxpayer at heart. I can quite well believe and it is only natural that the numerous Controllers in Government Departments have other things to consider. They are
      416
      not fully alive solely to the interests of the taxpayer. What I am anxious to see is a control of expenditure in the War Cabinet, and by some such method to bring to bear upon Government Departments influences to effect this reform. This House is showing a keen interest in expenditure. It is anxious to assist the Government to impose its law on Government Departments. The pressure for reform has come from without, but reform, to be effective, can only proceed from within. It can only proceed if the Ministers and the staff are fully seised with the necessity of reform, and I hope that, as a result of this Debate, the Government may see that in any action which they take they will have the full support of the House of Commons in this matter. When we consider that we have to-day some 3,000,000 Income Tax payers, and that every year of the War brings an increase in the Income Tax of 1s. in the £, the Government should take some further steps to control expenditure. As I have said, I have no desire to refer to the Ministry of Munitions. I desire to lay these general considerations before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to ask him to give us some more definite assurance that in these Government Departments and in the Treasury itself there will be a man with an iron hand in a velvet glove to insist that the interests of the taxpayer shall be safeguarded.
      Major WOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just addressed the House stands, I think, in the relation of godfather to this Debate, and, I think, that he may be congratulated upon the course of the Debate. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer also has had no reason to complain of statements made since his speech. He was certainly preaching to the converted when he urged the House to bear in mind the difficulties of the situation and to be on its guard against exaggeration. I hope that no word of mine will fall into either of those evils. Everybody who has intervened in this Debate, I think, must obviously do so with the simple desire that any suggestions which he may have the power to make will be suggestions that will be of assistance to the Chancellor and those who work with him. Before I come to the general observations which I want to lay before the House, I would like to make a remark upon one point as to which I think the Chancellor

      417
      fell into some error. As I understood him, he rather held the view that the points urged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland had been small in character and that it was only by attention to big things you would achieve much improvement. I cannot help thinking that that is a dangerous doctrine. Unless you look after even small things, where things may be wrong, you are not likely to get good administration on the big side, and I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentlemen will not be unsympathetic to any criticism made in the course of the Debate merely because it is not as important as others that might be made. Of course the Chancellor, I dare say, views with mixed feelings the increased interest of the House in expenditure. There are good reasons for it. The main reason is that everybody has to pay increased taxation and therefore takes more interest in where the money goes, and is also anxious, if possible, to avoid the necessity of more money having to be taken to do what the money at present being taken is doing. But over and above that, it is perfectly true, as my hon. and gallant Friend has just said, that there is increasing anxiety in the country for two very good reasons. In the first place, the country is uncertain whether the money which is being voted is being used to the best advantage in all cases; and, in the second place, which is the more important, the ordinary person in the country and the ordinary Member of Parliament has no facilities, and I would almost say has considerable difficulty, in forming before his mental vision a complete picture of the general financial position in which the country stands.
      As to the first point—security that the money voted is well spent—it is not neces-to remind Members that their responsibility does not end with voting money to provide the silver bullets and that it is only elementary prudence to take such steps as they can to see that the money so voted is well, fruitfully, and beneficially expended. I want to reinforce, if I can, some remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. They were made at a moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was compelled to be absent from the House. My hon. Friend made a suggestion which is very well worthy of the right hon. Gentleman's attention. At the present moment there is a Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel), presides, and that Committee
      418
      has established for itself a definite position in the work of this House, and in the opinion of the country. I think the Chancellor will be the first to admit that while he is unable to accept all its recommendations it has been doing quite definitely good work, but, as we all know, its activities are confined to current or present expenditure. I want to suggest to the House that it is not enough for the Committee to review present expenditure unless, as my hon. Friend has said, they are also in a position to take a comprehensive view as to future expenditure. It is quite essential, in my view, that the House should be in a position easily and at regular intervals to view the general picture of the financial position that is placed before it. You cannot really dissociate the position of £500,000,000 War Credit from the consideration of the financial position of the country in days ahead for two reasons, obviously, because your £500,000,000 is borrowed money, and that is bound to affect your future policy and future commitments. Therefore you must view the problem as a whole. If that general premise be admitted, I want to suggest to my right hon. Friend whether he would consider the desirability of taking the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, namely, to extend the terms of the reference to the Select Committee as it stands at present, in order to enable it to examine and report upon prospective schemes in such a way as to give a complete picture of them to Members of this House and to the country. I am perfectly well aware that when the Committee was established it was understood that it was to have only within its purview current expenditure. I would remind the House that when it was appointed the Committee was something in the nature of an experiment, and that it has made its position amply good. I am very much inclined to think that the time has come when we might reasonably press the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not extend the scope of that Committee in the direction I have indicated.
      At the present moment the ordinary Member of Parliament, like everybody else, wants to get a complete knowledge of the whole balance-sheet of the country. At present he has to get what information he can about it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement, or from his statement on the Vote of Credit, or from various Reports

      419
      of different Committees in regard to proposed schemes, or he reads the speeches of Ministers in Supply in regard to those schemes, and it is only in that piecemeal way that he can get anything approaching a complete picture of the whole prospective expenditure of the country. I want, therefore, if possible, to get an improvement in that matter, and I think the case would be very different if the scope of the Committee could be thus enlarged. The Committee would be a very valuable instrument if you could give it a discretionary power, no doubt guarded in such a manner as might he thought necessary, but a power that would not limit it purely to current expenditure, as it is at the present time. May I give two or three examples of the kind of work I should like to see that Committee do? I should like to see it enabled to lay before this House, either quarterly or half-yearly, a clear, simple statement of what the financial position of the country will be on the existing rate of expenditure, on the existing basis of taxation, and on the hypothesis, let us say, that the War ends at the end of March next year, or in September, or at what time you will, so that people will know what are the facts. I would like to see that Committee reporting upon the probable cost of the Government housing scheme, so that we could find out what it is that the Local Government Board thinks that project will involve in the way of expenditure. We also know that there are a great many prospective schemes in the air which have not got so far as the housing scheme. For instance, there is a scheme for the provision of unemployment insurance for soldiers and sailors after the War, but no one in the least knows what that project is going to cost, nor are there means of finding out. These are only chance instances, which I give the House as examples I have in my mind, and in these directions this Committee could do thoroughly useful work. As the result I claim that Members of Parliament would get some view, in perspective, of the whole financial position of the country, perhaps not the whole, but it would be a great deal more of the whole than is possible at present.
      There is a further word I would like to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who perhaps will be a little suspicious in regard to the proposal, and it is that this suggestion is not intended in any
      420
      way to hamper Government responsibility Nobody appreciates Government responsibility more than I do—we see representatives of four Government Departments on the Front Bench, which is frequently more lightly tenanted—but I think every reflecting Member of Parliament will see that there is great danger of the House of Commons being called upon to vote great sums of money without any definite sense of personal responsibility, or financial responsibility, for the sums voted. I know that it is not easy to invest Members of Parliament personally with responsibility in the matter, but one of the best ways of giving it to him is to give him knowledge, and if you put the facts clearly, and use such machinery as you have to put them clearly before him, I firmly believe you would get more personal interest and responsibility on the part of Members of Parliament than has been found in years past. This is a subject on which there is profound feeling. It is our desire not to hamper but to help the Government. The country from top to bottom is anxious to help, but in regard to the Government Departments they, do not think that the whole of wisdom or power can be expected to lie in their hands. I would say this last word, in conclusion, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer: His position as Chancellor will be very difficult in the future if he has to work in a House of Commons that has no sense of responsibility in the direction I have indicated. Is it not in his own interest and in the interests of his Department that he should take what steps he can, and examine impartially any suggestions people may make in order to see whether he cannot enlist the House of Commons on his side in the cause of reasonable prudence and economy. At present the House is too apt to be on the side of extravagance, and a genial Chancellor is often unable to resist it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think over what I have said, and that he will consider the terms of the Resolution supported by many hon. Gentlemen, or perhaps he will see his way to move a Resolution on behalf of the Government in these or in similar terms. I hope that he will be able to do something to achieve the object we have in view.
      7.0 P.M.
      Mr. J. HENDERSON: These Votes of Credit come before us, and we have discussions in this House. I am very glad to see from the Debate to-day that the discussion is beginning to be a little more

      421
      lively as the debt increases. As to the Front Bench and the Government, I am very much afraid that many of us are somewhat hopeless on this question, until the occupants of that bench acquire a new mentality and effect some alteration in their policy. We have had appeals to sub-scribe to War Loans, but we have had lately in the Press, for the first time—and I was glad to see it—notification to the Government that people will not subscribe while they are uncertain that the money is not being to a large extent wasted. I do not want to exaggerate, but we cannot escape from the knowledge, we who mingle with people from day to day, that thousands and millions of money could easily be saved if we had a stern Cabinet and a stern Chancellor. I do not blame the Chancellor, who has many duties to perform. I rather blame the Prime Minister, who is a genial man that does not care for money. I will say that for him; he does not care for money himself. That is a very amiable trait in the character of a private Gentleman, but a most dangerous one in the case of a Prime Minister looking after the country's finance. What makes me feel hope-less about this matter is that we have had an Auditor-General's Report of a very serious, of an even deadly character, and if such a report had been issued in connection with any financial institution it would have ruined it. We have had admissions from the Financial Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions in regard to that Department's finance, and he stated that the whole matter would be put right, because the books were now to be kept by double entry. Double entry! But the trouble was that there was not even single entry. You have a meticulous record of entries, you have the card index, filing index, and the letter books in thousands. That is all there. But when you sell a million pounds' worth of goods there is nobody to enter it. How is double entry going to save you from that? The hopeless thing about it is that the Government think that it is all right. The fact is if you had a real man who had a grip on the thing he would walk into these Departments and touch every second man and woman on the shoulder and say, "Get out!" I undertake to say that if that were done there would be no forgetting to record transactions of millions. I remember one of the Ministers a little while ago, in reply to a question
      422
      put by an hon. Member, said that he was glad that the hon. Member had put the question because it afforded him an opportunity of telling the House that the whole thing was a mare's nest. That was not a question of £100; it was a question involving millions, and I do not believe it has been put right yet. You have some excellent men in your Departments, but you have a lot, thousands of them, who are not really worth the money you pay them, and it would be a great advantage to the country if you gave them a solatium and told them to go away.
      With regard to this Vote of Credit, I have something to say about another Department. There is a Department called the Ministry of Information, and it is spending close upon £2,000,000 a year. That went on last year, and it is going on this year on a greater scale. As the Committee are examining that Department just now I am not at liberty to disclose anything, but it will be an eye-opener for hon. Members when they sec the Report. There is, however, one thing I am entitled to deal with, and that is the question of policy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may suggest that that is a small matter. But the salaries of that Department amount to £350,000 a year, while those in the Food Controller's Department amount to over £260,000 a year. Part of the propaganda of last year took the form of cinema exhibitions. I remember it was thought to be a fine piece of propaganda to get all the Ministers to pose for the film. I went into a cinema to see this, and of all the saddening sights I think that was the most depressing. I could not help but feel for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There he was all by himself, apparently muttering to himself. I could not think he was addressing an audience, because he was standing and addressing the inkstand on his writing table. I am quite sure it will take him a long time to live it down. A more pitiable thing I never saw. How any Minister could allow himself to face the film I cannot understand. That is going on now. There are thousands of these films; they are being exhibited to-day. I happened to be in Manchester last Thursday. It was a nice sunny evening, a sort of evening I had never seen there before. I took a walk out. I came to a cinema and saw advertised "Official Pictures." I went in. This was propaganda, and the first thing

      423
      I noticed when it was put upon the screen was that half the audience got up and walked out. I suppose they had seen the pictures before. The first picture was the inauguration of piggeries by the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley). There was a very large pig shed, larger than usual, and a furnace, and a large barrel of potatoes. In walked the Member for East Grinstead at that impossible pace which is only to be seen in a cinema picture. He set a light to the copper, and someone began to ladle out the potatoes to the pigs, which began to eat them. What has all that to do with propaganda? In the next film the pigs were enjoying themselves in the country. Whether it is a film of Ministers or a film of pigs, what has that to do with informing neutrals of all our fine endeavours in this War? It is an absolute and pitiable waste of public money; it can do no good. At all events, I am perfectly certain that this money ought not to be covered up in this Vote of Credit. We ought to have a special Vote for it.
      We had a Vote for War Aims last year. What were those war aims? The object was to get up a large number of meetings throughout the country and to engage speakers, giving them from half a guinea to two guineas each and paying their expenses. Thirty-three thousand pounds was estimated for that, and £12,000 for the hire of the halls. I believe, after spending about £20,000, they stopped it for the good reason that no one went to the meetings. There was one very illuminating fact about that Vote; it was that £130,000 was set aside for England and for Scotland only £5,000. I ask why was this? They sent down to agents in Scotland hundreds of thousands of circulars and leaflets, but we in Scotland sent them back. There we do not want to know about war aims. From my own Constituency we have sent thousands of men to fight, and we know what the war aim is. All this is a fiddling and idiotic waste of public money. The hon. Gentleman who spoke just now said we wanted a balance sheet. Roughly speaking, this is the balance sheet. According to one of our best economists our estimated capital value is £15,000,000,000. Some people put it higher. Let me put it at £16,000,000,000. With these Votes of Credit we have absorbed a half of it. That is your balance sheet. And how you are going to pay I do not know. The
      424
      Prime Minister with an easy sweep of his hand says most of it is being spent in this country. Nothing of the kind. How much of it is spent by our soldiers in France? All their pay goes there and is spent in the French villages. Of course an enormous amount goes to America, to Holland and Sweden, and in countries where the exchange is deadly against us it all means that the money is absolutely lost to this country. I will give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the best advice I can. Let him grip hold of this money and scrap some of the Departments altogether. Some of them are really of no use; they are only wasting money; they are not bringing in a single additional soldier. Scrap a lot of them, save the money, grip it tight and you will find even then at the end of the next twelve months, when you face the country with the debt you will then have incurred, you or your successors will have a mighty difficult task to carry through.
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: The speech which has just been delivered by my hon. Friend contained a great deal that was humorous, and it also contained much that was more pertinent to the discussion before the House, and although he has made some of the expenditure for which this House is responsible appear to be ridiculous, neither the House nor the country can afford to ignore the way in which money is being spent in these forms for propaganda and other kinds of extravagance. The general effect of lavish expenditure does not begin and end with Reports of the Public Expenditure Committee, or of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The effect of lavish expenditure and the loss of control over the distribution of public money goes far beyond the immediate Department concerned. It permeates at the present time the whole of our public life, it goes down into every factory which is now in close alliance with the State, and the general effect is a scale of national extravagance from which we shall only recover after the War with the greatest difficulty. It is not only a matter which concerns the reputation of the Treasury, and of the spending Departments. It will lie at the very root of all our national recovery when we return to the days of peace. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that many of the items to which attention had been drawn by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. H. Samuel) were comparatively small matters, but every-

      425
      one of us who has been in business, as he and I have been, knows that if expenditure is loose over small matters the big ones slip through your fingers. None of us has attempted to make ends meet in difficult times without knowing that it is not only the economy you make under the minute heads, it is the general spirit, whether of looseness or tightness of control, which makes all the difference between success or failure in a business. And what is true of a business is equally true of a Government Department. I cannot believe for a moment that the mere fact of our spending £13,000,000 a year over the extended staffs of the Departments which have been created or which have swollen during the War is a negligible matter, or that £13,000,000 is the full measure of the loss. It has been patent to everybody who has watched the growing up of the Departments that in large numbers of cases the staffs have been collected before the Minister has had the remotest idea as to the extent of his work. That has occurred again and again, and indeed in some Departments which are now being severely overhauled the staffs have been reduced, I venture to say with an increased efficiency.
      One instance has been currently reported, and I dare say the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have heard of it through other channels, of a Controller of a new Department only recently appointed who had a request made to him by the head of one of his branches for an increase of fifty in his branch, and the head of the branch said that unless he got the fifty he feared he might have to resign. The new head of the Department said he would look into the matter himself, and on the following day he did so. He then sent for the head of the branch and told him that he had decided that the branch could do with fifty less, and that as the head of the branch had offered his resignation he was prepared to accept it. When it was pointed out toy the head of the branch that he had not definitely offered his resignation and that he would not press the matter, the head of the Department said he never went back on his word. The head of the branch has gone out. There has been a reduction of fifty in that comparatively small branch, and I venture to say that the branch will do its work ten times better because there are fewer men or women to do it. That sort of thing goes through all the Departments. If there are 14,500 people in the National
      426
      Service Ministry, it does not follow that the Ministry will not be doing more harm than good. It only means that there is an example of a gigantic organisation priding itself to some extent on its own size and quite conceivably doing much harm by the multiplicity of those who are tumbling over the top of each other, doing work which would be better done by a comparatively small number of people. It is appalling to find that these thousands and thousands of staffs can be piled up in a comparatively short space of time when the experience of those who are at the heads of these Departments can only be limited and when there is no chance of knowing whether the work of every extra hundred added is is giving a commensurate return. The general effect of lavishness goes through the whole of the Departments, and if the staffs are to be unlimited it is little wonder that the general effect of looseness in control is felt by not only those at the head, but by those right at the bottom of the Departments.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that the big items were the main thing to which he must devote his attention, and he reminded us of what happened in regard to contracts even in times of peace. I can well understand that he feels that the Treasury is not capable and is not equipped and ought not to embark on making contracts for other Departments, That would be an unbusinesslike proceeding, but that they should not be cognisant of the contracts which are entered into and made aware of them at the time at which they are entered into, and that they should not be subject to Treasury criticism, is a procedure which the experience of the War has taught us is likely to lead, not to economy, but to a certain amount of extravagance. But were the contracts before the War never under Treasury control? It is certainly true that individual contracts were not so under control, but my right hon. Friend knows very well that what happened was that you granted from the Treasury certain sums of money on carefully prepared estimates, and that the total sums available for the Army or the Navy were limited, and that the Army and naval authorities had to make the best they could with these sums. That was a form of check which made the supervision of contracts by the Treasury unnecessary. I do not say it is possible now, but I suggest that there must be

