Sitting of 27 June 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Aldershot Gas, Water, and District Lighting Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London United Tramways Bill,
To be read the third time upon Monday next.
Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board Bill [Lords],
Railway Passengers Assurance Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill,
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
Copy presented of Ninety-sixth Report of the Commissioners, dated 26th June, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 81.]
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 961 (Mauritius, Report for 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS.
Copy presented of Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the financial year 1917–18, ended 31st March, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 82.]

MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Order amending Gooseberries (Sales) (England and Wales) Order, 1918; Raw Beef and Raw Mutton Fat (Licensing of Purchases) Order; Home Melt Tallows and Greases (Requisition) Order, 1918; Cheese (Distribution) Order, 1918; Live Stock (Sales) Order, 1918, General Licence; and Canned Salmon (Returns) Order [by Command; to lie upon the Table.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1. County Court (Rules).—Copy of County Court Rules, 1918 (No. 2), dated 18th June, 1918, and County Court Rules, dated 18th June, 1918, as to Appeals from Registration [Officers under the Representation] of the People Act, 1918, with Explanatory Memorandum [by Act];

2. Supreme Court (Rules).—Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court, 1918, dated 26th June, 1918, as to Procedure, and Draft Rules of the Supreme Court, 1918 (No. 2) [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    CHINA.

      ENEMY SUBJECTS (SHAMEEN).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the feeling in Hong Kong on the subject of the retention of Germans in the British concession on the Island of Shameen; and whether, considering that His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires in China sanctioned the proposal of the Consul-General to allow these Germans to remain on Shameen on his own initiative without any orders from the Foreign Office, he will now direct His Majesty's Minister in China, who has since returned to his post, to inform these Germans that they can no longer remain in the British Concession, and direct them to remove elsewhere?
      The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.

      1195
      His Majesty's Government do not, in existing circumstances, propose to take the action suggested in the second part of the hon. Member's question, as they consider that the Germans who have been allowed to remain in the British Concession on the Island of Shameen under the supervision of the British municipal police, and subject to the observance of the strict conditions imposed on them by His Majesty's Consul-General, will have less opportunities for