      427
      some way found of preventing absolutely unlimited expenditure without anything but internal control.
      The Comptroller and Auditor-General has reported recently on the accounts of the Royal Aircraft Factory and of the Ministry of Munitions for the year ending 31st March, 1917, and I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some point of the fact that it was for the year 1916–17. I do not particularly wish to make any point as to when the responsibility of Ministers began or ended, for I know this, that the country cares very little who is the Minister concerned in extravagance, but it will call to account all those who have been responsible for any form of extravagance when it realises how grave is the bill which it has to meet. Let us take the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report, and see the kind of thing which gives the general impression of which I have been complaining. I do not say that his Report is fully justified. It cannot be justified until the Public Accounts Committee has reported. But I will say this, from my knowledge of what has passed in the Public Accounts Committee, of which I was at one time a member, that I have very seldom known the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upset. He is a reliable official of this House, who is absolutely trustworthy, and I know of no instance where any serious criticism offered by him, any facts adduced by him, have been upset before that Committee. However, with that reservation, I would draw the attention of the House to two or three items which have already been made public in the Press, but which are quite germane to this discussion, and especially to the point which I am now making. The general looseness of control that runs through half a dozen Departments will run through practically all Departments and go from top to bottom. Take the Report on the National Factories and the Royal Aircraft Factory for 1916–17, and in paragraph 5 this is the kind of thing that is reported:
      "Detailed evidence of the failure of the Ministry to establish a system which would Secure reconciliation of the cost accounts with the cash system at headquarters is conspicuous throughout the reports of the Ministry auditors. The chief weaknesses disclosed were (a) the failure of the Ministry to invoice goods, with the result that very large entries in the accounts are based on provisional prices; in
      428
      one instance, out of a sum of £38,098,590 for materials supplied by the Ministry £16,885,562 represents materials for which no invoices were received."
      I understand that under the new system which is being inaugurated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir Worthington-Evans) such a thing would be impossible. I hope it will be. It is almost incredible that in the administration of any great Department £15,800,000 out of £38,000,000 represents materials for which no invoices were received. When as a comment on these Reports the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the House is not entitled to assume that a penny has been lost, I would like to know where the value has gone to. Has it disappeared? It may be said it is all there and that the nation has received full value for it, but I am sorry to say that everybody who buys for or sells to the nation is not as honest as the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and it is quite conceivable that when you have a book discrepancy of that kind and no book-keeping check upon it some people may have been enriched in material and therefore in value who are not entitled to it, and until you have a better system than that you have no safeguard against a repetition of improper transactions. The Report goes on to say:
      "Such invoices as were sent by the Ministry were frequently wrongly priced."
      Why they were wrongly priced I hope the Ministry will explain. It either means that incompetent people were set to do the work or that the whole system was wrong. As you go on to local records of materials you find something of this kind:
      "After the accounts had been certified by a firm of chartered accountants the factory accountants recently discovered an error to the extent of over £3,000,000 in respect of the value of materials supplied by the Ministry. The error has now been adjusted."
      Of course it has been adjusted. But what has happened to the firm of chartered accountants who were responsible for certifying an error of £3,000,000? They certainly ought not to be in the employ of any Government Department, and I think it would be interesting to know from the Finance Minister whether the same firm is in any way connected with any Government transactions at the present time.
      Mr. WATT: Give them the Order of the British Empire!
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: I turn to some of the remarks made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Ministry of Munitions accounts. On page 8 of that Report, recently issued, it is stated:
      "There had also been failure to keep a complete and accurate record of repayable cash advances made to the firm—for example, an advance of £250,000 had not been charged in the contract ledger, while two other advances amounting to £750,000 had been posted twice in the same ledger."
      An HON. MEMBER: Double entry!
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: Previous to this year the Ministry of Munitions, I understand, was working on a single-entry basis, and now that they are working on a double-entry basis the result is that they get £750,000 entered twice over and £250,000 not charged in the contract ledger at all. It is all very well to regard this as merely a Report to be discussed at a later date. This kind of thing causes disquietude to business men all over the country. No business man and no local authority would tolerate it in their affairs for five minutes. There is not a big bank in the country that would allow a mistake of a thousandth part of that magnitude to be made without getting in a new staff or in some other way rectifying the matter at once. Here are some of the comments made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on page 9 of the same Report:
      "The contract ledger recorded payments of £1,400,000 only, although payments amounting to some £4,700,000 had been made. Further, it was not shown that an abatement of over £10,000 was due from the firm in respect of a departure from contract conditions, and it could not be traced that this sum had been claimed."
      The comment that may be made in respect of this is that they are purely matters of book-keeping. Rut we all know that you cannot have good business without accurate book-keeping. It is the very basis of economical business, and unless there is accurate book-keeping I fear that the business of the Ministry of Munitions may go on in the future as it has in the past. The Finance Minister will no doubt tell us what steps he will take to prevent errors of this kind occurring in the current year. When we come to the question of duplicate payments again, the Comptroller and Auditor-General says:
      "Only recently it was observed that a contractor had been paid the sum of £111,362 19s. 11d. which he had previously received in the shape of payments on account."
      430
      That is to say, having received them piecemeal, he was then given them again in one lump.
      Colonel Sir R. WILLIAMS: I should like to say the Public Accounts Committee have examined a good many of these, and they are mistakes of accounting to which the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report drew the attention of the Public Accounts Committee, but they have been both satisfactorily answered, and there has been no real loss to the public, and the mistakes in book-keeping have all been put right. This is an instance of the evil of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General being made public before going to the Public Accounts Committee. If that Report were treated, as it ought to be treated, as a private document before the Public Accounts Committee reported upon it, these facts would be set out in true light. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all the three facts he has quoted have been most satisfactorily explained to the Committee.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I should also like to point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) stopped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer from dealing with these matters on the ground that they were before the Public Accounts Committee, and therefore I do not think the right hon. Gentleman ought to raise this matter and another right hon. Gentleman prevent any reply.
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The right hon. Gentleman has raised these matters, and I claim the right, at least, to reply on the matters he has raised. I was not going to deal with this, because, as my hon. Friend says, this evidence has been given before the Public Accounts Committee, but that Committee has not yet reported. But it is just this uneasiness in the country that arises from the, at present, uncontradicted reports. As the right hon. Gentleman has himself lent the weight of his authority to these reports, I claim the right to reply.
      Mr. L. JONES: May I be allowed to say why I endeavoured to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from quoting from a statement of the Treasury official who represents the Treasury at the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. I at once stopped, because I was naturally anxious not to do anything that interfered with the custom in this respect; but what I was going to do was to say that, on the evidence given to me, they were not justified.
      Mr. JONES: Because he was quoting the evidence of the Treasury official—
      Mr. BONAR LAW: My official.
      Mr. JONES: Yes, but he was speaking to the Chancellor of matters which had come before the Public Accounts Committee and of which he was aware through attending the Public Accounts Committee.
      Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite clear that now the matter has been so thoroughly opened a reply must be expected to it. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. L. Jones) very properly, as I thought, stopped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I was inclined to stop him too. But now the ice has been broken, and we must plunge in.
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would ask whether it has not been the custom in discussion of Votes of Supply in this House to refer to the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General; whether I have, in any respect, departed from the custom; whether the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is not a Report made to the House, and not to a Committee of the House; and whether he is not the servant of the House and not of the Committee? As to the point of Order raised by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe, I submit I was not responsible for that. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not going to refer to what passed before the Committee; nor was I, but I do submit that the Comptroller and Auditor-General, as an official of this House, and one of the most important officials of this House, reports to the House and not to the Committee, and that we are entitled to refer to the Reports he has made, and have done so in the post.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The Report having been presented to the House, the House has referred the whole matter to the Public Accounts Committee, and the matter is now, I understand, actually before that Committee, being investigated and discussed by them. Now the right hon. Gentleman says, "Notwithstanding the fact that the Public Accounts Committee have
      432
      got all this evidence before them and are now discussing, sifting and weighing it, and will eventually give us their Report. I claim the right to make my criticism of this document." That being so, and having gone so far, I cannot stop a reply being given.
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: The House would absolutely misapprehend my feelings if it thought I did not wish any reply to anything I have said. I am most anxious to hear anything Ministers have to say, but it is not a question in which I desire to take a step which is improper. I am simply taking a step which, at least, from the time of the first appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, has been taken by Members of both sides of the House in the discussion of Votes in Committee of Supply. However, as you, Sir, deprecate anything further on this subject—
      Mr. SPEAKER: I think the matter has gone so far now that the right hon. Gentleman had better proceed to the end and allow a full reply to be made, but I cannot, without investigation, say whether, whilst a matter has actually been engaging the attention of the Public Accounts Committee, the thing has been discussed here or not. I cannot charge my memory with that, but I should be a little doubtful about it. As a rule, matters before a Select Committee of this House are not discussed until the Select Committee has reported. However, as we have gone so far, we had better go on to the end.
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: I thank you very much for your guidance in the matter, but the very point raised by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was the very point made at the beginning of my speech, namely, that if you have loose accounts you must have loose expenditure, and I was suggesting that the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we were not entitled to assume that a penny was lost does not dispose of the whole question, and that though you may afterwards explain away loose account-keeping, as I have no doubt the Finance Minister will when I have sat down, or, as I understand it, has been explained away upstairs, the, fact is that bad book-keeping has been reported by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and if we have succeeded in getting out of these transactions without the loss of a single penny of public money, we have done it by sheer good luck and not by

      433
      any prevision. The last thing to which I wish to allude is the reference made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the coal account, and here I think I am not treading on the susceptibilities of anybody. I am referring to a matter which has been referred to in the discussion without anyone raising objection. It has been pointed out in the course of the discussion to-day that there is the prospect—I will not say the certainty—of a heavy deficit on the Coal Controller's account. We foresaw that at a time which, I think, must be fresh in the memory of Mr. Speaker, when we raised, as a point of Order, that the Coal Bill ought to have been preceded by a Financial Resolution, because it was inevitable that there must be a loss under the coal control scheme, and that Parliament might be called on to make good the balance At that time, I believe, the ruling which was given from the Chair was based on the information which was given in the House, that there would be no deficit under the scheme, and Mr. Speaker thought it right to rule that, as there was no deficit, there was, of course, no necessity for a Financial Resolution. Now we discover there is a heavy loss being made month by month on the coal account. If by the end of the year the Coal Controller has succeeded in making ends meet, it will not be necessary for him to come to this House; but I must reinforce the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland that if there is a deficit the Government is pledged not to take money out of the Vote of Credit, but to come to the House and ask for special provision to be made to meet the deficit.
      Can we wonder at the deficit when we remember the enormous reduction in the production of coal during the last six months? The mere recruiting of men from the mines was bound to bring about a great reduction in the output of coal. I believe one of the great anxieties the Coal Controller will have in the next twelve months will be in supplying the coal necessary for our national, industrial, and domestic needs, and how can he expect to keep the output up? I am told that something like 70,000 more men are to be taken from the mines. Taking the average production of these men on the basis of the year 1916, which was not a good year, it means that the production must go down by 24,000,000 tons in the year. That will cause embarrassment, I think, but it is equally certain that with the drop in the
      434
      output the standard of working expenses must go up proportionally, and, moreover, at a time when you have a smaller tonnage over which to spread your wages, there has been an increase of wages paid to the miners. It was pointed out more than once to Ministers that they would find themselves at the end of the year with a debit account, so I hope the prophecy made by my right hon. Friend, and about which a great many of us have apprehensions, will not be fulfilled; but, if it is, the Government will, of course, remember their pledges, and will ask for special provision for the deficit, and give us a chance of reviewing the expenditure of the scheme as a whole.
      My final word on this subject must refer to the course of this general Debate, and to point out how widespread has been the anxiety about our national expenditure. It is not confined to any one party. It is not confined to any one section of the House. It is general both inside the House and outside the House, and I do not care whether it be the present Ministry or their predecessors, or those who preceded them, I believe the country realises now how vital is this piling-up of expenditure month by month, year by year, to figures which really tend to shake the whole of our credit system from top to bottom. After the War is over the Debt will be stupendous and our taxation past imagination. The greatest risk we shall run will be that our credit system will not stand the strain of reconstruction. The moving of machinery will probably be the most critical period in the whole of our commercial history, and the extent of our Debt, and the way in which our capital has been mortgaged for the future, the extent to which we must raise taxation out of annual income, will give not only Ministers, but financiers, in every part of the country and Empire the gravest anxiety.
      Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I confess I did not expect to have to deal this evening with the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report, but, as the right hon. Gentleman has referred to it, and as it has been so largely commented upon in the Press, and has, on the whole, caused a feeling of real anxiety, I may really welcome the opportunity of dealing, at least, with the cases the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking earlier this afternoon upon the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report,

      435
      reminded the House that it is not, and never has purported to be, a final judgment upon the question upon which he reports. He has the duty of bringing before the House, and through the House before the Public Accounts Committee, any question that arises on Departmental accounts which he considers requires investigation, and I do not complain for a moment of his having brought any single one of these cases before the Public Accounts Committee for investigation. Each case presented by him was a good primâ facie case which did require investigation. Now that investigation, has taken place, and I propose to take the various cases that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned to the House in the order in which he took them. He called attention to the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor-General reported that out of £38,000,000 of materials supplied by the Ministry to its factories, £15,000,000 or thereabouts was not invoiced. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself appreciated the point of view on which I lay emphasis. This material was sent by the head office of the Ministry to its own factories. There is no question of this material going to contractors to enrich them—to contractors who would receive material and not pay for it, and then get an undue profit—but this material went from the Ministry to its own factories. It was accounted for by the factories, but was not invoiced by the Ministry. Not a penny of public money could possibly have been lost in that way. I quite agree that in a highly-developed system, a system developed at leisure, it would be unpardonable not to invoice even your own factories as a matter of administrative check and control—not as a matter of accounting for money there, but merely as an administrative chock and control. That is being done to-day. I repeat again that this has reference to 1916 and to the early part of that year—not with the view of shelving any responsibility or putting it upon any particular Minister, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended by his reference to the date, but in order to call attention to the fact that that was in the rush and tumble of the supply and the building up of these factories, that then it was impossible, for want of staff or a developed system, to be sure that the greater refinements were put into operation. As I say, to-day there is a system
      436
      which provides for the complete invoicing of all materials even to our own factories. I am so glad the right hon. Gentleman has called attention to the £3,000,000, because he seems to have thought that there was a risk of that £3,000,000 having been lost, mislaid, or unaccounted for in some form or another. If he did not, I am not quite sure why the right hon. Gentleman laid such stress upon it.
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why I raised that point. It was because I wanted to know whether this firm of chartered accountants, who were reported to have discovered the error of this £3,000,000 in respect of the value of material supplied by the Ministry, were still in the employ of the Ministry.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has not got the facts quite right. It was not the firm of chartered accountants who discovered the error—
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: They certified it!
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: They certified it. I will deal with that error in a moment. I will not run away from it, but I want to get the facts right. They certified it. A member of the staff of the Ministry found out the mistake. I will deal with that mistake in a moment. The Comptroller and Auditor-General, dealing with the work of the Ministry, put this matter into this Report. These are the facts: This factory was one of the factories belonging to the Ministry. It received from the Ministry certain materials which happened to be shells, upon which a further process had to be done at the factory. The factory charged these shells, debiting its own production account with the price of these shells. There happened to be four different types of shells. They took the same price for all four types of shells. They overcharged and debited themselves with £3,000,000, which was placed on one side of the account. On the other side of the account there was a credit for production added to the £3,000,000. It was on both sides of the account. There was no question of the loss of £3,000,000, and no question about anything except a book entry on one side, and on the other side of the account. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman mentioned it, because in the Press I have seen the heading "Muddled Millions." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear," and laughter.] I am not defending

      437
      it. It is a mistake. But what is the proportion of mistakes? Is it a serious tiling? Is it something which ought to jutify a man saying that he will not subscribe to the Government Loans, because they have thrown away £3,000,000? No; but that is the real risk, unless the matter is gone into and explained, of the harm this class of criticism does. Not that I object to criticism in the least, but I object to the misunderstanding which the casual reader may derive from it. As regards these accounts, if you ask have I had the head of the firm on a charger? No, I have not! They are a very respectable firm of accountants. They took this price—they are not technical people who can price shells—they took this price. It made no difference to the result of the accounts, and they have not been dismissed.
      Mr. D. MASON: What was the error?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I really cannot explain the thing again. I have explained it in some detail. Let me take the next item on page 8 of the Report, to which the right hon. Gentleman called my attention.
      Colonel Sir C. SEELY: May I ask if these shells were invoiced?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: These were shells sent out by the Ministry and received by one of our own factories, and taken in charge by that factory at a price. The item was taken at the wrong price, at £3,000,000 more than the standard price, but that same £3,000,000 appeared on the other side of the accounts as part of the production cost, or rather as a credit on the production side.
      Sir C. SEELY: Then they were not invoiced?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes; very likely they were not invoiced at that time. I do not know whether they have since been invoiced, but that was not the point to which the Comptroller and Auditor-General drew attention. I propose next to deal with the allegation on page 8 of the Report referring to the £250,000. The Report says:
      "There had also been failure to keep a complete and accurate record of repayable cash advances made to the firm—for example, an advance of £250,000 had not been charged in the contract ledger…."
      The answer to that is this: It has not been charged in the contract ledger, but there is a ledger in which there is an account
      438
      against the firm which is there all the time. There has never been the slightest risk of it ever being overlooked. The firm had a contract account, and in the firm's account the firm was debited with the £250,000. I should be very much surprised if that answer, which has been given to the Public Accounts Committee, is not accepted by them as perfectly satisfactory. As regards the £750,000 which is alleged to have been posted twice, I can give the hon. Gentleman the history of that. It has been given to the Public Accounts Committee. The facts are these: These were loose leaf ledgers. The £750,000 was posted provisionally before the contract came to be noted—that is part of the technique of the Department. It was put inside the ledger. The contract came through in the ordinary course. It was duly and completely noted, and the £750,000 was debited to this firm. What ought to have been done then was that this previous provisional debit should have been taken out. It was not. They were both left there together. [Laughter.] There was no risk of loss there. If there was anything at all, there was a double debit risk—a risk of getting too much. As a matter of fact, the Comptroller and Auditor-General himself, had he known these facts, would in all probability not have used the words he did use in his Report. The next item to which the right hon. Gentleman called attention was that the contract ledger recorded payments of £1,400,000 only, although payments amounting to some £4,700,000 have been made. Of course that sounds a very serious thing, that £4,750,000 of payments should have been made, and only less than £1,500,000 should have been recorded. I quite agree that it was a prirmâ facie case for inquiry. What was the result? An inquiry took place. The contract files were produced showing that there was a complete record of every one of those things in the office.
      Mr. J. HENDERSON: Was that explanation given to the Comptroller and Auditor-General?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not know. But do not let us forget that this Report has been before the Public Accounts Committee and that the officers of the Department have been there and have been examined, and that is the answer they gave. What I am glad to deal with is the comments made in the Press, at any rate in a letter to the "Times," by a gentleman

      439
      who was for many years a Member of this House, a letter which appeared the other day under the heading of "Flapper Finance." In this letter this was quoted as an instance of the waste of public money and of the risk that anyone ran in subscribing to War Loans, because their money, it was said, would be waste-fully dealt with; which means that it would be lost in some sort of way. There never was any risk of loss whatever in connection with this transaction. The other one referred to was the £111,000 which was paid twice over. That was right. Cheques were drawn, and here again the contractor returned the cheques, and there had been no loss. [Laughter.] Yes, it is all very well for hon. Members to laugh when they hear of duplicate payments, but you never will eliminate human error in munitions or any other big Department dealing with thousands and thousands of cheques per day. You are dealing through people who are not trained, not expert and skilled people, but with a staff composed of young girls who have had little or no previous experience and who, with the best will in the world, sometimes do not know the difference between a debit and a credit. It happened only the other day, and it was just stopped in time. We very nearly had another duplicate payment, but eventually it was picked up. But there it was! Some junior member of the staff made a slight error, and it might have resulted in a duplicate payment. It did not, because the system is now improved and the position is better. But I am not going to guarantee the House even now against a possible recurrence of duplicate payments. Whenever you are dealing with a staff got together under the circumstances these staffs have been got together, it is impossible, at times, not to have errors duo to inexperience.
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: While the right hon. Gentleman is on this subject, can he give the House a public assurance that such large sums of money will not be handled by incapable clerks and by young persons?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman must not suppose that any incapable clerks deal with these large sums of money. They may have some mechanical part of the work to do. The documents may have to be passed from one place to another, but they have no administrative control, which is carried out by some of the most experienced
      440
      chartered accountants in the country. We have added highly trained professional men to the staff in the last-three or four months to a very, very large extent indeed. A system has been devised by them, and is now being operated by them and the 4,000 girls employed in the finance group of Departments, which, of course, includes accounts of the different contracts, etc.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Do not the responsible heads sign the cheques?
      8.0 P.M.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSYes. Naturally much good-natured chaff comes my way about a cheque signed in blank which was found in Trafalgar Square. I do not mind that so long as people do not imagine that this is the way we deal with our work. That particular case I explained in the House in answer to a question. The explanation is the complete stupidity and want of sense on the part of a man who goes and signs a cheque in blank, and I cannot guarantee the House of Commons that this kind of thing will not happen on a great staff. It happens in private business. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, stupidities do happen in private businesses just as much as in a Government business, but the difference is that in a private business it is everybody's business to hush it up, but in a public business there is no interest in hushing it up, and it comes through the House of Commons to the Press of the country. I am not complaining. It is public business, and the public are entitled to know, but they ought not to draw a false inference, and suppose that the finance of the Ministry of Munitions on its financial as well as its productive side, is not carried on with as strict care as any business in the country. The only difference is that it is about 100 times as big as any ordinary business in the country.
      I have now dealt with the specific point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and truthfully I am not sorry to have had this opportunity because the stories that are circulated are really damaging in more ways than one. They are damaging to the Ministry as such, because men do not care to join the staff of a discredited Department, if it is discredited, about which such stories are told. Such stories do not do any good, and they may put people off subscribing to the war loans. There was a story going about that we bought a barge and paid £600 for it, and

      441
      that instead of treating it as a purchase, we treated it as being hired, and it was said that month after month we sent £600 as the hire. That story came in a private letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when it was investigated we found it had its origin in a tale overheard in a restaurant, and I got the person identified who was supposed to have said it. When run to earth this man denied having said anything of the sort. Then there was a case of £800 paid for some timber, and the allegation was that we went on paying for it over and over again, and that somebody got so many cheques for this item that he got very tired, and had to open a separate account in a certain bank. We approached the firm which was alleged to have sold this timber, and they denied having had anything to do with it, and also denied ever having had any account at the bank alluded to, and the bank knew nothing about it. These kind of stories go round, and naturally they do no good.
      Colonel Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: May I put one point to the right hon. Gentleman? Before any account is finally settled, is the whole account thoroughly investigated before the settlement takes place, because in big dealings we all know you have many errors to correct in the course of a current account. If we have the assurance that before an account is finally settled it is thoroughly investigated and checked by competent auditors, then I am sure that will satisfy us all.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The accounts of all these firms are scrutinised and the most minute examination of the account is made. Nearly all these are cases of payment on account, and in the particular case that has furnished all the examples which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, it is one firm and one of the biggest, and, even if there had been anything wrong in any one of these accounts, it would have been picked up in the final settlement. The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I could give him any sort of assurance on this point. I may say that I have now in the finance group of Departments some extremely competent officers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman opposite has seen them before the Public Accounts Committee, and he must recognise that they are some of the best men and equal to any men in their profession. I am getting
      442
      from them the most loyal and splendid co-operation. I cannot promise miracles, but I can promise that those men have worked out what they believe to be a good system. They are working hard at it, and they shall have every support from me. With regard to the other financial group, I have initiated what amounts to a reorganisation. I have divided off the commercial from the Departmental finance, and I have succeeded in getting into the Ministry men with commercial and financial experience of a very high order to take charge of that Department, so that the commercial or the contract finance questions can come before men whose ordinary business life has been spent in dealing with that class of case, and I believe that that organisation now set up is competent to deal with a very vast number of questions that come before it in the course of ordinary business. I cannot pretend that we shall never have mistakes because we shall. It is too big a business to give any such guarantee as that, but I am sure the organisation and the control is infinitely stronger than it was in the earlier days of the War, and I believe there is now in existence a system which will work well.
      Sir R. WILLIAMS: I should not have spoken but for the course the Debate has taken. I do not wish to say anything in advance of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, but I want the House to remember that it is hardly four years since the War began, and it is only during that time that there has been this enormous demand of every kind which has been so suddenly sprung upon the country. Everything had to be provided, including a form of accounts practically from the beginning, and in something like two and a half years the Ministry has built up one of the biggest business organisations in the world. At first the difficulties were very great. Munitions were constantly arriving; some would arrive by ship in a certain port, and as they were wanted urgently in France, sometimes they were shipped off before anybody at the Ministry had a chance of seeing them, much less being able to make a regular store account. That happened sometimes during the War, and it was perfectly unavoidable. All that kind of confusion at first made the formation of the accounts of the Ministry extraordinarily difficult, and all I can say is that from what I have seen and heard, and in spite of all these mistakes, some of them very

      443
      culpable, I am perfectly amazed at the way in which the Ministry has built up not only a very large business, but also a form of accounts which does extraordinary credit to all concerned, and which has taken hold of the difficulties and is preventing such mistakes from occurring in the future as far as any human form of accounts can do.
      With reference to the aircraft factory the demand for aeroplances has grown and is growing day by day, and this necessitates new buildings and factories working day and night at the greatest possible pressure, and everything had to be subordinated to the fact that these machines had to be got out quickly, but a form of accounts is gradually being built up and put into a very effective shape. With regard to the extended functions of the National Expenditure Committee, it has to consider not only present and past finance, but future finance as well. It must not be forgotten that the House does consider future finance every year in the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is brought in at the beginning of the financial year, and it deals with the finance of the whole year, and, although nothing can be added to those proposals without being brought before the House, it is subject to the control of the House. It is true that the House has lost a great deal of control over expenditure, but that is the fault of the House itself. It must not be forgotten that whereas the finance of the year is fixed by the Budget at the beginning of the financial year, every item in that Budget has got to be justified by the Minister of some Department when his particular Estimates come up for consideration.
      There was a time when a certain economist, of whom we heard so much in Mr. Gladstone's time, used to take up those Estimates and discuss them in the House. What happens now is that the House often has some acute question of policy to discuss, or some question that happens to be in the public eye at the moment, and that discussion starts after the Minister's statement to the House, and often nothing else is discussed, and, as a rule, very few items arouse sufficient interest to induce hon. Members to examine closely into the Estimates which the Minister has explained. The question of enlarging the functions of the National Expenditure Committee is, of
      444
      course, a revival of our old friend the Estimates Committee. The House of Commons had an Estimates Committee just before the War. What was the result? They took one class of Estimates, and it took them the whole of the Session to examine that one class. They did a great deal of good, because no doubt it has an influence on Estimates if it is known that there is an expert Committee of the House which will examine them. Nevertheless, such a Committee can only take one class of Estimate each year, and if they took more one of two things would happen. Either their work would be performed perfunctorily or they would delay the whole financial arrangements of the country. I think an Estimates Committee is useless, and any form takes away from Ministerial responsibility. It is no use saying to the Minister responsible for a proposal that the House wants to examine that very closely. If the House takes on itself the functions of examining, revising, or altering Estimates in any way, the Minister, of course, will in time be more haphazard in his Estimates. He will throw the burden of the examination on the Estimates Committee, and that will lessen the sense of Ministerial responsibility. I hope the House will not run away with the idea that an Estimates Committee can do much more than examine a particular class of Estimates from time to time and overhaul the whole machinery by which these Estimates are brought forward.

      DEFENCE OF REALM REGULATIONS (VENEREAL DISEASE).
      Mr. LEES-SMITH: I wish to raise a different subject from that which has been discussed, and to call the attention of the House to the new Regulation 40D under the Defence of the Realm Act, This Regulation has, up to the present, been the subject of certain questions, and it has already begun to raise a very widespread agitation outside the House. This is, however, the first occasion on which there has been an opportunity of discussing it in the House. I understood from the reply that the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War gave me the other day that this is a decision of the War Cabinet, and that therefore he himself, although he has to answer for it, is not primarily responsible. If the House will permit me, I will begin by explaining what the Regulation says. It is briefly

      445
      this. That any woman who has sexual intercourse with a soldier or a sailor can be arrested. Any woman who solicits or speaks to, for this purpose, a soldier or a sailor can be arrested. She can then be taken to a police-station and may then be remanded for a week in order that she may be examined either by her own doctor or the prison doctor to see whether she has venereal disease. It has been made plain in questions that there is no power to compel her to be examined if she refuses, but, of course, if she does refuse it will be left to the Court to draw its own conclusions. If, then, as a result of her refusal, or as a result of the examination, the Court holds her to have this venereal disease, then she can be sentenced to imprisonment up to six months. Meanwhile, so far as this Regulation is concerned—I shall come to the military Regulation in a moment—no penalty of any sort is to be inflicted upon the soldier or the sailor who on his side infects a woman with venereal disease. I think I will deal with this latter question first.
      Everybody recognises that it is quite impossible to-day, with 6,000,000 women upon the register, to deal with these questions in the way that they used to be dealt with, and to lay it down that these sexual offences shall be punished with imprisonment amongst women and shall on the other hand be recognised as a necessary part of their lives amongst men. You cannot do that to-day. Every woman who has venereal disease has got it from some man. If she is guilty of a crime in infecting a man, she is the victim of a crime on her part, and it is clear that the Government, the War Cabinet itself, now recognises that it cannot deal with this subject by punishing the woman and the woman alone, and allowing the man to go scot-free. The reply, then, to the first contention that this Regulation punishes only women has been given in answer to questions in this House, but it was given more fully in the Debate in another place by the Secretary of State for War. In that Debate the Secretary of State for War argued that as a matter of fact this Regulation does not bear more harshly upon the soldiers than upon women, because you have to take the military regulations into account. His argument was that by the military regulations any soldier who is guilty of concealing venereal disease is liable, by sentence of court-martial, to two years' imprisonment. As a matter of fact, he has been
      446
      liable to that for nearly thirty years. One had the impression that this was some new Regulation, passed pari passu with 40D, but that has been the case for thirty years. Then his argument was that any woman, who is infected by a soldier can inform his commanding officer that she has been infected, that the soldier will then be examined, and he can be sentenced by court-martial to imprisonment for two years, not for infecting the woman, but for concealing the disease. That is his argument, but it is an argument which in practice, I think, amounts to nothing whatever. Who imagines that any of these women are going to put their heads into the lion's mouth by, even anonymously, informing the commanding officer of a battalion that they have venereal disease? Apart from that, the soldier may, since giving the woman venereal disease, have reported it. Under those conditions he is not punished at all.
      Apart from that, the majority of women under this Regulation are not going to be sent to prison for having sexual connection. They are going to be sent to prison for soliciting. The women who have been sentenced already, in the majority of cases, have been sentenced for soliciting while having venereal disease. There is no parallel between their case and that of the soldier. The soldier is not sentenced for soliciting under the same conditions. The fact is that, so far as soldiers and sailors are concerned, the right of complaint on the part of women, which has been there for thirty years, is inoperative. I can produce already, after three months of this Regulation, a number of cases in which women have been sentenced under it. I think I can say with safety that the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to produce a single case of which he has any evidence that a soldier has ever been sentenced by court-martial on a woman's complaint. The next fact which I wish to urge with regard to this Regulation is that there would be no necessity for it at all if the War Cabinet had nothing in their mind except to protect these young soldiers from temptation. If the War Cabinet wish to prevent them getting venereal disease by the simple method of keeping it out of their way, keeping all opportunities for the indulgence of this habit out of their way, which seems to be the obvious and simplest way, they have full powers to do so already. There is a Regulation which specially empowers them to do so. It was passed a long time

      447
      ago. It is Regulation 13A, and by that Regulation any woman who is convicted of soliciting a soldier can be, because she has been convicted, expelled from any camp or training centre or any other place where any bodies of soldiers are to be found. Regulation 13A is a far simpler procedure than 40D. There is nothing easier than to obtain convictions for soliciting. A woman can be convicted for soliciting simply upon the evidence of a single police-constable, not corroborated by the man solicited; so that if the War Cabinet are thinking of nothing but to keep the temptation of indulging in these habits with these women out of the men's way and saving them from venereal disease in that way, then they have adequate powers more easily brought into play and 13A than under 40D. What is the meaning of the policy of refraining, as they do refrain, from systematically and rigorously enforcing 13A, and, on the other hand, relying on 40D? It means that the policy is to let the woman came in and then try to get rid of those who are diseased. The Contagious Diseases Acts did not take the opportunities of temptation out of young men's way. They allowed the opportunities for temptation to come into their way, and then, by punishing the women, imprisoning them, and segregating them, tried to make the indulgence of this habit safe. That was the principle of the Contagious Diseases Acts; it is the principle of the licensed houses; it is the principle of 40D. It is because it has been recognised that behind this 40D the old, obsolete, discredited and hated principle is still to be found that it is about to raise an agitation in this country which will be very widespread and which will be very unpleasant for all who have to take part in it. We all know that the higher professional military authorities always want to hark back to the old Contagious Diseases Acts. Those Acts were repealed by this House against the opinion of the higher military authorities. They consider that they are necessary, and they have not yet given up their conviction of their utility.
      I am convinced, if you go into this subject, that you will find that the orthodox military view about this method of dealing with the disease is absolutely wrong from the beginning to the end. It is wrong, not only from the moral and ethical point of view, but it is plain now, as the result of experience, that it is wrong from the
      448
      physical and the medical and the military points of view. The Contagious Diseases Acts were repealed late in 1886, and between 1886 and the outbreak of the War the amount of venereal disease in the British Army had fallen by 80 per cent. and was only one-fifth what it used to be when men were given this protection. The Royal Commission on Venereal Disease deliberately went out of its way to warn the country against reintroducing any Regulations based upon the principle of the Contagious Diseases Acts. May I explain what appear to me to be the reasons for these results? If you once attempt to deal with the disease by making indulgence in these habits easy and safe, you inevitably increase the number of men who indulge in vice, and as you cannot make it safe, as experience has shown that you never can make it secure, in the long run you will increase the amount of venereal disease. I believe that this Regulation must have that effect. Let me explain why. It begins by saying,
      "No woman who is suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form shall have sexual intercourse with any member of His Majesty's Forces."
      Does not that lead men to think that for them to have sexual intercourse under these conditions is not a very dangerous thing? If no woman who has venereal disease may have sexual intercourse with a soldier, then it is not a very dangerous thing, and certainly it is not a wrong thing. A soldier friend of mine, having listened to one of the lectures which the War Office provides on the dangers of venereal disease, said, "It is all very fine for civilians, but it does not matter to us. It does not apply to us, because the Army protects us from the risk of having the disease." Look at the matter from the physical point of view. I say that this Regulation will have most tragic results unless it does actually secure the protection upon which it teaches men to rely. That protection it will not secure. Compare this Regulation from that point of view with the old Contagious Diseases Acts. The old Contagious Diseases Acts were far more efficient. The women were inspected regularly at definite intervals, and yet those Acts failed to give that security which they were supposed to provide.
      Look at this Regulation! If the Contagious Diseases Acts failed to give security, this Regulation will be an absolute delusion. There is to be no system,

      449
      no regularity. Women are to be arrested spasmodically, when a constable happens to see them talking to a soldier. The majority of them will never be arrested at all. There is one further consideration which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to take into account, because it seems to me to prove conclusively that this Regulation cannot have any result, and that no Regulation of this kind will have any better effect. It is this: In the Debate in the other place the Secretary of State for War acknowledged that his investigations had shown that men infected with venereal disease, in four-fifths of the cases, caught it not from professional prostitutes, some of whom, at any rate, we can imagine coming under this Regulation, but caught it from servant girls, shop girls, and others, whose own friends and families did not know of the habits into which they had fallen, and of whom not one in a thousand would come under the eye of the police or within the scope of this Regulation. That is the essential reason why the Contagious Diseases Acts, and why every attempt to deal with vice and venereal disease along these lines has always broken down, and has always given men a false security which, in practice, proves to be no security at all. That is the reason why from the point of view of the military strength of the country, this is an unwise Regulation. It is teaching men to rely upon a security which, in practice, hundreds of thousands of them will find to be a most tragic delusion, and which will increase the amount of venereal disease.
      There is one other point which is important. I do not believe that there is the slightest chance that this Regulation would ever have passed through public Debate in this House and public agitation outside. The Contagious Diseases Acts had to be repealed because of this House and feeling outside. The maisons tolérées had to be closed. The Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which contained a provision identical with this Regulation 40D had, because it contained that provision, to be withdrawn. Now the Government, when the House is not sitting, comes down and makes what I think is a very unfair use of its powers under the Defence of the Realm Act to pass, without the assent of Parliament, a provision identical with that which it had to withdraw because of the opposition of Parliament. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the fact that they have made this Regulation
      450
      under the Defence of the Realm Act without discussion in this House is not going to save them from discussion or from agitation. They know something of the agitation which was arising over the question of the maisons tolérées. That agitation is beginning again. A very widespread and a very unpleasant public opinion will be created, and if this Regulation is continued we shall all of us find ourselves involved in a class of controversy which I am sure nobody, unless he is compelled, wishes to pursue. This Regulation, as I think the Government have already seen, is having very little effect. It can have very little effect. I hope that in view of the fact that it is going to lead to very serious indignation outside, as the right hon. Gentleman must know from the resolutions which are coming in, they will see their way to withdraw this Regulation.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: I desire to support the appeal made by my hon. Friend. This Regulation has been put into operation without the knowledge of Parliament, without the assent of Parliament, and over its head. If there is one thing upon which the country is determined more than another it is that the principle of the Contagious Diseases Acts shall not be re-enacted. The Government will find that they have put their heads into a hornet's nest if they do not very early withdraw this Regulation. One of the earliest recollections I have as a very young man was the prosecution of the late Mr. W. T. Stead. I think it was the agitation in which he took part which led to the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts that first brought me into public life. I remember well the contempt with which those Acts were regarded by the women of the land and how, after political agitation for many years, the men of the land also rose against them in indignation and compelled their withdrawal. Since those Acts were withdrawn, the diseases against which those Acts were supposed to be an insurance have gradually disappeared, until now they are fractional compared with their extent in those days. Let me give the House a few figures for 1886 and 1907. In 1886 the deaths per million of the civil population as a whole from venereal diseases were ninety-two, and by 1907 the number had been reduced to fifty-eight. The deaths of children under one year, born with this disease

      451
      and dying from it, were in 1886 236 per 1,000,000; in 1907 the figure had been reduced to 136. The number of recruits per 10,000 rejected for the British Army in 1886 was 82, and in 1907, 18. Take the hospital cases of the Army itself. In 1886 they were 267; in 1907 they had been reduced to 72. From that day to this the reduction has gone on until the right hon. Gentleman himself, in February of this year, gave us the figure of 43.5 per 1,000, which was the lowest figure in the history of the British Army. There is, therefore, nothing in our experience as a country to justify the re-introduction of this principle. That the feeling against this principle is still strong is proved by the history of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. I sat for several months on the Committee that dealt with that Bill. We there experienced the opposition which existed outside; we there tried to eliminate, as far as we could, the application of this principle, and eventually the Bill was dropped, and it was not proceeded with. After all, with the evidence of the futility of the old Contagious Diseases Acts, the evidence of the gradual diminution in the extent of this disease both in the Army and in the civil population, the evidence of the feeling against the Criminal Law Amendment Act of last year, this 40D is now introduced without our knowledge or consent, and I am sure against the wishes of the majority of this House and of a huge majority outside, and particularly against the wishes of the 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 newly enfranchised women who will have something to say on the matter when the next election comes.
      What does this Defence of the Realm Regulation, thus surreptitiously enforced upon the country, do? It does not make a crime of solicitation. It only makes a crime of solicitation by certain people. A woman may solicit a soldier without being punished for it provided she does not suffer from venereal disease. She may not know that she suffers from it. She may suffer from it quite innocently. I think it is not accurate to say, as my hon. Friend says, that every woman must have been infected by some man. Many babies are born with this disease in their system and it only manifests itself under special conditions later in life. A woman quite innocently speaking to a soldier in the street, without any intention of anything of this kind, might be pounced upon by a
      452
      policeman, accused of this crime of soliciting while suffering from venereal disease, haled before a magistrate, presumed to be guilty unless she consents to undergo the disgusting and degrading examination involved, and if she refuses is certain to be punished for an offence which she has never committed. The crime is not that of sexual indulgence. Soldiers are not discouraged from sexual indulgence. They are only given to understand that sexual indulgence by this means will be made safe. It can only be because of the old and exploded fallacy held by military men ever since the time of Napoleon, and probably before, that indulgence in sexual intercourse is necessary to the health of the soldier. It is not necessary to the health of the soldier. I will guarantee that many of the finest soldiers in the British Army are young men who have been brought up in pure homes, who taking pure minds and pure bodies into the Army, and refraining from indulgence in this practice, are as brave, courageous, and capable of bearing all the hardships involved in service in the Army as any man can be.
      It is not necessary that men should indulge in sexual vice, but it is necessary that the administration of the Army should as far as possible remove temptation out of their way and discourage, instead of in this way encouraging them to do in the Army what, if they were at home, they would never dream of doing. The War Office evidently is still obsessed with the idea that you can make vice safe. You cannot do so. You may examine a woman this morning, you may give her a clean certificate, and if she is living a life of this kind and indulging with different men, she may be diseased by: to-morrow. You cannot examine her every twenty-four hours, and if you could you could not be sure of her being free from disease. You cannot ensure that the men with whom she consorts will be free from disease either. The very fact that the Government have made this provision is calculated to break down the morals of men who would otherwise keep themselves clean. I remember when quite a boy being told that regiments of the British Army were provided with women, and I remember the thought coming into my mind that if the Government provides that kind of thing it cannot be a very bad thing after all, and the horror with which I contemplated any such course of conduct on my own part was removed to some extent by the idea that the Govern-

      453
      ment provided for it, and therefore it could not be either illegal or immoral. If you create that idea in the minds of young men, thrown as they are into the midst of temptation, you are undermining the morals of your forces, and you are making almost inevitable the breakdown of large numbers of young men who, if the act itself were treated as a wrong, and if the Government made it clear that the performance of the act, apart altogether from its connection with disease, was a violation of right, would abstain altogether from it, and go through this War pure and clean, and come back with bodies as pure as those with which they left home.
      But I want to look at it from the point of view of the woman herself. A woman can be convicted and sentenced on mere police evidence. You want to protect the soldiers. Numbers of women are in the vicinity of camps. You have powers under 13A to send them away from those camps. If any woman "contravening any provision in any Act, whether public, general, or local, or any by-law for the prevention of indecent conduct in public places, or anyone who resides in or frequents any place where any body of His Majesty's forces are assembled" can be sent away from those places under the powers taken in that Regulation. The police have put upon them the duty to protect our soldiers from danger from infection. Supposing that for some considerable time a policeman whose duty it is to protect our soldiers has no case of this kind. He begins to think he will lose credit if he does not discover what must be going on. He sees a woman speaking to a soldier in the street. Without the accusation of the soldier he feels it to be his duty for his own credit to drag this woman before a magistrate and accuse her of soliciting, in the belief that she is a person of immoral character, perhaps carrying on the practice of prostitution, and that she will be found to be suffering from this disease. She is examined, or she is given the option of being remanded for not less than a week, which may mean spending a week in prison, and then being examined and, being found free of the disease, of being released. I do not know what compensation she gets for the week she has already spent in prison, for the degradation to which she has been subjected in the sight of her family and her friends, for even having been suspected and called before a magistrate for this kind of thing. The
      454
      soldier need not, and frequently does not, appear to give evidence. The girl, though she be an innocent girl, will do her utmost not to have the case dragged into the public Press. If she be practising this kind of life she will probably be willing to undergo the examination, much as she may detest it, in the hope that she will be discovered to be free of the disease, but in every case the presumption is against the woman. The most perfectly innocent things will be interpreted against her unless she voluntarily undergoes this disgusting and degrading examination. It is unfair, unmanly, and dishonourable. It is unfair in its incidence It does not bear on the soldier. The soldier is very seldom called before the magistrate. He can only be called before the magistrate if the woman herself makes a complaint against him; and for her own sake, and the sake of her own reputation, she will avoid that as far as possible.
      We have had a number of cases, and not a single case I have heard of applies to the soldier. There are one or two rather suggestive oases to which I would like to call the attention of my right hon. Friend. Here are two cases, one at Oxford and one at Cambridge. In the Oxford case the woman was charged with having infected a soldier. He stated that he had been with no other woman since his return from France. Two doctors gave evidence that the soldier was infected. The woman was examined by a woman doctor, bacteriologist and pathologist, who found no trace of disease. The prosecutor's doctor said that they could not dispute her verdict, and consequently the woman was discharged. In the Cambridge case the woman was charged by a soldier with having infected him. He had just returned from two weeks' leave spent with his wife. In this case, fortunately for the woman, she had friends who were able to pay for her defence. There was direct conflict of evidence as to whether the alleged offence had been committed, and whether the woman was suffering from the disease. There was no certain evidence of intercourse; only the soldier's statement. The woman denied the act. She was examined twice by a doctor. Tests were made, and no evidence was found of the disease. But the defendant's own doctor admitted that this did not prove conclusively that the woman was not diseased. All these tests are bacteriological tests. It is quite

      455
      possible for a woman or a man to suffer from disease without having any bacteriological evidence of it. The bacteriological examination is utterly futile and uncertain. Men may have these bacteria in them and they may be discovered as existing in the system, and yet they may be entirely free from the disease. So much for bacteriology!
      9.0 P.M.
      There is another case which is reported in the "Folkestone Herald" of 11th May, where two women had in their possession certificates of health from local doctors. The policemen who gave evidence said they supposed the women had obtained the certificates to show to the men they accosted. The prisoner in one case said she obtained the certificate after what the police had said. Both prisoners were sentenced to fourteen days and recommended for expulsion. There is the danger. Some women will get certificates in order that they may safely solicit soldiers without the risk of being imprisoned for doing so. There is another aspect of the question. Sexual intercourse means cooperation. It takes two. When I was a boy at school, if two or more boys got into a scrape and one got found out, if he implicated the others in order to save himself we called him a sneak, a cad, and a coward. In these cases, where soldiers and women co-operate to do wrong and the soldier suffers as a consequence, the soldier who exposes the woman through whom he suffers is a sneak, a cad, and a coward, and this Regulation is helping to make our soldiers, whom we call gallant and whom we believe to be brave, to be just that kind of men. I say, further, that the Minister or the Member of Parliament who will defend that, is scarcely less guilty than the soldier himself.
      The Prime Minister, who I understand is primarily responsible for this Regulation as head of the War Cabinet, addressed an assembly of the divines of the Free Church Council at the City Temple at the time that this Regulation was inaugurated. He said we were fighting a holy war, and he begged the ministers there assembled to see that we went through it as a holy war. We pray every day in this House that victory may attend the efforts of our soldiers and sailors. To sanction a practice of this kind and to encourage sexual vice amongst our soldiers and sailors by this
      456
      illusive safeguard, and then to pray that God will bless our arms, and to claim that we are conducting a holy war, is the rankest blasphemy. Is there not a better way of dealing with this? Other Regulations already in existence, with slight modifications, would meet the case very much better. Take the Regulation preceding this one, Regulation 40C, which says that if any man of His Majesty's Reserve Forces, not for the time being subject to the Naval Discipline Act or to military law, or any man who holds a certificate of exemption from military service, produces any disease or infirmity to himself, presumably with the object of escaping military service, he comes under this Regulation and suffers the penalties that it involves. That, I presume, is the condemnation of an attempt to escape military service. If a man actually in the Army becomes subject to disease that might have been avoided, he also is acting disloyally to his duty and to his country. Why not amend that Regulation so as to make becoming diseased a crime and not the concealing of it, and let the soldier realise that he will undergo punishment if he becomes diseased through this practice?
      Why penalise the woman and let the man go free? Why punish a man for concealing the disease and not for getting diseased? The crime consists in the getting of the disease and not in the concealing of it. I have been in correspondence with a friend of mine who has had a lot of experience on the subject. He is a Canadian officer. I will read an extract from a letter which I received from him the other day dealing with this subject. He says:
      "To my mind no man is urgently solicited by women on the street who is not willing to listen to their solicitations. The fellow who gets the glad eye will not receive a second one unless in the meantime he has made a favourable response. I have been on the street as a private, as an officer, and as a civilian, and out of my experience in definitely studying the question I have come to this conclusion, that solicitation is usually a double-party matter. Besides this, why make it necessary to prove two things? Why burden the question of conveying infection with providing proof of prior solicitation? It would surely be easier to prove one thing than two, and it makes no material difference whether the woman simply talked to the man or urged the man or whether the man solicited the woman. The whole thing hinges on whether the one person infected the other with venereal disease. That is the crime."
      We had upstairs the other day a meeting of delegates of women's organisa-

      457
      tions with a membership of over a million. They do not represent anything like the total feeling of women throughout the country with regard to this matter. They warned the right hon. Gentleman that if he cannot give satisfactory assurance as to the withdrwal of this Regulation there will be an agitation throughout the country in spite of the Defence of the Realm Act, and that course will be taken, even in face of prosecutions under those Acts and denounced, until the Regulation is withdrawn. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend is not responsible for this Regulation. I thank him for the prompt action which he took on the question of licensed houses of ill fame in France which he put out of bounds. If he has not already got the sanction of the War Cabinet, will he urge upon the War Cabinet the withdrawal of this unfair and and unchivalrous Regulation, and then endeavour by moral means, or by such means as I have suggested, to reduce still further this disease and make its disappearance still more rapid? It is along that line rather than along the line which is being followed that the evil should be combated. One other matter. I think that the Government's greatest failure during the course of the War has been its failure to deal with the question of strong drink both in and out of the Army. If you could prevent the soldiers from getting strong drink not one in a dozen of these cases would occur, for the evidence proves that in a very large proportion of these cases men only become the victims of women when they have already become the victims of drink.
      Sir W. DICKINSON: I am sorry that this Debate should take place in so small a House, and particularly that we should not have on the Front Bench one or two more members of the Government, though I quite recognise that this matter lies in the hands of the Under-Secretary of State for War, and that he will undoubtedly deal with it perfectly openly and with capacity. This question is much larger and much more important than some people think. The issue of this Regulation has caused a revival of the great public opinion which years ago did away with the Contagious Diseases Act, and which I am perfectly certain will sooner or later, and I hope sooner rather than later, do away with this Regulation. We have the great mass of opinion of the women of this country protesting against
      458
      it, and I have no doubt whatever that, if we were free to agitate against the Government, which no one wants to do in present circumstances, we could raise an agitation as strong as that which was raised by Mrs. Josephine Butler years ago. In addition, I submit that the Government have no right to issue this Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act without reference to this House, and for one very special reason. This subject has formed the basis of a Report by the Royal Commission on Venereal Disease. In that Report the Commission went out of their way to state their conviction from the evidence that a return to the Contagious Diseases Act was most inadvisable and could not be recommended. The result of that Report was that the Government introduced a Bill dealing with this very subject of the transmission of venereal disease, and that Bill passed through Committee of this House, but was not proceeded with last Session. It was not withdrawn until the last moment, and was not proceeded with for want of time and because there was some opposition. But it has been reintroduced into the House of Lords this year, and it has been generally understood that the Government were going to proceed with that Bill.
      That Bill deals with this question on the broad principle that any law that you make with regard to this matter must equally affect men as women. That was one of the difficulties which we had to meet in dealing with this Bill last year. The only way in which you can legislate on this subject is to legislate with absolute impartiality as between men and women. This Bill is proceeding through the House of Lords, and meanwhile a Government Department, without consulting this House, make a Regulation which is absolutely inconsistent with the main principle of that Bill, because it is a Regulation which affects the woman only. What is the reason for making this penal for the woman and not for the man? If there is any guilt about it the man who transmits the disease to a woman is equally guilty, and yet there is no Regulation to prevent him except a Regulation, which Lord Derby has tried to explain in the House of Lords, that a woman may accuse a soldier and the soldier may be dealt with under the discipline of the Army. This idea of penalising the woman and not the man is a wrong conception altogether of the way

      459
      in which this problem ought to be treated, because it at once gives to the man the idea that he is in a different position altogether from the woman, but the Government recognise that he is permitted to have relationship with a woman, and that the woman alone is to be punished if she happens to be affected with this disease and transmits it, and, while giving rise to that impression, it, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, gives rise to the idea, which is undoubtedly prevalent, that the Government recognise this procedure as one which, if not laudable—I will not go so far as that—is at any rate inevitable. I believe myself that that is a great mistake, and that, in face of the evidence that was given before the Royal Commission and other bodies, to say that promiscuous intercourse is so inevitable that you are bound to make rules to safeguard people from the results of it is a very great error.
      When we had the Contagious Diseases Acts the effect of their operation was so unjust, so cruel, so disgusting that the people of this country rose against them. I believe that if you attempt to make laws of this kind it will inevitably be found that such legislation will sooner or later disgust the people of the country. Even with the small experience which we have had up to the present, we can make good that contention. My hon. Friend who raised the question quoted the first paragraph of the Regulation, which makes it a penal offence for a woman to be suffering from the disease, either having communicated with or soliciting any member of His Majesty's Service to have intercourse with her. But I should like to quote the next paragraph, because I want to show this House and the Government what most undesirable results arise from legislation of this sort—
      "A woman charged with an offence under this Regulation shall, if so required, be remanded for a period of less than a week for the purpose of such medical examination as may be requisite for ascertaining whether she is suffering from such disease as aforesaid. The defendant shall be informed of her right to be remanded as aforesaid, and that she may be examined by her own doctor or by the medical officer of the prison."
      When this Regulation was passed I put down a question. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War
      "whether under Regulation 40D, under the Defence of the Realm Act, by which it is made an offence for a woman suffering from venereal disease, to solicit or have sexual intercourse with a member of His Majesty's forces, a
      460
      woman charged with this offence can be medically examined against her will, and, if so, whether it is intended that women so charged shall be so examined."
      The answer was in the negative. Therefore, according to the advice we have received, under this Regulation the woman could not be examined against her will, and that is quite right. That is the answer I expected. But it is not the answer that most people read into this Regulation. This Regulation that I have read out to the House I believe will convey to any ordinary mind the idea that if a woman comes before you and you say to her that, if she so requires, she may be remanded for a period for the purpose of a medical examination which is requisite, I venture to think that most people would say that that was an obligation on her to submit to it. As a matter of fact, that is precisely what has occurred, because in the case to which reference has already been made this is what happened. On 8th May, at Newport Pagnell, Alice Cowley, of Stony Stratford, appeared on a charge under this Regulation. She was arrested by the civil police. The man in the case gave evidence, and the woman was defended by a solicitor, who said there was no case for him to answer; but the police superintendent said that the onus of proof was on the defence. That was the view of the superintendent of police. I asked a question of the Home Office yesterday on this case. I wanted to know whether these facts were correct, and the answer given was:
      "I find on inquiry that the facts are as stated, the police superintendent appears to have misread one of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and to have made the statement attributed to him, but his mistake did not affect the decision of the justices, who, after hearing the defence, dismissed the charge. I do not think that the Home Secretary could issue instructions to magistrates as to what evidence they should take, nor does there seem to have been any need for them in this instance."
      What happened in the case is that, after the superintendent of police had put forward this statement of his view of the law, namely, that the onus of proof was thrown on the defendant, evidence was called as to the examination made by Dr. Bull, who said that he found no trace of disease. Therefore, this woman was put on her defence, and, although it was clear that there was no trace of disease, had yet to undergo the examination, though it is true that the examination was made by her own doctor, in order to prove her innocence. I ask the Home Office and the Under-Secretary for War to consider

      461
      the position very carefully. No woman can be compelled to be examined against her wish. That is perfectly clear. It is also perfectly clear that if a case is brought against a woman there is no obligation upon her to prove anything against herself. The obligation in all criminal cases is for the prosecution to make good their case. I submit that in this case the position was that it was for the prosecution to prove not only that the woman solicited the man, but that she herself was infected. That leads us to this, that unless you can by illegal means and by illegal pressure force a woman into the position of being examined in order to clear herself, the Government have no means of interfering under this Regulation at all. I put that very clearly to the Home Office and to the Under-Secretary of State. It all comes to this, that you have tried to legislate by this Regulation 40D, and to legislate in defiance of the right principle of law—that is, that the prosecution should not put the woman on her defence, but that the onus of proof is upon the prosecution. What the Government have done in regard to this is to put on their defence these helpless women. Any woman is in danger of suspicion, and can be brought up on any kind of accusation by any soldier, and when she is brought up it is represented to her that she has either to defend herself or undergo this examination, which she does not understand she can refuse to undergo, but which is used for the purpose of proving her guilty. I say, with great respect, that this system of trying to frighten these poor women, prostitutes though they may be, and who as a rule, have no knowledge of their rights in these cases, into the position of submitting to such an ordeal, is a thing that not a single Member of this House would allow a single one of his female relatives to undergo in any Court whatsoever.
      I am not going to try and detail to this House the horrors of that examination. It is all very well to call it a medical examination. It is something far worse to any woman, whether innocent or guilty, and I do protest against the Government passing a Regulation which forces upon these women anything so degrading. Here is another account of what is going on at Grimsby: "There is an active campaign commenced by the police against women of a certain class. On the suggestion of the naval authorities the police are proceeding, under
      462
      Regulation 40D. Women are apparently arrested for solicitation, remanded for medical examination, and, if found guilty and free from disease, sentenced to fourteen days' hard labour; but if they are diseased, then they get a long term of imprisonment." I have a case here of a young woman who thus got three months' hard labour. Here you have precisely the same process growing up which you would have had under the Contagious Diseases Acts. You have the police in Grimsby proceeding against prostitutes and arresting them for solicitation; then they are remanded for medical examination, to which no one is legally bound to subject herself, and those who are proved guilty and found diseased get a long term if imprisonment, while those proved guilty, but who are not diseased, are let off with fourteen days' hard labour. Was there ever a more outrageous method of carrying out the criminal law against any class of the female community? I hope, at any rate, that this Debate will show the War Office that they are acting quite outside public opinion in the way they are trying to deal with this particular danger to the country. I admit it is a danger, but I cannot help thinking that if the War Office adopted a higher tone they would be more successful in stopping the transmission of disease. We must all remember the message that was given by Lord Kitchener when first he sent out his first great Army to the front—
      "You have before you a task which will need all your courage, energy, and patience. Remember the honour of this Empire depends on your individual conduct…. You may find temptation both in wine and women. You must entirely resist both temptations, and, while treating all women with perfect courtesy, you should avoid any intimacy with them. Do your duty bravely, fear God, and honour the King."
      I wish the War Office would keep up that high standard in this matter. It can only be done by appealing to the troops of this country in the words of Lord Kitchener. There is no other solution of this question at all. It rests with men and not with women to protect themselves against this evil. I ask the War Office to consider whether they cannot withdraw this Regulation. Will they ask the opinion of this House as to the desirability of withdrawing it? If the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to submit the question to the House of Commons, why will he not do so? Is it because he knows what the verdict will be? I do not know what the verdict

      463
      would be in the least. But let us ascertain what the feeling of this House is upon this legislation. Or if the Government will not adopt that course, let us have some committee of inquiry into it. Let us see how it works. Let us see if there is any evidence to show either that it is useless or harmless. Let us have something in the nature of an inquiry by men who represent the people of this country, and who know what the feelings of the people are.
      Sir W. COLLINS: This is rather a difficult and painful subject to be discussed in this House, but I should like to say one or two words. Like my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson), with whom I sat on the Grand Committee upstairs on the Criminal Law Amendment Bill last Session, certainly I do not think anyone would be justified in quoting that Bill, especially-after it was amended in Committee, as any justification for the Regulation now under discussion. The Bill certainly did not contain the right to medically examine to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, nor did it apply to one sex only; neither was it framed in the interests of only one particular class of the community. The whole question of the practicability of applying methods which obtain in dealing with infectious diseases to contagious diseases is exceedingly difficult. There are the methods of applying compulsory notification, compulsory isolation, and compulsory disinfection to the particular diseases dealt with in this Regulation, and the whole thing bristles with difficulties. It sounds very simple to say that you can deal with contagious diseases in precisely the same manner as you deal with infectious diseases, but anybody who studies the matter practically is at once confronted with difficulty. May I express my sympathy with my right hon. Friend in the very difficult task which he has to perform in justifying this Regulation. I have no doubt he is obsessed with the seriousness and horrors of these particular diseases, and no one who has witnessed them clinically and studied them pathologically can fail to grasp the fact that any solution or any proposal must be attended with practical difficulty. I suggest it is most important to see that any method, whether by legislation or by this more dubious method of Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act, has behind it that expert opinion or that authoritative support which ought to be capable of being quoted in justifying any
      464
      serious action such as this. So far as I can recall, there has been certainly a change in medical opinion in regard to questions touching contagious diseases. There was a time, thirty or forty years ago, when the bulk of the profession was inclined to support that method of dealing with these diseases to which reference has repeatedly been made in Debate. The most recent Report of the Royal Commission, set up in 1913 and published as recently as February, 1916, illustrates that change of view. It is quite true that the reference to that Commission laid it down that it must be understood that no return to the policy of the Contagious Diseases Acts of 1864, 1866 or 1869 was to be regarded as falling within the scope of the inquiry. But notwithstanding that the Commissioners, who included five medical men of great distinction and one medical woman also of great distinction, came unanimously to this conclusion:
      "That although the Commission are precluded by their terms of reference from considering the policy of the Contagious Diseases Acts, they wish to place on record their view-that the evidence they hare received, which included that of several Continental experts, points to the conclusion that no advantage would accrue from a return to the system of those Acts. So far from this being the case, it is to be noted that the great improvement as regards venereal disease in the Navy and the Army has taken place since the repeal of those Acts."
      Certainly if reference were made to authoritative medical opinions, one could quote the well-known work by Professor Flexner on "Prostitution in Europe," published in 1914, in which page after page is devoted to showing that the method of police regulation and medical examination had not been instrumental in reducing the prevalence of the disease, and sometimes had even been the means of propagating it. In 1870 there was a Royal Commission which inquired into this subject, and they investigated the very proposal which is contained in this Regulation 40D. With regard to a suggestion to make it penal to engage in sexual connection when infected with venereal contagion, they reported that (1) it was objectionable as adding to scandalous and demoralising judicial inquiries; that (2) an accomplice in guilt should not be allowed to set the law in motion for the punishment of the offender; and (3) that proof of the offence would be almost impracticable, that corroborative evidence would be difficult, and that the law would be used as an instrument of malice and extortion. On the other hand, there have been military inquiries. I think there was an

      465
      inquiry in 1903, set on foot by the Army Medical Advisory Board, of which I think Sir Alfred Keogh was a member, and the conclusion that that Committee came to was quite in harmony with what we have heard recently from the President of the Local Government Board in favour of educative means and the opportunities for voluntary treatment, which the President of the Local Government Board only a few months ago urged as a far more satisfactory mode of dealing with this disease than by such penal measures as those contained in Regulation 40D. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, no doubt with the best intentions, in endeavouring to deal with an evil which oppresses all those who have contemplated the seriousness of it, has not found a practical means of dealing with the subject, but has hit upon a method which is bound to give rise to great resentment throughout the country, and for which there is very little authoritative or expert support.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I feel sure the House will realise that I do not like at any time to deal with this subject, which is at all times painful and difficult and a hundred times more painful and difficult in the crisis we are now in. But I have no reason to complain of the general trend of the Debate. Those who have spoken have all spoken against the Regulation with candour and, if I may say so, with fairness. I think I ought first of all to remind the House of a statement which was made by my right hon. Friend and colleague the Home Secretary in answer to a question put, I think, by the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King). He explained on that occasion why it was that it was necessary to introduce that Regulation at that particular moment that it was introduced, Hon. Members will recollect that last year there was an Imperial Conference composed of the most authoritative and most responsible statesmen of our great Dominions, and it is now an open secret that upon that occasion they made it their duty, their pressing duty, to make it clear to His Majesty's Government that on no future occasion would they be responsible for the conduct of their troops unless it was made plain to them that the Government was prepared at once to take some action to prevent the spread of venereal disease in this country. They raised the question in that acute form with refer-
      466
      ence particularly to their own gallant soldiers, who had left good homes in the Dominions to come to fight for the Empire, and it was the duty of my right hon. Friend and colleague the Colonial Secretary to press this matter upon the War Cabinet, with the result that all the Departments concerned were consulted, and the War Cabinet decided that this Defence of the Realm Regulation should be issued. It is also an open secret, for I think I have stated it in answer to a question in this House, that the Army-Council strongly urged that if the Regulation were to be promulgated it ought to be a Regulation dealing with the entire population, civil as well as military. I very often resent, and have occasion to resent, the implication that our Army to-day is a segregation camp for venereal disease, and I was very glad indeed to hear an hon. Member avow that our present Army is no such thing. I will go farther and say that there is a less percentage of venereal disease among our gallant soldiers than among the civil population in the same proportion. At the same time, the House will appreciate that we feel strongly that we ought to do everything that is humanly possible to preserve their health, not only that they may fight our battles, but that they may go back unstained and unsullied to the homes from which they came. My hon. Friends made a great point of the fact that this was a one-sided Regulation. I have attempted to make it clear on more than one occasion, and certainly my Noble Friend the then Secretary of State for War tried to make it clear in the House of Lords, that it was no such thing. [An HON. MEMBER: "He failed!"] I have an entirely different opinion. I think my Noble Friend made it perfectly plain that the soldier who inflicts himself with this disease, instead of getting off scot-free, is very severely punished.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: For getting it? For concealing it!
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The soldier is penalised not only for concealing it, but for getting it. This Regulation is not a one-sided Regulation. The woman in this case is punishable either with six months' imprisonment as a maximum, or with a fine of £100. The soldier in the first place if he conceals the fact that he has got the disease is liable, after trial by court-martial, to two years' imprisonment with hard labour; but supposing he does not conceal his disease, but goes to the appro-

      467
      priate officer, and acquaints him with the fact that he has inflicted himself with that disease, he is penalised very severely, and so is his wife, by hospital stoppages. We deduct 7d. a day, we deduct proficiency pay if he is in receipt of it, 3d. or 6d., or corps or engineer pay if he is in the Royal Engineers, the Army Service Corps or the Royal Army Medical Corps. The rates vary from 2s. to 6d. per day. We also deduct the increased pay upon pre-war rates recently granted to soldiers.
      Mr. ANDERSON: That punishes the wife and children.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: It is a most regrettable fact that that should be so, but my hon. Friend will be the first to recognise that that is part of the punishment. A good husband will be deterred from taking any such risks.
      Mr. ANDERSON: We are not dealing with good husbands.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: In the course of this Debate it has been presumed that every man is good and every woman is good, and so they are in the vast majority of cases; but surely it is a deterrent to place in the way of any man who is likely to commit any offence of this sort the fact that if he does commit it, and if he does get the immediate consequence of sexual disease, his own wife may be punished! That deters any man with any spark of domestic love or desire for domestic happiness from committing such an offence. It has been pointed out to me, too, that it is also a heavy penalty upon the woman that she has got to make this public confession. She does not need to do so at all. All she has got to do is to write anonymously to the commanding officer. Her name need not appear either in public or private, and if the commanding officer acts, as he will no doubt, upon this information, the soldier is penalised. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, developing this point of one-sidedness, pointed to the fact that all women so far had been punished, and no soldiers. I quite frankly confess to the House that I have not been able to get any information as to whether any soldiers were punished under this Defence of the Realm Regulation or not. Such information is extremely difficult to get. There are thousands of court-martial cases, and it would mean that I should have to direct the whole of the staff of the Judge-
      468
      Advocate-General to search through the whole of the files of that very vast and ever-increasing Department in order to provide this information to the House.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is there no punishment of the soldier under this Regulation for infecting a woman?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Not under this Regulation.
      HON. MEMBERS: There is no punishment for it under these Regulations!
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend went on to say if the War Cabinet wished to deal with this question properly it ought to have dealt with it by keeping opportunities for indulging in this habit out of the reach of the soldiers. I can quite well imagine that that sort of alternative might appeal to the House. He went on to say we have the powers—and the hon. Member for Haggerston emphasised this point—under 13A and 40C. But the powers there are very definitely limited. The powers you have under those two Sections, either taken together or taken separately, are powers to keep certain women away from the precincts of the camp. But that Regulation does not apply at all in the case of a large city like London. We discussed that subject very thoroughly, and I can assure my hon. Friends that we thought of every possible alternative before we came to the conclusion that it was in the interests of all, and not only of our own troops, to pass this Regulation. I was rather astonished to hear the further point which was made by my two hon. Friends opposite. They both drew pictures of women being spasmodically arrested by interfering police constables. In the first place, for what reason would these women be arrested? I assume for accosting or soliciting. My two hon. Friends were introducing for the purpose of their argument an offence for which this Regulation is not at all responsible. It is an ordinary criminal offence. Indeed, the first case which was brought to the notice of this House under this express Regulation was the Manchester case. My hon. Friend will bear me out that that unfortunate young girl was not first of all arrested under this Regulation. She was arrested under powers which the police had got for arresting women who solicited, and it was only subsequently found that she was a person suffering from this disease, and,

      469
      knowing that she was suffering from this disease, had sexual intercourse with a member of His Majesty's forces. The hon. Member for Haggerston, the hon. Member for Northampton, and also my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras made a very strong point of the feeling outside. Nobody is more aware of it than I am. I will go further and say people feel not only strongly but very passionately about it. But the Government in this case was in a very difficult position. Under the Defence of the Realm Regulation, it could not legislate for the entire population. That would be ultra vires. If there is a strong feeling in this country against this Regulation, there was an equally strong feeling in the Dominions for this Regulation or for a Regulation of this sort. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
      Mr. ANDERSON: The Regulation does not hit them.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am able to express what I know to be a fact, that there was a very pronounced feeling in the Dominions that some steps should be taken. It may be they think this Defence of the Realm Regulation is not an adequate one, but at the same time we were bound to take notice of the very strong representations made to us. My hon. Friends opposite said that this was an attempt to make vice safe. I can assure my hon. Friends the Department for which I am responsible, and I think I can speak for other Departments feels that that is not so, and I think the House will agree with me that not by a single instance have my hon. Friends opposite proved that statement they have made. We have no desire to make vice safe. Unfortunately, vice may often be prevalent. It is our duty to make it as difficult as possible. I am now speaking for the War Office, who do not desire that our soldiers should be broken in health in any way, or in morals. That is the purpose of this Regulation. My hon. Friend, in a very interesting speech, made it plain, or at least attempted to make it plain, that there was a great anomaly in regard to this Regulation. He said that we punish under this Regulation with fourteen days' imprisonment a woman who is not diseased, and that we punish with six months a woman who is found to be diseased. Again there is confusion of thought and confusion of fact. If the woman can prove herself to be innocent
      470
      she is not affected by this Regulation at all. It is only when she is arrested and found to have solicited intercourse when she has this disease in a communicable form that she can be punished under this Regulation. The only other point of significance raised was the point raised by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, and I think perhaps by two or three other Members opposite. The Government was asked why was this Defence of the Realm Regulation not notified to the House. I do not know any case in which a Regulation of this sort has been so notified before it was put into force. My hon. Friends very often seem to forget that we are in the midst of a great crisis and that they were amongst those who gave Parliament power in great emergencies, to pass Regulations of this sort in this way. Now they are the first to come forward and accuse us of employing the powers which were unanimously given to us by the House at the beginning of the War. The Government, rightly or wrongly, came to the conclusion that this was a case not for the more dilatory methods of statutory legislation, but for the exercise of those powers given to it unanimously by the House. Upon what ground any hon. Member can now come forward and complain that we have, in our discretion and in the exercise of those powers, put into force a Defence of the Realm Regulation which we are firmly convinced will do, if not any very large amount of good, in any case a certain amount of good, I cannot conceive. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras says, that if we passed the Criminal Law Amendment Act, particularly Section (5), we should certainly have been able to meet the case made by the two hon. Members, namely, equality of treatment for men and women. I have explained the reason why that is impossible. I explained that it would be ultra vires of the Defence of the Realm Act. You can pass regulations dealing with the members of the military forces of the Crown under the Defence of the Realm Act, but you cannot pass such regulations referring to the civil population, so that administratively our procedure was perfectly proper. I do not think that there were any other points made to which I need reply. I should, however, like to remind the House that the subject is one which is engaging the most earnest and most serious attention of the Government. I myself, at the

      471
      present time, am chairman of a very large conference which has met once and will meet again soon. It is a conference composed of Dominions' representatives, American representatives, and clerical representatives, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Bourne, and representatives of the Free Churches, together with officers from the War Office who are interested, administratively or medically, in the subject. The House may take it from me that, while we do not admit that this disease is more prevalent in the Army than in the civil population—in fact, I think it is the reverse—we are doing everything possible to find some way of combating the disease. The House will realise that it is most important that it should not exist. It is painful for those of us who follow not only with interest, but with affection, the lives and fortunes of our gallant men at the front to think that any temptation of that sort should be placed in their way, or that, at any moment, thousands of others may be laid aside in hospital. We cannot get rid of these things, and I do not think we will get rid of them, unless there is more charity exercised by Members of Parliament. Nobody wishes to discuss this subject on the floor of the House of Commons. Nobody wishes to keep it in the public eye—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"]—though at the same time everybody is anxious and vigilant about it. While I cannot, on behalf of the Government, say that we will withdraw this Regulation, because we believe it is useful, and it may prove effective in a very difficult, a very delicate, and a very dangerous situation, I can assure the House that as a Government we will go on by means of the conference of which I have just spoken, to do everything that lies in our power to preserve the health of our troops and eradicate this malignant disease from our country.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think if I had had to act as the mouthpiece of the War Office on this question, I would have said less than has the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He would have made a stronger case if he had simply said that in the view of the War Office this is essential to the safety of the country, for that is what it comes to! I for one do not see that there is any use in our trying to argue with the War Office. The view of this House is that this is the meanest
      472
      persecution of a helpless body of women. If it had been said that this is essential to the salvation of the Army we could only have shrugged our shoulders at the present time. Certainly there is a certain body of opinion in this country which believes that woman is a sort of superior animal. Until the women electors come on the scene to change that body of opinion to something a little more charitable and sensible, we shall have a continuation of these sort of questions. But I do not want to go on with that subject. I want to take the House back to the subject that we were previously discussing—the urgent need for economy at the present time, and the best methods of securing that economy. We should realise that economy is more important now than at any other time. Of course there is a possibility of this War dragging on for many years, and our success may depend on whether we can conduct the War economically or not. It so happens that in South Africa during the Boer War the Government there was faced with the same problem, and for a year after that war money was very plentiful in South Africa, and the different Government Departments were extravagant and built up Departments there just as they have been built up in recent years in this country. New Departments were started and everybody seemed interested in those Departments in getting as many people as they could in them in order to say, "See what a big staff I have got!" This extravagance naturally comes when money is plentiful, when a boon is expected, and when the Government doing everything and private individuals are doing nothing. That sort of thing went on merrily in South Africa for a year, and then the slump came. Now the gentleman responsible for the Government of South Africa at that time was Lord Milner, who is now responsible for the War Office in this country. He at once took the bull by the horns, and an order was sent down to all the Government Departments that expenditure was to be cut down to the extent of 10 per cent., or 25 per cent., I forget which, and it was stated that no excuses would be allowed. In course of time, I got a note to say the expenditure in my branch had to be reduced by this amount, and either some men had to be got rid of or the salaries cut down, and all through the country each Department cut down expenses by

      473
      the percentage ordered by Lord Milner, and I need hardly say that the public service did not suffer in the least.
      It only wants somebody at the head of affairs to say that some definite retrenchment must take place. If you have a firm chief who says that expenditure has to be cut down in that proportion, and declares that he does not care how it is to be done, provided 25 per cent. is saved on the Estimates, that curtailment will take place without any loss to the public service. All the propaganda in the world and all the cinema shows will not be able to persuade the people much longer that the War is being run satisfactorily when they see these swollen offices started everywhere and see all these people getting "cushy" jobs in Government offices. The feeling against bureaucracy is much stronger to-day than hon. Members in this House seem to think. It is stronger in this respect than in regard to any other mismanagement of the War. It is not merely that the people see and feel that money is being wasted, but they see and feel that the whole standard of patriotism in the country is being destroyed by people taking pay for work which they feel is not necessary work. There are many people hanging on to jobs and making work to keep the present positions which they occupy. As soon as the people of this country get an idea that that sort of thing is being done, then they cease their patriotic efforts and cease making sacrifices, and spread slackness right throughout the whole country. There are those two real sound reasons for practising that form of economy which will amount to a considerable sum, and the sum saved will be as nothing to the stiffening up of the public backbone throughout the whole of the country.
      Question put, and agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS [18TH JUNE].
    Resolution reported,
    "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, the sum of £500,878,040 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolution agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Bonar Law, and Mr. Baldwin.
    CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL—"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine Hundred and nineteen," presented accordingly; read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

    TRADE BOARDS [EXPENSES].
    Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such further Expenses as the Minister of Labour may be authorised to incur under any Act of the present Session to amend the Trade Boards Act, 1909 (King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—Lord E. Talbot.]
    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.'
    Mr. BOOTH: With regard to the Motion for the Select Committee to consider the Report of Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset raised a question about it, and I also asked a question upon a previous occasion. I presume the Patronage Secretary will be able to tell us now where we can find a copy of this mysterious document, and will he also say that we shall at least have it in our hands one day before he moves his Resolution?
    Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Yes. I am postponing the moving of my Resolution for that purpose, and I understand that the document is now being printed.
    Mr. KING: May I ask the Noble Lord why no National Member is to be put upon this Committee? I think it ought—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The proper time to raise that question will be when the Resolution is moved.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen minutes after Ten o'clock.

WAR.
  WOMEN CIVIL SERVANTS (REMUNERATION).
  WOMEN CIVIL SERVANTS (REMUNERATION).
  IRISH COAL AND LIGNITE COMPANY.
  IRISH COAL AND LIGNITE COMPANY.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  DRIPPING.
  DRIPPING.
  NEWSPAPERS (RETURNS).
  NEWSPAPERS (RETURNS).
  SHIPBUILDING (STATISTICS).
  SHIPBUILDING (STATISTICS).
  ARMY OFFICERS (ACTING RANK).
  ARMY OFFICERS (ACTING RANK).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  EXEMPTIONS (APPEALS).
  EXEMPTIONS (APPEALS).
  RUSSIANS AND POLES (ABSENTEES).
  RUSSIANS AND POLES (ABSENTEES).
MUNITIONS.
  WALTHAM ABBEY FACTORY (DISCHARGES).
  WALTHAM ABBEY FACTORY (DISCHARGES).
  RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
  RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
  SAILORS' LETTERS (FREE POSTAGE).
  SAILORS' LETTERS (FREE POSTAGE).
  Westminster Hall.
  Westminster Hall.
Preamble
The Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
SLIGO CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE WAR CABINET.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the Report of the War Cabinet for 1917, and to the desirability of limiting the duties of the War Cabinet to matters immediately relating to the conduct of the war, and of reestablishing ordinary Cabinet government for all other purposes.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, since I put upon the Paper the Notice which it is my duty to discuss to-night, apparently well-authenticated accounts have appeared in various journals of the intention of the Government to appoint some species of Home Committee for the purpose of dealing with some of the subjects which at present come before the War Cabinet. I do not know how far those accounts are well authenticated, but assuredly what is proposed will not reach the distance that we desire unless it goes a very long way in advance of any proposal which has hitherto found favour in the Press. Because anything in the nature of a Home Committee, while it may co-ordinate action which is at present disjointed, cannot compose diffieulites. We are occupied, not with questions merely of detail, but with the whole principle.
Perhaps I might be allowed to say that in any remarks which I have to make there is nothing whatever of hostility to the War Cabinet. There is no desire in any way to criticise the part that they have taken. I was one of those who, with many of your Lordships, welcomed the War Cabinet when it was established in December, 1916. Any one who has read or tried to grapple with the volume which I hold in my hand, the Report of their work during the year after,
240
they were established, must be struck by the stupendous task they have undertaken, the immense ground they have covered, and in many respects the wonderful results which have been achieved. Nobody who has studied this book can doubt for a moment the patriotism and devotion of the members of the War Cabinet. But what I contend is that the whole system on which they were appointed, and on which we hoped they were going to proceed, has been reversed.
The old Cabinet was a body of twenty-four men; and it was desired to replace twenty-four men, most of whom were mainly occupied in civil duties, by six men who should be solely devoted to the military and naval needs of the war. Instead of that, what has happened has been that eighteen Ministers—indeed, I am sorry to say, far more, but on that I must say a word presently—eighteen Ministers have become practically autocrats in their own Departments, independent entirely, as far as Cabinet work is concerned, because they have no share in it, while the whole of the work of the Empire—not merely the decisions connected with the war, but all those connected with the civil Departments and after-war issues—fall on the shoulders of the half-dozen oligarchs who now control the whole destinies of the country. I challenge this system because I believe that it is in many respects an infringement of the Constitution, a great danger to civil government, and likely to provoke most serious reaction after the war.
This Report of the War Cabinet is drawn up under eighteen heads, and I will go bail that ten of them might be entirely relegated to other authorties who are not concerned with the war. I do not mean to say that there is no over-lapping—of course there is over-lapping. I do not mean to say that that could be done if there was not good feeling and proper confidence between colleagues. But out of these eighteen heads there are only about eight which really affect the conduct of the war. Is not the conduct of the war in itself something which is sufficient to exhaust any energies? You have 7,000,000 men, operating, I believe, in about ten different countries and three different Continents. You have a Navy carrying on operations in every sea. You have a financial outlay, which, either as aid to be given or money to be spent, in three months amounts to the whole of

241
the National Debt before the war; you have war councils sitting here every day; you have Imperial councils with the Dominions; yon have war councils with your Allies; and. in addition to that, numerous other councils with neutrals. I venture to say that a man who has to read what has to be read about the war and to administer and decide what has to be decided about the war has scope for the highest energy and the wildest ambition.
But that is only a tithe of the labours. I will not go so far as to say that the War Cabinet, which was intended to be solely occupied with the war, is not mainly so occupied, but I have great doubts whether if the output of any given day were taken, it would not be found that every member of the War Cabinet has had to give more time to things unconnected with the war than he has been able to give to the things connected with the campaign which the War Cabinet entirely administers. Among the labours which the War Cabinet have undertaken are national organisation during and after the war; industrial relations, with trade reform now and after the war; the whole question of transport and shipping reform; agricultural reform; food and the restriction of imports; education; and the question of pensions. Some of these are by-products of the war; some are not. But to those have been added—I do not say by their wish, but at all events the fact remains that they are there—nearly every important question in domestic policy which in ordinary times would, usurp the whole attention of the Government during the period when they have to be settled. In the last few months the War Cabinet have had to deal with the question of the franchise, with the Second Chamber, Ireland, India, and the liquor trade. Not one of those things could fail to occupy untold time of the War Cabinet.
I wish I were permitted to bring before your Lordships a menu of the War Cabinet's proceedings. I believe it would astonish you. I believe it would be taken by the public as comic, were it not tragic. I only draw a bow at a venture, but I would say that there probably have not been many days on which the War Cabinet have not been forced to discuss a critical position in France, claims of the most urgent character from our Allies; they have had deputations on labour subjects; they have also had to deal with Ireland; they have had to settle various forms of food restriction; to
242
assuage various Parliamentary troubles; and on at least one occasion we could see from the newspapers that every one of those subjects had been going on at the same time as the critical position of Parliamentary reform. I believe I am right in saying that a large amount of this business has to be done by memorandum, the mere reading of which every day takes in the case of the most rapid member of the War Cabinet something like three hours of his time—three hours on subjects to be mastered before he can begin to think about what decisions are going to be given.
In this volume here we are told that 218 interviews have been given by the War Cabinet to different individuals during the war. My only surprise is that the number is not larger. I know a good many people who have been summoned to the War Cabinet, and their account of the antechamber of the Cabinet is like that of the horse before Troy—it is crammed with individuals of every description waiting in various stages of impatience for the moment when they may be called. They come; they wait; they are taken in—perhaps in more senses than one; they go expectant; and if notes were taken of all that passes in that room they would take several hours the next day to read hp. And all this is going on at a time when there is the greatest possible pressure on those w ho have to settle them to touch principles. They however, do not deal only with principles The War Cabinet in some respects goes into the minutest details. They have a legion of secretaries to help the Prime Minister himself; an army of secretaries to assist Sir Maurice Hankey, the admirable Secretary of the War Cabinet; and they have behind them Departments, as I am going to show later. But it is impossible for the War Cabinet to avoid minutiœ. On the same day that we knew them to be discussing most critical positions in France they were also settling whether racing should continue, or whether the breed of British race-horses could be kept up without racing. They turned from that to the question of how many barrels of beer should be brewed. On one day of great importance, as I see from an answer in the House of Commons, the War Cabinet had to settle whether meal should be allowed to be used in dog biscuits; and at the same period they were settling whether pheasants should be shot in March.
I suppose that the last few weeks have been as critical in the history of this country as any previous time. I am not suggesting in what I am going to say that every official does not listen with the greatest courtesy and expedition to any legitimate views on any subject that is brought before him; I am speaking only as a matter of principle. I had a little experience which happened when I had to ask the authority of the Government on behalf of a public school of which I was a governor, where fire had broken out. The fire had un-housed 80 boys, 2 dormitories being burned out. Everybody was anxious to help, but the cost of replacing a roof—which had to be done unless those boys were to be sent away from the school—exceeded £5,000; and neither the National Service Department nor the Timber Authority, nor anybody else, could deal with anything which came to over £5,000. Although it was only a question of £2,000 or £3,000 over that amount we had to go to the War Cabinet for a decision whether the roof of the Charterhouse should be restored and the boys allowed to go back. I soon found that the War Cabinet have Departments under them besides secretaries, and that there was a Priority Committee, which Committee was most anxious to help. But the idea that men so burdened as the War Cabinet are should have to settle these trivialities will, I am sure, show your Lordships that some change is needed.
But really, without over-stating it, I believe the members of the War Cabinet are not aware of the chaos which has been produced in the Departments by this system of centralisation. The heads of the Departments never meet in Cabinet as they did in the old days; consequently, numerous matters which could be agreed upon by the heads of the Departments have to come to a higher authority. Overlapping is incessant. There were twenty Government Departments before the war; they have been made into twenty-nine, and there is now an agitation for a Health Department. There is no idea of reducing any of those which are redundant. Other new Departments are proposed daily; and these Departments so overlap that they absolutely fight for the work—they fight for the staff; they fight for the offices; they were even fighting for contracts and bidding against each other until a short time ago.
I do not think that there is any greater scandal than that of which we heard
244
yesterday, brought out in answer to a Question in the House of Commons, as to the rise of these Departments. It was disclosed that there are now 94,500 persons on the clerical staff of the Government, costing in all £1,330,800. But that does not represent the whole; the thing is growing daily. I could not help thinking, when I looked at a heading in the newspapers yesterday and saw the date of June 18, that the men who are now engaged in clerical work in Government Departments—mostly in London—exceed by threefold the number of troops which Wellington had at Waterloo on that day 103 years before. These Government employees constitute an army in themselves, and their numbers continue to grow. Look at the number of members of the Government. Mr. Asquith's Government raised the number to sixty-eight—an unknown figure hitherto. The new Government promptly increased it to seventy-nine; in the middle of last year the number had risen to eighty-four; and this year it reaches ninety-three, while yesterday I see that Lord Clinton has been added, making a ninety-fourth. No doubt by Christmas next we shall have over 100 members of the Government.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Lord Clinton replaces Lord Goschen.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will use his influence to stop what I think is a most profligate form of expenditure. The people will not stand it, and it will lead to drastic reaction.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I hope that the noble Viscount will excuse me for interrupting. But when he objects to the appointment of Lord Clinton, does he really want the Board of Agriculture to be without a representative in this House? Lord Clinton's appointment is not the addition of a new post to the Government; the noble Lord replaces in this House Lord Goschen, who has hitherto occupied that place, and who, owing to the pressure of other duties, has been reluctantly compelled to relinquish it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I should cut down one of the redundant representatives in the other House.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: How would you have the Board of Agriculture represented in this House?
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am not speaking only of the Board of Agriculture but of the general manning of the Government, which I maintain has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. I think there is grave danger that there should be so many votes in the House of Commons at this moment of gentlemen attached to the Government, and so far as my experience goes I certainly think that if any Committee were appointed and the Government were not represented on it, it would be found that very large reductions could be made.
The noble Earl challenges me, and I am bound to tell him that I have myself served on a Committee appointed by the War Cabinet to examine these very subjects, and that that Committee did report that there was great waste of time, power, and money; and I am compelled to say also that no action whatever, so far as I know, has been taken on the work of that Committee. There were forty Committees sitting at the same time, and I remember asking whether it would not be possible for these subjects to be taken up, and I was told that the only system was that whoever had sat upon a Committee, if dissatisfied, could apply to the War Cabinet to be heard as to whether the recommendations of his Committee should be put in force. That is not to my mind the proper relation between private individuals and the Government. What right have we to come, forward and say, "We sent in our Report; why don't you act upon it? We claim to be heard, and this or that should be done." I do not blame the War Cabinet in the very slightest. They could only have dealt with these subjects by taking their minds away from much more pressing and important matters; but I do say that the business of the country would be infinitely better done if some individual who had time and authority could deal with these subjects, and if the inflated staff of the Government were reduced by 20 per cent.
The subject is a very large one, and not wishing to detain the House at undue length I propose only to suggest two or three instances of the sort of difficulty which has arisen through this system, not as in any way covering the whole ground but merely suggesting certain points on which I think we are suffering. One is the question of finance. There is no check upon expenditure before events. Recent
246
disclosures by the Auditor-General make it perfectly clear that the door is never shut and cannot be shut until the steed has been stolen. My Lords, there are many reasons why the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to sit in the War Cabinet. On a great question of many millions of further expenditure he can no doubt give his presence. But one great reason is that he is the custodian and guardian of the public purse, and if his whole mind is to be taken up with war proceedings it is absolutely impossible for him to keep any check upon expenditure. Remember that this is going on after the war, and it will then take years to cut down expenditure which is entered into and carried out in a few weeks at the present time. I put finance high.
My second point, which I press upon the noble Earl's attention, is the relation of the War Cabinet to wages and labour. I am not going to give any opinion as to the right or wrong of the sums which have been given, but I may be allowed to say in one sentence that since the artificial rise given by the War Cabinet of 12½ per cent. in a number of the larger trades—steel and iron—you have this result, that in a large number of products the sum allowed by the Government to be charged is so insufficient, owing to the wages which they have forced to be paid, that the Government have had to come forward and give a bonus not merely upon munitions but on steel and other products banded over for private consumption, in order to prevent manufacturers stopping because they cannot manufacture except at a loss. Therefore you have artificial wages on one side, an artificial price struck in the middle, and a still more artificial bonus given by the Government on the other side as part of the cost of war. If that continues after the war we must and shall lose all the neutral markets, or all the markets as against any country which has not got a system which forces up prices in this absurd manner.
Look what is going on in the matter of agricultural wages. The Government forced with celerity through Parliament a Wages Board to fix agricultural wages. The Wages Board, I think, is not responsible to Parliament, but merely responsible for doing its best; and at this very moment steps are being taken which will place agricultural wages in such a position that on the lighter lands of the country it will be absolutely impossible fo farmers to

247
make a profit, and the only way you can maintain them will be by a most drastic system of Protection which neither this, House nor any other House of Parliament has ever undertaken to consider. The Houses of Parliament do not know, and still less do people in the towns know, what lies before us, and I cannot imagine any subject on which after the war there may be greater differences of opinion and greater dangers.
Then I take the question of appointments. At present every appointment of every description falls into the hands of an overburdened Prime Minister. I do not in the least say that technically most if not all of these appointments have not been given by the Prime Minister, but I do most certainly say that there have been—for certain of us here have sat in Cabinets—constant discussions of mportant appointments in which very have been expressed which very much changed what occurred, and I only take the result. Has it tended to good official relations that the whole matter should rest to the degree which it does on a few heavily-taxed individuals? Look at the changes which have taken place. There have been seven Secretaries for War in seven years, and five of them since the commencement of the war. Then take the Board of Admiralty, which requires technical knowledge that very few civilians can gain in two or three years. There have been four First Lords of the Admiralty in four years. Then take the Air Service. I cannot remember the exact date when the noble Earl who leads the House gave up the work which he had in connection with that Service. If, as I believe, it was some time about a year and a half ago, that perhaps makes it longer; but in the course of eighteen months since we have had an Air Minister we have had three different noble Lords as head of the Air Service. I am not going to mention in this respect the differences which have occurred—regrettable as I think, and as we all think them —between the Government and some of our leading military advisers, as I believe all of them are due to a large extent to the overpressure and the haste with which affairs have to be conducted.
If I wanted to show how completely all the old traditions have been left aside in this matter I would refer to an appointment made to this House a few days ago. For administrative reasons in Ireland a change was made and a Judge was appointed to be a
248
member of your Lordships' House. I do not think that it occurred to anybody who had to do with that change that any Peer so appointed has a right to sit in appeal in your Lordships' House, but if that is so I can only say that, so far as I have been able to ascertain, never in living memory has a judicial Peer been appointed to this House unless it has first been ascertained that his services were required and would be useful for the judicial functions of the highest Court of the Realm. In these days of haste I venture not to ask the question—because it may be inconvenient to my noble friend if I were to ask it—but I suggest that in these appointments, made solely on administrative grounds, an addition was made to the highest Court in the land without any previous consultation with those who hitherto have always had to give a decision as to whether such an appointment would be valuable or not. I venture to say that this is in itself an illustration of the rapidity and the want of forethought which cause so many appointments made at present to have to be reviewed in a very short period.
Now, my Lords, what is the remedy? The remedy, I feel, is that we should have a War Cabinet which is solely occupied with the conduct of the war. Let the Prime Minister be a member of it; the two heads of the Army and Navy; a Minister, if you desire it, without a portfolio; a Minister like General Smuts representing the Dominions; and, I would urge, the best military and naval representatives that can be obtained, to sit there not as assessors but to vote as members of the War Cabinet. I would say one word both as to those who, in my opinion, should be and those who should not be members of that Cabinet. I think a very grave mistake, and one which has reacted in very serious matters greatly to the public detriment, has been made by excluding the Secretary of State for War from the War Cabinet. The Secretary for War is constitutionally the individual whose duty it is to watch the interests of the Army. The Secretary for War, when soldiers are largely engaged in council, is their natural adviser and protector, and I cannot conceive anything which is more difficult for any man than that he should have to deal with the question of retaining or not retaining his chief adviser when the questions involved in the whole discussion are questions which have been raised and decided at meetings at which the Secretary for War himself was

249
not present—in other words, when he has to decide a most vital question for the country which he alone constitutionally can decide. The War Cabinet cannot dismiss the Chief of the Imperial General Staff or change him; that officer can only be changed by the Secretary of State for War. It is very difficult for the Secretary of State for War that he should have to deal with these questions on secondhand information; that is, on what he has gained from his colleagues and those with whom he is dealing. Therefore, I think it essential that these two Ministers—the War Secretary and the First Lord of the Admiralty—should be members of the Cabinet.
I think it most essential that the Leader of the House of Commons and the Leader of the House of Lords should not be members of the War Cabinet. Mr. Bonar Law is one of the busiest men in the country. I have already suggested that his other duties have suffered most seriously by the fact that he cannot attend to them. If his services are needed in the War Cabinet there are others who have served in the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer who could fill that office instead. In the same way, with regard to the presence of my noble friend (Earl Curzon of Kedleston) here, I grudge every moment I am taking of his time. My noble friend is a man who spares himself nothing. Let your Lordships consider what is the number and variety of subjects with which he has had to deal in this House, all of which involve preparation and many of which are foreign to the whole of his training. If I may be pardoned for reading the list, which will not take a moment, I will state the subjects on which he spoke in the course of six or seven weeks (I think it was) last year. He spoke on war policy, the United States, the Dardanelles, the position in the Near East, the Egyptian campaign, the submarine menace, the position in Mesopotamia, the action of the Navy, peace proposals, reprisals, Salonika, the War Loan, the supply of war material, and the supply of wood. These are all subjects connected with the war. He also spoke on the Civil Service, exports and imports, lack of control on finance, the internal situation in Germany, the holding of directorships by members of the Government, the expenditure on Government offices, Home Rule, the Imperial Conference, India, International Law, merchant shipping, the Franchise Bill in all its
250
bearings, prisoners in Germany, the titles held by enemies. There are thirty or forty subjects, one in every two days, in which the time of my noble friend has to be taken up.
And this is not a system which is really very agreeable or enviable for your Lordships' House. What happens when he is not here? My noble friend Lord Crawford, who always speaks with great ability, has to occupy his position. How can he occupy it? He has not been present at the discussions on the matters which he has to explain to your Lordships. Take what happened last week. A question was raised as to why Ireland did not have the same restrictions as Great Britain as regards such things as food, travelling, and the rest. In the old days the noble Earl would have been a member of the Cabinet. He is a member of the Cabinet, but it is a Cabinet which never sits. It has sat once, I believe. He would have been a member of the Cabinet, would have heard the subject discussed, and would have influenced it by his own opinion. It is much more important from our point of view if a strong opinion is expressed in this House that he would have given effect to it by his influence in the Cabinet. At present he can only read the reply furnished him as if he were a Lord-in-Waiting or a Lord of the Treasury. That is surely not a dignified position for the noble Earl himself, nor a satisfactory one for Parliamentary criticism.
For that reason I would urge that there should be a Home Cabinet—a Home Cabinet charged with whatever the War Cabinet considers are home affairs. The head of the Home Cabinet would be closely in touch with the Prime Minister, and would be responsible at any moment for advising the War Cabinet in decisions likely to be connected with their work. But there is no half-way house. If the War Cabinet are going to decide everything, as apart from the Home Cabinet, they would be just as busy as they are at present and the public service would not be advanced. I only desire to say one other thing. I believe there is nothing which is likely to do so much harm to the future of the country as the absorption of all private enterprise by Government Departments. That difficulty, great as it is, is intensified when the whole of the decisions concerning the vast chain of Departments is concentrated in a few gifted individuals whose business it is solely to concentrate their minds on the war.

251
I sincerely trust that the Government will reconsider the whole position, that they will take more drastic action than anything that has been adumbrated in to now, and that they will not, from any patriotic desire to do the best for the country, continue to burden themselves with decisions which no mortal body o men could undertake to carry through If they will do so they will greatly facilitate the conduct of the war, restore efficiency to the Administration, and enable order to be restored to our finances. I am quite certain that such a change would be welcomed by the entire Civil Service of the country, and would put a stop to measures which, in the reaction which will certainly come after the war, may gravely affect good order and the government of the country.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I find myself in general concurrent with the greater part of the argument advanced by my noble friend, and I shah not take up the time of the House by travelling over the ground which he has occupied with so much skill this evening. If I differ from him at all it is, perhaps, because I realise rather more than he does the immense difficulty of adjusting our old-fashioned political machinery to the new conditions with which we have to deal in these days. The subject is a most perplexing and difficult one, but I think there are two conclusions which emerge pretty clearly from the controversy which is taking place. One is that some change is absolutely necessary in the present arrangements by which the Government is carried on. I do not think this would be disputed, because the newspapers, which are usually well informed, have been lately giving us chapter and verse (with how much accuracy we do not yet know) as to the proposals which are likely to be made from the Front Bench on this side. The other conclusion which, I think, emerges is this—that whatever is done it is idle to think, for the present at all events, that there can be any question of going back to the old system of Cabinet government as we knew it before the war. I say this although I am one of those who are deeply attached to the old system of Cabinet government.
Both in principle and in practice, the old Cabinet as we knew it in former days was entirely defensible. The Cabinet stood for what most of us regard as the principle
252
which lies at the very root of our Constitution in this country—namely, the principle of the collective responsibility of the Government as a whole, a principle which seems a little out of date in these days when we so constantly see different Departments s of the Government proceeding in a sort of go-as-you-please system, apparently without much consultation with one another or with the Government as a whole. The old Cabinet was in principle a democratic institution. It was representative. It a represented different political groups; it was constituted with some consideration a for the great social, industrial, and other interests which have to be taken into account, and with some reference also to the geographical areas of which the country is composed. In practice the old Cabinet afforded what seems to me to be an invaluable opportunity of consultation between one Department and another. It afforded to the Government the means of keeping in touch with both Houses of Parliament. It enabled a Minister who was in charge of a measure, or engaged in the preparation of a measure, to discover beforehand what rocks lay ahead in his course, and it also afforded the other Ministers a chance of protesting if they found they were likely to be rushed by a perhaps over-headstrong colleague. Therefore I deeply regret any invasion of the old Cabinet principle. Your Lordships will find it supported in all the text books. I am not going to quote them at length on an occasion of this kind, but let me read two or three lines from Sir Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practise," and from Sit William Anson's "Law and Custom of the Constitution." Sir Erskine May says—
"The representation of the Government by Ministers, in both Houses, who have a common responsibility for the measures and policy of the State, secures uniformity in the direction of the councils of these independent bodies. Every public question is presented to them both, from the same point of view; the judgment of the Cabinet and the sentiments of the political party which they represent are adequately ex- pressed in each House, and a general agreement is thus attained which no formal communications could effect."
Sir William Anson speaks of—
"the advantage of having to deal with a body of men who stand or fall together, because they represent common interests, and the opinion of a party. They have become Ministers because a majority of the House of Commons was willing to support their policy and not willing to support any other; they are collectively the nominees of that majority; the dismissal of one is an attack upon the policy which all represent."

253
I venture to say that we have a right to regard the old Cabinet as being, so to speak, the very "hub" of the political machine, and if it is tampered with we cannot be surprised if we find the machinery begins to get out of gear.
But even before the war the machinery did begin to creak. I think the trouble really arose from the rapid increase in the number of the members of the Cabinet. It became an unwieldy body. It was impossible with two or even three weekly sittings of a couple of hours duration to give the members the opportunity to which they were entitled of taking part in discussion. If only a few of them took part the Cabinet ceased to be representative; if many of them took part; the proceedings tended to become prolix and interminable, and it is a matter of common knowledge that reasons of that kind led to the practice of transacting a good deal of the more important work of the Government through the agency of an informal inner Cabinet which had no official existence whatsoever.
When once the war broke out it became quite evident that extensive changes were inevitable. The Government became responsible, to begin with, for the conduct of the war itself—a colossal responsibility—but on the top of that it proceeded, as my noble friend pointed out, to take upon itself the management of roost of our great national industries, the supply of a number of the most important staples, arrangements connected with transport, and such things as the control of prices and other matters of the greatest importance. Then came the creation of new Departments. New Departments were multiplied with phenomenal rapidity, and multiplied, as far as I can make out, without any particular pains being taken to demarcate clearly the frontiers by which one Department was divided from the rest. In these circumstances it became quite evident that a change was called for, and a change was demanded by no one with more insistence than by the Government itself. What was desired was the appointment of a much smaller body to deal with the war, and of a smaller body which should be concerned with the business of conducting the war and with that business alone. But I am bound to add that I have a strong impression that in those days the idea was that the Cabinet should not be asked to part with any of its rights, but that it should delegate
254
them for a particular purpose to a body drawn from its own members. The larger body consisting of those who were not to be included in the War Cabinet were to remain, unless I am quite mistaken, entitled to the fullest information with regard to all that passed in the War Cabinet, and although it was well understood that tine War Cabinet was to be, as far as possible, let alone and not interfered with, I do not think the Cabinet as a whole ever went so far as to surrender absolutely and unconditionally the whole of its rights to take an interest in questions concerned with tine prosecution of the war.
How do we stand now? I was glad to hear my noble friend pay what I thought a well-deserved compliment to the extraordinary and in litany respects successful efforts made by His Majesty's Government to cope with the heavy task which they have undertaken, but there are certain things which we cannot conceal from ourselves. In the first place, I think it is shear that Cabinet government has disappeared altogether, and with it the good sound doctrine of the collective responsibility of the. Government of the day. We sometimes see an announcement that a new Department is to be created and to be entrusted to a gentleman who is, we are told, to have Cabinet rank. I do not know what Cabinet rank in these days means. I do not know whether it means anything more than participation in the rather attenuated emoluments which a Cabinet Minister is now entitled to draw. Outside of that, I really do not know what functions or what responsibilities Cabinet rank as such carries with it. The second result of all these changes is that the War Cabinet itself is, and cannot heir being, absolutely overwhelmed by the great mass of duties which it has undertaken. My noble friend made that so clear that I will not attempt to support what he said. Indeed, it is impossible to read the Report of the work of the War Cabinet for 1917 without coming to that conclusion.
I am very anxious to be told—and I hope that we shall be told when my noble friend speaks—what, under the new dispensation, is really the position of these Ministers who are not in the War Cabinet. It seems to be pretty clearly established that as a matter of practice so far as their own Departments are concerned they have gained very considerable power. They may, as far as I can make out, do very much

255
what they please unless they happen to encroach upon the territory of some other Minister who is a little jealous of the functions which appertain to him; but so far as they are responsible for questions of general policy they have it seems to me lost, if not everything, very nearly everything. I say this rather confidently, because in the Report from which my noble friend quoted the authors actually take credit for the new system on the ground that it has taken away from these outside Ministers any right to interest themselves in questions of general policy. The point is so important that I will read the actual phrase. The Report says—
"These Ministers are now free from the necessity which rested upon them under the old Cabinet system of considering these wider aspects of public policy which had often nothing to do with their Departments but for which they were collectively responsible."
If that means anything it means that those Ministers, put in the Cabinet on account of the importance of their position in public affairs, are positively warned off questions of general policy which form by far the most important part of the work of the Government of the day. Let me give an illustration of what I mean. Supposing the Government had to discuss such a question as terms of peace. One would like to know whether that would concern only the War Cabinet, or whether other members of the Government would be given an opportunity of expressing their views upon it.
We do not yet know, of course, what the new scheme is going to be, but it is quite clear that His Majesty's Government are going to propose to us some new organisation for the administration of domestic affairs. I hope that when that new organisation is explained we shall be enlightened upon one or two points. Is this new body going to be a second Cabinet, or a Committee of the main Cabinet? Is it intended that each of these two bodies shall be kept informed by the other of its proceedings? Then, what will be the position of the statesman who will be placed in charge of the Domestic Cabinet or Committee? A well-known statesman's name is freely mentioned in connection with the appointment. Will he be a deputy Prime Minister, or will he be a liaison officer between the two bodies—the War Cabinet and the Domestic Cabinet? And will there be any occasion when the plenum of the Ministry will be called together and consulted?
256
Then one would desire to know whether any attempt is likely to be made to demarcate with a certain amount of precision the frontiers by which the spheres of the different Departments, which now evidently constantly tend to overlap, are divided.
There is another question, and it is, perhaps, one of some importance. What will be the relation of the War Cabinet with the Imperial Cabinet, which is now holding its sittings in London No new development, to my mind, has been more striking than the setting up of that Imperial Cabinet. We are told—again I am quoting from the Report on the Table—that the Imperial Cabinet will be "able to deliberate and to come to decisions," evidently on questions concerning the conduct of the war. One would like to know what means are to be taken to co-ordinate—"co-ordinate" is a word which is very difficult to get away from in these days—the decisions of that Cabinet with the decisions of the British War Cabinet. There will, no doubt, be some nexus between them. At any rate, it looks as if we should have three bodies—our own War Cabinet, our own Domestic Cabinet or its equivalent, and the Imperial War Cabinet—and I think there can be no doubt that the relations of these three bodies will have to be very carefully adjusted.
I can assure my noble friend who leads the House that I have said nothing, or at any rate have intended to say nothing, that could be regarded as carping criticism of what has been done by His Majesty's Government in regard to the conduct of the war. I realise, indeed we must all realise, that they have undertaken a colossal task. I suppose no Government in the history of the world has ever had such a task thrown upon its shoulders as the Government of this country has at the present day. There have been, no doubt, mistakes and miscarriages in the past.—it would have been extraordinary had there not been—and I dare say there will be mistakes and miscarriages in the future. I realise, and readily admit, that this is just one of those cases where it would be idle to attempt to lay down hard and fast rules to govern the whole of the intricate procedure which must take place under these different agencies. There must be a good deal of elasticity, there must be a general consent to trust a great deal to the tact and to the good sense of the persons concerned. I, at any rate, part very

257
regretfully from the old Cabinet system; I hope some day we may get hack to it. I hope even now that something may be done to restore some of the features which were inseparable from the old Cabinet system. Meanwhile I am perfectly ready to trust His Majesty's Government to give us the best practical arrangement which the conditions admit for carrying on the immense enterprise which they have under-taken.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I understand that the noble Earl who leads the House will before very long be called away to some of his important duties—a fact which is in itself something of a commentary upon the questions asked by my noble friend who introduced this subject. Of his I speech can say that so far as my experience of the House goes I have seldom heard an indictment of His Majesty's Government—I describe it as an indictment, at any rate of the system under which they work, although generally speaking it was couched in moderate terms—I have seldom heard an indictment more thoughtfully conceived and powerfully delivered than that of my noble friend. I think also that it received in its general sense the almost universal acceptance of your Lordships' House.
The system which has prevailed during the lifetime of the present Government was clearly explained in its main features by the noble Earl the Lord President in a debate which we had in this House on December 19, 1916. It is worth while, I think, to recall what the noble Earl then said, because it is quite clear from that what the hopes of His Majesty's Government were at that time, and it is interesting to consider how far those hopes have been fulfilled. The noble Earl, speaking of the War Cabinet, which he was still able in those days to describe as a Committee, said—
"That Committee sits every day, and sometimes two or three times in the day. It is in truth, as it is called, a War Cabinet. There is no other Cabinet constituted as a body and netting regularly under the presidency of the Prime Minister with collective responsibility for all the acts of Government."
Then the noble Earl well on to say
"An effective liaison between the two—"
the Cabinet and the Departments—
"must obviously be maintained by means of conferences and meetings intended to Ming a hoot common action and a common aim."
258
And be stated further on that the body might be regarded as analogous to the Committee of Imperial Defence, because—
"the plan which that body proceeded has been a small nucleus continually replenished by Ministers coming in from other Departments when their advice was needed and their attendance required."
That, I take it, is the system which has been followed during the year and a-half or more during which the Government have been in existence.
In replying to the statement (a very full statement) of the noble Earl, I made one or two observations to which I will venture to allude—although it is not pleasant to quote one's old speeches in your Lordships' House—because the subject with which I dealt has also been mentioned by my noble friend who spoke last, Lord Lansdowne. I said this—
" … one idea which found favour with some of us was the creation of two Committees, one of which would be the War Committee proper, the other to contain the representatives of those services to which I have last alluded—"
namely, the domestic services—
"the one being concerned mainly with the conduct of the war abroad and with foreign affairs and the other with war questions at home, the Prime Minister being the connecting link between the two. I cannot help thinking that there was something to be said for a more formal arrangement such as that, rather than the present arrangement by which these domestic questions have to be departmentally discussed outside, and, in the event of difference of opinion, to be brought to the War Cabinet."
The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, spoke of that proposition, which was carefully considered at that time; and it is trite, as he said, that no conclusion on the subject, so far as I knew, was ever reached by the Cabinet as a whole. My own idea was at that time that there should be, in fact, two Cabinets—that is to say, that the two small Committees of four or five or six members should be composed of members of the Cabinet, and that the Cabinet would not formally be dissolved but that it would, in fact, never meet, and that the other Ministers who had been Cabinet Ministers would become Departmental Ministers outside either of the two bodies, which might be described at the War Cabinet and the Home Cabinet.
Perhaps I may add it really would not have been necessary in a matter of that kind for the Cabinet to agree on any such

259
solution. The matter was really one for the Prime Minister. The Cabinet is his creation, and the Prime Minister at that time could, proprio mo a, bring about a change of that kind even though it was not a subject of univeral agreement. As we know, that scheme did not come into being because a rapid change of the Government took place. It is worth noting, I think, that at the time of that debate, on December 19, 1916, neither the noble Earl the Leader of the House in his speech, nor I in my reply, alluded to anything but two bodies both concerned with the conduct, of the war—one with the conduct of the war proper and foreign affairs, and the other with the conduct of home matters also related to the war. It was not, I believe, in the minds of any of us at that time that the great number of subjects to which the noble Viscount alluded, which have since become part of the policy of His Majesty's Government, would have to he considered by either of the two bodies which it was proposed to appoint. At the end of 1916 there was not, I think, any contemplation among the political leaders of any Party of the great political changes, so wide in their scope and so deep in their essence, with which it has since been found necessary for His Majesty's Government to deal—the different subjects mentioned by my noble friend behind me (Lord Midleton): Parliamentary reform, Ireland, India., education, the creation of a Health Ministry, and the reorganisation or reconstruction of the Second Chamber. Although it was generally known that they, or some of them, I might have to be dealt with, they were not, so to speak, in the forefront of the picture; and in considering the form of Cabinet government which ought to be adopted I do not think that the attention which might have to be paid to those great subjects was sufficiently in our minds. It cannot be disputed that the system which was started at the end of 1916 has proved to be infinitely more difficult in its daily working from the fact that what the War Cabinet has had to consider have not been merely war questions either at the different Fronts or at, home, but the multifarious list of important matters of which I have spoken. It is, indeed, the fact that the War Cabinet has ceased to be a War Cabinet. It is clear that when the War Cabinet has to reach decisions on matters of Irish policy, of Indian policy, to agree to the form of framing of an Education Bill, or of a Bill for creating a Health
260
Ministry, it ceases in the strict, sense to be a War Committee or War Cabinet.
Now, I am not one of those in which I probably differ to some extent from my noble friend Lord Salisbury—who are disposed to cavil at the attempts which have been made to deal with this great number of subjects. It is, of course, arguable whether they ought, or each of them or every one of them ought or ought not to have been undertaken now; but I have no doubt that in each case a most plausible and, I should consider, convincing argument might be adduced for dealing at the particular time with the particular matter. A great many of them can, in fact, be closely linked up with the war and with the immediate necessities of reconstruction after the war; therefore I do not make any complaint of their introduction. But the fact remains that an altogether unexpected burden has been thrown upon the central body of the small War Cabinet, even though it has been somewhat enlarged; and I venture also to say that although, as we know, all the members of the War Cabinet have been men of distinction and some of them of the very first distinction, yet I do not feel certain that the body itself is the one from among the statesmen of the day which you would have selected to deal, as the final deciding authority, with at any rate some of the subjects upon which they have had to be the arbitrators.
It has been, as previous speakers have stated, freely rumoured in the Press that a change is contemplated. I have seen various propositions stated with some confidence in journals which for one reason or another do not often go wrong in the political forecasts which they make, but those forecasts have not been identical. One of them describes the creation of a new Committee of Ministers which would take over and deal with all questions of co-operation, conflict, or overlapping as between different Departments, but which would not attempt to deal with any projects of domestic policy, such for instance as devolution from one Department to another, labour questions, the creation of a Ministry of Health, and the like. The other prophesy which I have seen made is that two such Committees are likely to be created, one containing representatives of the Local Government Board, the Ministry of Reconstruction, the Scottish Office, and several others, which would be entrusted with all domestic affairs which

261
were not economic or commercial, those being handed over to another Committee, presumably an offshoot of the Board of Trade hut containing other Ministers whose offices would make. their presence suitable, the theory being, apparently, that those Committees would be able to take what we call binding decisions; but in cases of great importance or difficulty the matter would have to be brought before the War Cabinet for decision.
If am, of course, entirely unaware of what His Majesty's Government are about to propose, but so far as I am able to form an opinion without any inner knowledge I confess that the creation of bodies of that kind does not appear to me to be nearly so likely to provide an effective machine as the original proposition of two Cabinets of equal authority, of both of which the Prime Minister should be the chairman, although he would obviously not be able to be present at all the meetings of both. It might seem that this would throw an extra heavy burden upon the Prime Minister, but I do not feel at all certain that such is the case, because I suspect that as it is a great part of his time must be given to personal interviews with Ministers and others who have to explain and to receive sanction fin the very matters which a body of that kind would be able to decide finally. I cannot help thinking, further, that if such a second co-equal body could be created with a powerful vice-chairman, who under ordinary circumstances might be the acting chairman, this would he the beg solution. I question myself whether either of the schemes which we ha ye seen suggested in the newspapers would work very well. In fact, I am afraid it would be found that the War Cabinet at any rate after a short time would be frequently appealed to, and that it would not receive that measure of relief for its war work proper which is what we all desire that it should receive.
If I may quote once more from what I said at the end of 1916, speaking of the differences which were brought before the Cabinet, I said—
"It can hardly be hoped that they [Departmental Ministers] always will or can agree. It is said that in such cases the War Cabinet will send for those who differ and reach a prompt decision. It is not always easy, even for the most competent and energetic Ministers placed in a supreme position, to arrive without much care and thought, and possibly the expenditure of some time, at a definite conclusion on a disputed matter. I
262
foresee possibilities, not so much of difference and difficulty as of delay and loss of time."
I cannot help thinking that this must have occurred, and that it would occur again if the Press scheme is the one which His Majesty's Government propose to adopt for the purpose of causing some relief of the War Cabinet.
I myself cordially join in what was said by my noble friend behind me and by the noble Marquess opposite, in their expressions of admiration at the devotion and unstinted labour which the members of the War Cabinet have given to their work. It is impossible for anybody who has had to do with Governments to speak too highly of the devotion which His Majesty's Ministers have shown; but I think that, as was clearly shown by Lord Midleton, they have indeed undertaken an impossible task. What was probably in their minds when the Government was formed was to make the reaction from the large Cabinet of twenty-three as prompt and as complete as possible. As will be seen from what I have just quoted, some of us thought at the time that they were overdoing it, and that they were thereby undertaking an impossible task, even though we did not know then how greatly the burden would be increased by the introduction of all the large measures which have sprung into being since.
While agreeing that it was absolutely right—I entirely agree with my noble friend opposite that it was entirely right—to make a radical alteration in the old Cabinet system, and agreeing at the same time with him in greatly regretting the disappearance of the collective responsibility of the Government as a whole—although, I take it, the War Cabinet do admit and claim for themselves collective responsibility among thernselves—and without attempting to make any prophecy as to what the future form of Cabinet government in this country is likely to be, if sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to devise a scheme which will prove to be thoroughly workable and which will at any rate see the war out and give time for the country to consider precisely how it desires to be governed when peace once more comes.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I readily accept the disclaimer of my noble friend Lord Midleton, who opened

263
this debate, that he was not inspired by any feelings of hostility towards the War Cabinet, of which I happen to he the spokesman in this House. I am bound to say that his attitude was not always characterised by any great excess of affection, but, broadly speaking, I accept with gratitude the expressions of sympathy, and sometimes even more than sympathy, that the Government as a whole has received in its labo s from the various noble Lords who have addressed us to-night.
The subject which the noble Viscount has brought before us is eminently one which this House is entitled to explore, and personally I welcome the opportunity which is presented to me of a making a much more sustained explanation and defence of the governing system under which we are living than has at any time been possible during the year and a-half for which the Government has existed. The noble Viscount (Lord Midleton) drew a picture of the Government as he saw it. He described us as half a dozen oligarchs, drunk with autocracy, and swamped with work, at the top, doing important things and unimportant things, and charged—to use the language of the noble Marquess who has just spoken—with an "impossible task." Lord Midleton went on to describe a condition of what he believed to be administrative dislocation and chaos below. He seemed to know everything, or at any rate a great deal, of what goes on inside the Cabinet Chamber, and, generally speaking, in the procedure of Government. From what sources he derived his information I am at a loss to understand. All I can say is—and it will be my object to convince your Lordships—that his information is for the most part quite incorrect. The picture which he presented to us is not a picture but a caricature, and the presentation of the case which I shall endeavor to place before your Lordships will, I hope, leave upon your minds an impression of a Government not only conducting its work in a manner very different from that which has been suggested, but free from many of the blemishes with which the noble Viscount has charged us.
Let me begin by asking, What was the old Cabinet system which the present Government was intended to replace? I do not think I need say much about it, because I have noted with great interest that both the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, and my noble friend Lord
264
Crewe, who speak with a vastly greater experience of the old Cabinet form of Government than I can claim, have both admitted in your Lordships' House that it was obsolete, that it was no longer adapted to the circumstances of the day, that radical alteration was required in it for the purposes of the war, and that, to use my noble friend Lord Lansdowne's phrase, it is idle to think we can ever go back. I entirely agree in these remarks. My own experience of the old Cabinet system was limited to the year and a-half in which I had the honour to serve, with many of my noble friends on both sides of this House, under Mr. Asquith. I certainly formed an impression at the time that that Cabinet was faulty for the purposes of peace and quite impossible in time of war. It was so imperfect for the conduct of the war that, as my noble friends will remember, war work had to be devolved upon smaller bodies. We started with a body called the Dardanelles Committee, because that was the campaign which at the moment was occupying the greater part of the attention of the Government; but as time went on, as the military expeditions to Salonika and Mesopotamia became involved, so did the Dardanelles Committee, without actually losing its name, expand into a War Committee. Its numbers varied, but at one time they reached, if I remember aright, a total of at least ten, if not more.
Then occurred the stage, which my noble friends will remember, when the entire Cabinet, convinced that this was an inadequate and over-cumbrous machine, petitioned the Prime Minister to place the conduct of the war in the hands of a smaller body. The original numbers of that War Cabinet were five. It was afterwards increased to six; then to seven; I am not certain that it was not eight. But my noble friend Lord Lansdowne was quite right in saying that all the while the authority and responsibility of the main Cabinet remained in the background, and it was understood and frequently acted upon that any large issues of policy, certainly anything involving a considerable departure of policy, should come to the Cabinet as a whole before it received executive sanction.
There were, therefore, at that time two Cabinets, subject to the qualification I have made. I have said that I regarded the machinery as imperfect for the purposes

265
of war. Was it effective for the conditions of peace? I would ask noble Lords who are now pleading for two Cabinets to bear in mind their recollection and experience of what happened at that time. I am treating matters as they were. My noble friends will bear me out when I say that meetings of the Cabinet were most irregular; sometimes only once, seldom more than twice, a week. There was no agenda, there was no order of business. Any Minister requiring to bring up a matter either of Departmental or of public importance, had to seek the permission of the Prime Minister to do so. No one else, broadly speaking, was warned in advance. It was difficult for any Minister to secure an interstice in the general discussion in which he could place his own case. No record whatever was kept of our proceedings, except the prix-ate and personal letter written by the Prime Minister to the Sovereign, the contents of which, of course, are never seen by anybody else. The Cabinet often had the very haziest notion as to what its decisions were; and I appeal not only to my own experience but to the experience of every Cabinet Minister who sits in this House, and to the records contained in the memoirs of half-a-dozen Prime Ministers in the past, that cases frequently arose when the matter was left so much in doubt that a Minister went away and acted upon what he thought was a decision which subsequently turned out to be no decision at all, or was repudiated by his colleagues. No one will deny that a system, however embedded in the traditions of the past and consecrated by constitutional custom, which was attended by these defects was a system which was destined, immediately it came into contact with the hard realities of war, to crumble into dust at once.
When Departmental differences arose in those days, how were they settled? Long delays ensued then, just as we are told they do now. Ministers found the utmost difficulty in securing decisions because the Cabinet was always congested with business; and, to make a long story short, I do not think any one will deny that the old Cabinet system had irretrievably broken down, both as a war machine and as a peace machine. This was partly due, no doubt, to the size of the Cabinet, which had swollen to the preposterous number of twenty-three or twenty-four; although I should like to say that the idea of my noble, friend that large Cabinets have only been the evolution of the past quarter of a
266
century of our history is quite mistaken. If you will go back to the Ministry of Lord Grey, which passed the Reform Bill, or the early Ministries of Lord John Russell, Lord Derby, and Lord Palmerston, you will find that in all these cases the number did not fall below sixteen, and the idea that less than half a century ago there were only ten members of the Cabinet is one which finds small justification in the recorded history of those days. The failure of the old Cabinet system was partly due to the excessive numbers, but still more, I think, it was due to the total lack of businesslike procedure on which I have already commented.
Then the present Government was formed, and a number of changes were introduced. I may very briefly tell the House what they were. I am sure your Lordships, in many cases, know what they were as well as I do. There was a substantial reduction in number. The War Cabinet began by Icing five; it afterwards rose to six and seven, and the present number is six. Secondly, the Ministers who were appointed to it were deliberately chosen, because for the most part they were without portfolio; they were, therefore, freed from the general administrative work, and were regarded as more likely to be able to devote their whole energy to the prosecution of the task with which they were charged. It was for this obvious reason that the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs, War, the Colonies, India, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, were not made permanent members of the War Cabinet, though, as is well known, they are always present at any discussion, in which their Department is concerned, and many of them are constantly present at the entire session of the Cabinet from day to day. Thirdly, a new feature was the regularity of meetings. These take place at half-past eleven or twelve o'clock in the morning; indeed there are very often two, and sometimes three, meetings in the day. Your Lordships can well understand that the fact of there being so small a total of Ministers, whose duty it is habitually to remain in London, renders it very easy to summon them by telephone, almost at a moment's notice, and makes it a great deal easier than it would have been in the old days of much larger Cabinet bodies. In fact, the present system is that of a Cabinet in permanent session; I want your Lordships clearly to get that in your minds.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Is my noble friend quite correct in what he has just stated? Does he really maintain that in the past the Secretary of State for War has been at all meetings at which the Chief of the Imperial Staff was present?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON I should not like to pledge myself absolutely to that, but my impression is that on every occasion when war matters have been discussed, matters upon which the Secretary of State for War was entitled to have or desirous to give an opinion, he has been there. If the noble Viscount has instances to the contrary, I hope he will give them to me. Let me give the figures. This Government has been in existence for eighteen months. During that time there have been 525 meetings of the War Cabinet and of the Imperial War Cabinet, which replaces the War Cabinet when it is in existence in this country. In addition, there have been thirty conferences, or meetings, with our Allies, at which the War Cabinet, or the greater part of the War Cabinet have been present. Thus there have been 555 meetings in 474 working days, excluding Sundays. This is exclusive of the meetings of the Committees of the Cabinet, which have frequently supplemented and sometimes taken the place of Cabinet meetings. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne paid a compliment to our labours, and I am sure I am therefore entitled to say without vanity that such a record of administrative activity has never been approached at any other period of our history.
You may ask me how these figures compare with the days that preceded us. I have not been able to obtain figures for the whole of the time, but I find that in the interval (i.e., the space of five months) between July 16, 1916, and December 8, 1916, when the present Government was formed, there were forty-one meet ngs of the then War Committee, eighteen meetings of the Cabinet only, or a total of fifty-nine in 146 days. The present Government came into office in December, and in the interval (again of five months) between December 9, 1916, and May 3, 1917, the War Cabinet meetings were 126, special Cabinet meetings 6, Imperial War Cabinet meetings 14, or a total of 146 meetings in 146 days, including Sundays, or 125 days excluding Sundays. Take another period From September 20, 1917, to February 12,
268
1918, there were 131 meetings in a similar period of 125 working days, excluding Sundays. I have given your Lordships the figures for the whole period during which the present Government has been in power.
I pass, with your permission, to the procedure adopted. And here I hope that what I have to say may dissipate a good deal of what I can only regard as misapprehension. Every morning the day begins by reports on the military, naval, and air situation by the representatives of those Departments. The meeting of the Cabinet is attended by the Secretary of State for War, by the Chief of the General Staff, very often by the Director of Military Intelligence; and there are present, representing the Navy, frequently the First Lord, invariably the First Sea Lord, or a deputy representing him if he is called elsewhere. Frequently in addition other military or naval officers—the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General, the Director of Military Operations—are present, and when we have the good fortune to have in this country the eminent Field-Marshal commanding in France, or other distinguished Commanders from other theatres of war, they also are not infrequently invited to our discussions. That is the first business of the day. It may occupy half an hour or an hour, or it may occupy more. It may conceivably extend over the whole of the sitting of the Cabinet.
Let me say before I pass away from this, that I doubt very much whether there has ever been a war waged by this country in which the military advisers of the Government have had a freer hand in the expression of their views, or in which there has been more deference paid to their opinion. I, of course, have not had much experience myself, at any rate of what has happened at other times, but I can truthfully say that I can hardly imagine a situation or a Government in which a more consistent desire has been not only expressed but acted upon to give due consideration to the views of military advisers and also to accept the advice which they have offered. I doubt if there has ever been a war in which the record of a Government has been cleaner in that respect.
These discussions are followed as a rule by a discussion on the foreign or diplomatic

269
situation, at which the Foreign Secretary is invariably present, frequently accompanied by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary or Minister of Blockade, and sometimes by experts from his Department. I say emphatically that no question in either of these categories, military or naval on the one hand, or diplomat is on the other, has ever been delayed, or if it has been delayed it has not been due to the existence of the Cabinet system or to the manner in which it is worked, but it has been due to the character of the ease itself.
After this we proceed to what may be described as the agenda of the day. Here let me at once brush away the idea that when the present Cabinet was formed there was any thought in our minds, or I believe irk the minds of anybody else, that, we should confine ourselves solely and exclusively to matters connected with the war. We never threw off our shoulders the general responsibility of government. The Ministry were called a War Cabinet because their main function is war, but the idea that they were not held accountable for the administration of the vast number of affairs that ordinarily rest upon the Government of this country never entered into our heads, and certainly could not be deduced from anything that I have said, or I believe that any representative of the Government has said in either House of Parliament. We then come to the agenda of the day. Here we approach all the topics of administrative, or Parliamentary, or domestic concern which come before a Government whether in time of peace or of war. A list is prepared in advance. The subjects are put down upon the list by the Prime Minister or by any member of the War Cabinet who desires to bring a matter up, or at the request of any Minister or Department that is concerned, or at the instance of the Secretary of the War Cabinet. A timetable is fixed for each subject, and the convenience of Ministers, which the noble Viscount seemed to think was dangerously imperilled by their having to sit occasionally in a not uncomfortable seat outside the Cabinet, Chamber, is endeavoured to be served by the arrangement, as I say, of summoning them by telephone a few minutes before their case comes up for discussion.
I ask the question, Is there congestion under this plan? I answer No, emphatically No, and I challenge contradiction. I say that there is not, and I will give you
270
my proof. At the beginning of each week a list is circulated by the Secretary of the War Cabinet of all the subjects, from whatever Department they may emanate, which are ripe for consideration by the Cabinet. During the last three months the weekly average has been thirteen. This list is usually cleared off in the first two or three days of the week. There were only six on the list yesterday, nearly all of which were disposed of this morning. Sometimes a clearance meeting is held at the end of the week in order to rub the slate clean, and Ministers have not infrequently been able to dispense with a sitting on Saturday because there was no business to be done.
I pass to another feature of the present system. I have described the manner in which Ministers are summoned to the Cabinet room. A Minister may bring with him the Departmental experts by whom he is guided and by whose counsel he may wish his opinion to be fortified when he meets the Cabinet. Thus, as I have explained, the Foreign Secretary constantly brings the experts of his Department. The Secretary of State for India, brings with him, if required, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the Permanent Under-Secretary and sometimes the military adviser of his Office. If on any of the topics that, are down for discussion two Ministers disagree, and if the question has not been settled in advance by conference or committees, each Minister of the Department circulates a Paper stating the case. The experts are then heard at the War Cabinet. A discussion takes place, and decision is arrived at. This opening of the doors of the Cabinet room is, of course, an entirely new feature in our system. My noble friends who are scattered about these benches will bear tire out when I say that in olden days the Cabinet was regarded as almost sacrosanct. It was a kind of Star Chamber which sat with closed doors, through which no one was allowed to penetrate, and across whose threshold the shadow of any stranger was only on the rarest occasions allowed to fall. To-day if we are discussing questions affecting labour, shipping, agriculture, or the Irish question, outside authorities are freely admitted. The Cabinet benefits in my judgment from that, because we hear the views of the experts expressed from their own lips, and the experts themselves are grateful for this system because they have

271
a chance of being heard. They hear the discussion in the War Cabinet and they are made acquainted with the decision that is arrived at. In some respects these meetings hear a certain resemblance to the custom with which some of us are familiar in Oriental countries and which is there known as Dubar. I do not speak of a Durbar in its ceremonial application; I am far from suggesting that there is anything ceremonial about our appearance or conduct. I allude to a Durbar in the more common sense familiar to those of my noble friends who have been in Eastern countries—i.e., an open court at which the Sovereign sits in judgment amidst his counsellors. Very often in Eastern courts the ordinary public is admitted. This is a system implanted in the traditions of the East, some features of which we have, I think, not unsuccessfully adopted on the present occasion.
The number of persons not being War Cabinet Ministers who have in this way attended the meetings of the War Cabinet during the past year and a-half has been 381, several of them attending many times. My noble friend Lord Midleton quite unfairly spoke of these as interviews. Really, if you go into a Cabinet room and are one of a body of ten, fifteen, twenty, sometimes thirty people, you do not describe yourself as having an interview with the Prime Minister. That is an abuse of language. These gentlemen attended not for the purposes of an interview with one Minister or another, but in order to have an opportunity of explaining their views to the Cabinet as a whole. Finally, the discussion is reported, and the decision is recorded by a staff of very able secretaries. I was glad, by the way, to hear a compliment paid by one noble Lord to Sir Maurice Hankey, the Secretary of the War Cabinet. That distinguished officer, by his ability, his industry, his knowledge of affairs, and his unfailing tact, has really been far more responsible than any other individual for what I claim to be the successful working of the system, and when history is written he will deserve his own niche in the temple which records the builders of our national Constitution. These reports of the proceedings are circulated in type the same evening for the consideration of the Ministers who have been present. They are submitted for their correction, and a day or two later they appear in print for record. And how valuable that record may be, how indispensable in some cases it has been shown to
272
be, may be illustrated by the case that arose over what was known as the Maurice letter in the newspapers a short time ago, in which, if it had not been for the existence of such a record as I have described, it would have been impossible to make the case that was made in the other House of Parliament.
I turn to another aspect of our work, and I think, from the point of view of this debate, that this is the aspect to which your Lordships will attach the most importance. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne spoke in general terms about the process of devolution and delegation that is always going on in Cabinet government, and which I think he was anxious to see developed in the working of the present system. Delegation has been a part, I believe, of the system of every Cabinet that has ever existed in this country, certainly during the last century, but it has been developed to an enormous degree under the system which I am now describing. There are two classes of questions which are thus treated. There are some questions which affect a single Department lady, but which requite Cabinet authority. Then there is the vastly larger range of questions overlapping the spheres of many Departments, perhaps affecting eight or ten or even a dozen Departments. If these raise questions of high policy they are brought to the War Cabinet, argued, and decided there. If not, we have to provide for their examination, discussion, decision outside.
Now let me explain to your Lordships how this is done. There are three methods by which this aspect of the problem is sought to be met. First, there is a delegation of questions with over of decision, or, if decision is difficult, then for reference hack, to one or two Ministers. Every one of us who is in the War Cabinet has had such questions assigned to him for decision, either alone or in conjunction with one of his colleagues. This, of course, relates to matters of administration with whirl] it is not necessary to trouble the War Cabinet—the kind of things with which the noble Viscount seems to think that we are saddled day by day. These matters are dealt with promptly. I think successfully. Very often the question is referred to a Minister at a Cabinet in the morning, he meets the Ministers concerned in the afternoon, and the thing is settled before nightfall; and this system is one which I

273
believe to be extremely popular with the Departments themselves.
The second method is that of what I may describe as ad hoc Committees—Committees formed for the examination and solution of particular classes of questions, questions which are constantly coming up and which fall more or less into a single group or under a single heading. There have been ninety-two of those Committees during the last year and a-half, and they have been attended, of course, not by War Cabinet Ministers only, but by other Ministers and other persons as well. The kind of questions that have been referred to these ad ho Committees have been such questions as shipping, imports, labour, liquor, man-power, food production, registration, agricultural policy, Army and Navy pay. These Committees have sat once, or twice, or thrice, as the occasion demanded; the matter has been fully examined, the decision has been reported to the Cabinet; and, unless a serious division of opinion arose, it has been confirmed by them.
I pass to the third method. Out of those two methods that I have described the Committees consisting of individual Ministers and the ad hoc Committees has gradually been evolved, by an organic process, the existence of a number of permanent Committees which are in constant and regular session. I will give an illustration of what these Committees are. It became customary in the middle days of our existence to refer questions of priority for manufacture, labour, and materials between the various Departments to one of our number, General Smuts. Out of this has arisen the War Priorities Committee, to which my noble friend Lord Midleton referred. And as regards the case to which he alluded of some conflagration at a school in which he was interested, I really do not know what the bearing of his remarks was. That was obviously a question which had nothing to do with the War Cabinet; it could not conceivably come before us. It was a question which the War Priorities Committee was constituted to deal with; and, if my noble friend had placed himself in touch with that Committee, he would have been spared making that portion of his speech this afternoon.
I will proceed with my illustrations. Before the Air Ministry was constructed there was an Air Policy Committee, which was also under the control of General
274
Sm ts. That Committee became unnecessary as soon as we had a full blown Air Ministry with the full powers which were eonferred upon it by the Act which your Lordships helped to pass into law a little while ago. Then there is an Economic Defence Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Chamberlain, which has taken over the work of two or more Committees between which it, was divided at an early stage. Fourthly, there is a Standing Committee on Eastern Affairs dealing with the multifarious problems, increasing in significance and in moment, day by day and week by week, that arise between the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean and the frontiers of India—Palestine, the Caucasus, Mesopotamia, Persia, Central Asia, and so on. Of that Committee the Foreign Secretary and the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office are members; so are the, Secretary of State for India and experts in his Department, the Chief of the General Staff, the Director of Military Intelligence, General Smuts, and myself as chairman.
To this list there has recently been added the Committee about which so many questions have been addressed to us this afternoon namely, a Committee on Home Affairs. In the absence of the Home Secretary the Committee has not vet met, but it is to consist of the principal Home Ministers—the Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, and many others; need not give the exhaustive list this evening. The Committee will meet, under the presidency of the Home Secretary, at least once a week, and all domestic questions will be referred to it that require the co-operation of more than one Department and that call for Cabinet decision. I ought to say, in passing, that on all of these Committees to which I have referred—these Standing Committees—the Treasury is represented, if it desires so to be; and your Lordships can easily imagine that in most cases financial interests have to be looked after by the presence of a representative of that Department.
My noble friend Lord Lansdowne asked me, What exactly are to be the functions and powers of this Committee? They really are on the same footing as the other Committees to which I have referred. This Committee, like them, will have the power of deciding on behalf of the Cabinet at the discretion of the chairman, but, as in the ease of the other Committees, larger

275
questions of policy will be referred at his discretion to the War Cabinet. I think that this Committee may be a valuable addition to our system. It is the latest—perhaps it may not be the last development of a system which I have been arguing to your Lordships has been well tried and is now soundly established in experience; and all the way through my remarks this afternoon I hope I do not give your Lordships the idea that I am claiming for one moment that a final step has been reached in our organisation or re-organisation. Our system is essentially a fluid system. We are building up our own experience from day to day; and just as we have added the Committee to which I have referred, so it may be necessary to add other Committees or to alter the constitution or powers of Committees in the future.
One noble Lord asked a question about the co-ordination between these Committees and the War Cabinet—what is the liaison., or touch, between the two parties. Well, the co-ordination is secured by the fact that the chairman is either a member of the War Cabinet or else a person who has access to the whole of the Cabinet proceedings; by the fact that the secretaries of these Committees are in all cases selected from among the Assistant Secretaries of the War Cabinet; by keeping the records, first in type and then in print, in the same form as the records of the Cabinet; and, finally, by the circulation to the members of the War Cabinet of the proceedings of these various Committees, whether they are Standing Committees or the ad hoc Committees to which I referred as having existed in an earlier stage. I have now endeavoured to describe the system of Committees with which we are working.
Then there are two other forms of consultation to which recourse is frequently made. One is conferences, presided over by the Prime Minister, with important bodies or interests concerned with matters that are likely to come up for decision. I will take the ease of Ireland. My noble friend Lord Midleton has himself attended on many occasions at these conferences. They are outside the ordinary Cabinet system, but they are an invaluable and indispensable method of acquainting the Prime Minister, who is usually attended by several of his colleagues, with the views that are desired to be brought before him by important sections of public opinion.
Finally—and this is an answer to a question put by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne—what he called the plenum of the Cabinet (that is, a meeting of all the Ministers), is from time to time summoned to deal with matters on which they are all entitled to be heard. I will give two illustrations of that. The first was the question of the franchise—the Representation of the People Bill. The second has been at more than one stage the question of Ireland, obviously a question which the War Cabinet would not like to decide without knowing what, all their colleagues think; and on those occasions it is always open to the Prime Minister—and he has more than once acted on the opening—to summon the entire body of Ministers.
I said just now that I was ignorant of the congestion which people seemed to think exists; and the only hint of any congestion that I have had in the speeches to which I have listened this evening was a reference by the noble Viscount to the Ministry of Health. It is true that the question of founding a Ministry of Health is not solved, but its postponement has not been due to any congestion of work in the Cabinet; it has not been due to the numbers of the Cabinet, be they too small or the reverse. It has been due simply to the fact that this is a question which raises the most acute and deep-seated differences between the various Departments concerned. It is a question which would equally take time whether you had a Cabinet of six or sixty; whether von had a War Cabinet or a Peace Cabinet. The question of Ireland, of course, is another matter of the same type. Those are questions which necessarily can be dealt with only by repeated consultation, conference, and the like, and the slow treatment of which it is really unfair to charge to the particular Cabinet system which I am concerned in explaining.
I come now, my Lords, to the suggestion of my noble friend. He advocates—and he has been followed to some extent, although not quite, I think, to the full extent, by the two noble Marquesses, Lord Lansdowne and Lord Crewe—he advocates the setting up of two Cabinets side by side, one to deal with the war alone and the other to deal with domestic questions. I personally, from such experience as I have had during the last year and a-half, believe that to be an utterly impossible solution. I will tell your Lordships why. In the first place, it is simply out of the question to draw a line

277
of division, of demarcation, between what are domestic questions and what are war questions. Nine-tenths of the questions which are commonly called domestic, which would be domestic in peace time, are war questions now, or tend to become war questions as you proceed with their discussion. I will take as illustrations agricultural policy, food production, shipping, man-power, labour—all those questions which fall, I understand, under the noble Viscount's scheme, to his Domestic Cabinet. They are all of them war questions. Not a week would pass before the Domestic Cabinet would have to send them up to the War Cabinet in order that they might be looked at from the point of view of the war. I will take one little illustration which the noble Viscount gave. He laughed at the War Cabinet because it had to give a decision on the question of racing. Is it laughable? Not a bit. The question of racing—I see Lord Chaplin eagerly awaiting what I am about to say—could not be decided by considerations of sentiment or of expediency alone; it had to be decided in its reference to the war; it had to be decided upon the advice of the Army Council; and small, trivial if you like, as that question is, certain as nine men out of ten would be to include it in the list of domestic topics, that was a war question, and it had to be decided by war considerations. I ask your Lordships to believe that the war absorbs everything into its mesh to a degree that you could hardly imagine.
Let me now give au illustration which will appeal to some of my noble friends opposite, because it relates to the Coalition Government of which they, along with myself, were members. I allude for a moment to the Dardanelles Committee of which I spoke a little while ago. I have already described the process by which the Dardanelles Committee gradually expanded into a War Committee. As such it had to take notice of shipping. Why? Because the tonnage was required for the transport of troops and of supplies. But then arose a question of food imports, because shipping was also required to meet the ordinary needs of the civil population of this country. As soon as you had to deal with that von became involved in the question of food production in this country to take the place of imports which you were restricting from abroad. But food production cannot be successfully pursued in this country unless you have mechanical
278
appliances—tractors and ploughs When you get to that stage the Minister of Munitions appears upon the scene. He has complete control of steel, and he says "I want a decision of the War Cabinet as to whether I am to find steel for ploughs or aircraft or shells." Thus you see that a war question may presently slide off into what is a domestic question and then back it comes as a war question, and has to appear before the body which has the management of the war.
The second reply which I make to my noble friend's suggestion is this, that the present system. so far as my own experience goes, works smoothly, and if you bad two Cabinets existing at the same time side by side and I think this was seen by the. Leader of the Opposition—I am pretty certain you would soon develop a good deal of jealousy, friction, and misunderstanding between the two, instead of the on the whole most harmonious working of the system which we have now. I find a third objection in my recollection of the Cabinet system with which many of us are familiar. It is this, that Ministers in the various Departments are hard worked, not only those in the War Cabinet alone, and I am afraid we should take a good deal of their time, as we did in the days of the, old Cabinet to which I have alluded, if Departmental Ministers were required to be in constant session in the second Cabinet, listening to the proposals of others and always with the prospect in the background that the moment a question touched the war it might have to go to the War Cabinet sitting independently.
I come to what is, after all, the crowning objection to a Domestic Cabinet sitting side by side and independently of a War Cabinet. How can you have a Cabinet dealing with all these affairs on which the Prime Minister and the Leaders of the two Houses of Parliament are not to sit? The noble Marquess solves that difficulty by saving that he would have the Prime Minister on both, as President of both. I would like him to consult the present Prime Minister as to his views upon that suggestion. You are complaining that the present War Cabinet is overburdened, and now it is proposed that the principal executive laver of the country should have placed upon him the duty of presiding over, not one, hut two Cabin ts.
Then the noble Viscount deals with the case in another way. He says that he

279
would not have the Leaders of the two Houses of Parliament upon the War Cabinet, but only upon the Domestic Cabinet, and then he proceeded, as illustration of his thesis, in terms of great sympathy with myself, to describe the labours with which I have been oppressed during the last year and a-half. My Lords, I have a somewhat retentive memory, and I remember the noble Viscount getting up at my side on that Bench and making precisely the same speech and with a similar and equally long list of subjects directed at the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who then sat here. He gave a list of fifteen or twenty, or perhaps thirty, subjects with which the noble Marquess had dealt, with I am certain much more success and ability than I have done, and he described it as an instance of the defects of the system of that day. So it has nothing to do with War Cabinets, but is the result of the abnormal curiosity of noble Lords opposite.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Exactly the opposite. The reason I protested was one in which the noble Earl sympathised with me very much—namely, that in the time of the noble Marquess the Government took away all the Under-Secretaries from this House and left the whole weight upon the Leader of the House.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not accept that explanation, because the noble Viscount was pointing to the burdens with which I was charged, and I remember his making the same complaint and extending the same sympathy to my noble friend opposite. Therefore it is clear that it arises from the manner of doing business in this House, and has nothing whatever to do with the present war system. Again, imagine a War Cabinet from which the Leaders of the two Houses were excluded. I wonder how your Lordships would view that situation. Just now the noble Marquess drew attention to the position of the Lord Privy Seal, who is sometimes called upon to speak in this House without full knowledge of all that goes on inside the Cabinet. Imagine the situation in the future with two Cabinets and with the Leader of this House not a member of the War Cabinet, and your Lordships charged to the brim with curiosity and wanting to know what was going on, and having me as a kind of pale Lord Privy Seal standing up and confessing that I did not know.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The Secretary of State for War would reply for the War Office, as he ought to do.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: There are a good many matters connected with the war that do not touch the War Office at all. Let me ask the noble Viscount whether he has really thought this out. Let me take the case of Home Rule for Ireland, Indian Reform, and Representation of the people. Those are great domestic problems, and I suppose they would be dealt with by a Domestic Cabinet. Does the noble Viscount really mean that large problems of that character are to be dealt with, discussed, and settled by a body of which it would be absolutely impossible for the Prime Minister to be a member? They are not only questions of domestic importance but of Imperial and of war importance. Do your Lordships think that in dealing with Ireland the Govern went have not had to look at the question from the point of view of the war, of recruiting, and of the military situation in general We sent Field-Marshal Lord French to Ireland because he was thoroughy competent to deal with the military situation. Then take the question of the reform of Indian Government. That is not only an Imperial question but it, is a war question. There is the point of the contribution of India to the war. The moment you try to discriminate between war and domestic questions you break down irretrievably.
I believe that the idea put forward by the noble. Viscount is chimerical, and I would like to submit to your Lordships that true reform, if reform is required, does not lie in that direction. It does not lie in creating two bodies of co-ordinate powers. It does lie in an extension of the system of devolution and delegation which I have endeavoured to describe to your Lordships tonight. The noble Viscount said, in one I portion of his speech, that there was discontent in the Departments, and that the changes he proposed would be welcomed by the Civil Service. Is he sure of that? Has he consulted the heads of Departments? How is be entitled to speak for the Civil Service? I believe my noble friend Lord Haldane, who has just left, has been sitting as the chairman of a Committee which has been taking the views of the heads of the Departments in the Civil Service, and I am told—I am sorry he is not here to correct me if I am wrong—

281
that they have almost unanimously pronounced in favour of the present system.
I think it would be open to me to say—though I do not want to lay stress upon this—that the system which I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordships to-night does find its vindication in the record of the past year. If we look at our Parliamentary output alone, there are the questions which have been named by several of your Lordships this evening. We have in this year of war placed upon the Statute Book a great Act for the Representation of the People, by far the greatest measure of Parliamentary reform ever carried in this country, which has doubled the electorate and has recast our whole electoral system. We have created Ministers for National Service, for the Air, for Reconstruction, and for Labour. We passed, not without prolonged anal fruitful discussions in your Lordships' House, the Corn Production Bill. The restriction of imports, to which I just now alluded, which has been on a scale that perhaps is not everywhere apprehended, has been pursued with very little dislocation of the life of the country as a whole. Food control, once looked upon with so much apprehension, has been achieved under the administration of my noble friend Lord Rhondda and Mr. Clynes, I think your Lordships will agree, with the minimum of friction, or of privation, or of general discontent. Take food production, matter with which your Lordships are most intimately acquainted and concerned. During the last eighteen months there have been added four million acres to cultivation in the United Kingdom. Thus, the process which has been going on for the last half century has not only been arrested but reversed, and there has been accomplished in a single year what no one would have dreamed before could he achieved in twenty or thirty years. Then there is the handling of the shipping problem by the Minister of Shipping. I am far from contending that our shipbuilding programme has been equal to our anticipations; but, my Lords, it is two or three times now in 1918 what it was in 1916, and this notwithstanding that 1 000.000 men have been taken out of the labour pool. As I said, I have no desire to attempt to blow any trumpet, but I do say this—that this record of achievement which I have endeavoured to summarise to-night, administrative and legislative achievement, could not have been accom-
282
plished if the Cabinet system had broken down in the irretrievable way which the noble Viscount asks your Lordships to believe. On the contrary, so far from breaking down, I assure your Lordships that at this moment there is less pressure—in June, 1918—under the War Cabinet than there was in tin corresponding period of June. 1917.
One sentence only before I sit down. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in his remarks about the old Cabinet system, indicated his view that; much of it would never reappear, and that from the new system whether it be, broadly speaking, good or bad—in his opinion certain valuable experiences and precedents may be found for the future. I believe myself that it is profoundly true, and, whether our system survives or not in anything like the present form, I believe it will bequeath to future Governments and future Cabinets these features. I think you will find that Cabinets in the future will all he subject to a great reduction of numbers from the old and over-swollen total to which reference has been made. I do not think we shall ever have a Cabinet of twenty-two fn. twenty-three Ministers again. Secondly, I think the premium of other Ministers than Cabinet Ministers at the discussions will also become an inevitable feature of future Cabinet procedure. Thirdly, the preparation of an agenda in order that we may know in advance what we are going to discuss is an inevitable and essential feature of business-like procedure in any assembly in the world. Fourthly, I doubt whether it will he possible to dispense with the assistance of a secretary in future. Fifthly, I think that a record and minutes of the proceedings will have to be kept; and, lastly, I hope for a very considerable development of the system of devolution and decentralisation of Government work which I have described. In all these respects, my Lords, I think that the Government have male a substantial advance, and whether our work be good or be bad, I think I have shown that it is not subject to some of the censures which have been placed upon it; and my own opinion is that when the war is over and the history of this time is written, it may be found that we have left a not inconsiderable mark upon the constitutional development of this country.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I know that my noble friend the

283
Leader of the House has to go. He will allow me to say that we do not desire for a moment to deny to the Government a great deal of credit for what they have done during these last few years. We bear witness, have borne witness, both to their industry and their success, but I confess I wish that I could be as satisfied with everything that I do as my noble friend is satisfied with everything that he and his Government do. He appears to think that no criticisms have been levelled against the Government, and that the system which prevails now is universally admitted, by all those who know from the aside what goes on, as being almost perfect. Let me assure my noble friend that be is labouring limier a complete misapprehension. It is not the ase that everybody is satisfied with the system as we see it, and I think, if he will take the trouble to make some inquiry in the Departments of the Government of which he is one of the most distinguished members, he will find that the system of the War Cabinet as it at present exists is not considered as at all perfect or as making for the rapid transaction of business. My noble friend was very proud of the system—
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess, but I have an important Cabinet meeting relating to the business of to-morrow, and I regret most deeply that I cannot be here to hear his remarks. I wonder if he will kindly excuse me. There is a meeting of the Cabinet which I am really bound to attend.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite understand, and your Lordships will understand, the reason for my noble friend going away. It is always a loss to your Lordships when the Leader of the House is not here. I do not think this is a bad illustration of the overwork which falls upon the Government under its present system, but I must be allowed to say a few words in reference to the speech of my noble friend. If he is not here to hear them, that is my loss and the loss of your Lordships.
My noble friend made a great deal of the excellence of the system under which the War Cabinet is mainly manned by Ministers without portfolio. I think it is a very good illustration of the erroneous view from which my noble friend contemplates the subject. His idea of an ideal Cabinet is a number of gentlemen who are not engaged
284
in Departmental work, who sit as judges before whom the various Ministers, or others interested, are called in to plead and to hear decisions by them. That I believe to be a thoroughly bad system. What you want is not to be governed by people who acquire the information they ask for at the moment, but by people who have constant experience in the administration of affairs. Those are, and can only be, the Departmental Ministers who are soaked in the work of their Departments. It is not a question of hearing in ten minutes or a quarter of an hour a case put forward by one man, and the contrary case put forward by another man, and then deciding between them. That is not the method which has prevailed in this country, and which ought to prevail. Our system has been that the Ministers who are actually engaged in the conduct of affairs, who have at their command the best talent on any particular subject that, the world can provide, who live, and move, and have their being every day in the transaction of a particular subject, should meet together and come to a decision. It is that very point of view of my noble friend which seems to me to mark the difference between him and ourselves as to what is the proper method of government.
The noble Earl says that it is all very perfect, and that the system has worked admirably. I am not sure that it would have been right for any of us to have said so much as to what the system of the Cabinet is if the noble Earl had not gone into it in such detail; but as he has done so I think I ought to add my little crumb, and a small crumb it is, to the general information. I have had the honour of being summoned before the Cabinet on more than one occasion I think on three occasions in all. I am bound to say that it did not make upon me that impression of admirable businesslike arrangements which my noble friend describes. On the contrary, it seems a very unsatisfactory system as I saw it in those fragmentary moments. You cannot carry on government, by a system of occasional interviews. You want the continued presence of those who are actually engaged in the work. A question is not to be decided on one day and never referred to again. The subject comes up constantly, and the Minister ought to be there constantly. I share the feeling of absolute astonishment of the noble Viscount that during all these months and years, in the middle of the greatest war

285
that has ever been known, the Secretary of State for War has not been a member of the War Cabinet. That, by itself, is an illustration of the weak es of the system.
My noble friend was very anxious to prove how very hard the Government worked. No one doubts it. He dwelt upon the heaviness of the labours which they have to transact, the enormous number of meetings of the Cabinet, and the number of Committees which were appointed. He deluged us with statistic s on the subject, My Lords, that is our case. it is because the Government have so much to do that these other domestic and non-war subjects ought not to be added. Every word of my noble friend in that part of his speech was the proof of my noble friend's case. We do not accuse the Government of idleness. On the contrary. We accuse them of trying to undertake more than mortal men should undertake. The work is stupendous. The Government have been accused of acting without the full consent, in certain particulars, of their military advisers. That may be true or it may be untrue, but undoubtedly the Government, and my noble friend in particular, have claimed the right and the duty of the civilian Ministers to undertake all the main decisions of the war, as the phrase is, "to run the war." For civilians that is a tremendous task. Yet these civilians think themselves competent, not only to run the war and in some respects to supersede their military advisers, but also to transact the whole business of government as well. Is it possible that in such circumstances the country can get the best decisions? What we want is to give time for our Ministers to think. When I had the honour of being in office, even in times of peace, I know the great difficulty there was to find time in order to think out the subjects with which one had to deal. The pressure of official business was so great, the reading of papers was so voluminous, that time for this essential purpose was difficult to obtain.
A NOBLE LORD: The noble Earl did not deny the three hours a day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend reminds me that Lord Midleton said the more reading of the war papers took three hours a day, and the noble Earl the Leader of the House never contradicted it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: He never admitted it, as he did not refer to it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I ton not surprised at all that it takes three hours each day to read the necessary memoranda in order to carry on a war like this. I do not believe the Government have time to think our the great decisions they make. Has it ever struck your Lordships as very surprising why members of the Government make from time to time speeches of a very optimistic character, which generally have it very unfortunate effect. What is the reason? It is because they have no time to think. Speeches in war time, with great issues depending upon them, require great discretion, and discretion can only be achieved with great care. If you have no time to think it is better to make optimistic speeches, because it is quite easy to make a speech which, I will not say is incorrect, but which at any rate will do no harm in the shape of giving away secrets, but which does do harm in the fact that it misleads the public and destroys the confidence of the public in the Government and in the information they get from the Government.
I do not intend to detain your Lordships long bur I should like to turn for a moment to the actual issue which is brought before us in the Question of my noble friend. I do not doubt that the proper method of government is that the Ministers responsible should meet together and consult. That seems to be an elementary principle. That is all that a Cabinet is. The Ministers responsible for the government of the country should meet together and consult. There appears to be no machinery under the present system for any Ministers to meet together, except the War Cabinet itself. There may be one of those Committees which my noble friend described, but that is more or less of a chance meeting. There is no actual machinery provided under which the Ministers whose functions overlap and interlock shall meet together to consult. My noble friend Lord Midleton says that you ought to have a Domestic Cabinet. The War Cabinet, as is conceded on all hands, has no time to do all the business; let there be a Domestic Cabinet The Leader of the House says that this is impossible, but I observe that he told us that there is going to be a Domestic Committee. I need no say that I do not. Care, nor do I suppose any of your Lordships care, by what name the particular body is

287
going to be called. You may call it a Domestic Cabinet, or you may call it a Domestic Committee; that will not make any difference. The only question is whether this Domestic Committee is going to do all the things which my noble friend Lord Midleton hopes and believes would be achieved by a Domestic Cabinet.
The Leader of the House said that it was quite impossible to divide off those subjects which are not of direct importance to the war; it was impossible, that is to say, to determine the frontiers of the business which should belong to the War Cabinet, and those of the business which should belong to the Domestic Cabinet. If he could not do it with regard to the Cabinet, at any rate it appears that he can do it in regard to this Domestic Committee; and if it is possible in the one case why should it not be possible in the other? It is quite clear that if this Domestic Committee is to be of use there will have to be a separation of power—if I may use a well-known phrase in another connection—between the Domestic and the War Cabinet. This separation of power is sought to be achieved by the Domestic Committee. The only weakness which, it appeared to me, lies in the proposal as made by the Leader of the House is that there does not appear to be any proper touch kept between the Domestic Committee and the War Cabinet. There is to be no one in the Domestic Committee who knows from immediate personal experience what the attitude of the War Cabinet is. The Home Secretary, though a very distinguished statesman, is not a member of the War Cabinet, and he will only know second-hand what the views of the Cabinet are.
I confess I should have thought that the president or chairman of the Domestic Committee, or Cabinet, or whatever you choose to call it, ought to be a member of the War Cabinet. Thus you would have an effective liaison between the two and it would be perfectly possible for the Domestic Committee or Domestic Cabinet to conduct its business and come to its decisions in strict conformity with the necessities of the war and the exigencies of the situation as they are laid down by the War Cabinet.
288
That appears to me a weak point, but it is a detail. The principle seems to be conceded. I can only hope, therefore, that in practice a large measure of confidence will be extended to this Domestic Committee by the Cabinet, and that the necessary relief from this heavy burden to which so many of your Lordships have called attention will be carried into effect.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Curzon should have thought that in the action we have taken to-night we have been actuated by any hostility to the Government. That is not the case. We are all here to do our best to carry the war to a successful conclusion, and notably to bring what wisdom we possess to bear upon framing the best system under which that can be achieved. It is more important than anything else that the War Cabinet should do its work properly, and we do not believe—and nothing that we have heard to-night has altered our Opinion—that under the present system, with its enormous burden of unnecessary work thrown upon their shoulders, the best value is got out of the War Cabinet, and the best manner of carrying on the war secured.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[Front Minutes of Jane 18.]
LAND DRAINAGE (WOOD WALTON) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNNIENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
SCARISBRICK ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
  CALTHORPE ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.

LONDONDERRY CORPORATION BILL.
Several Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.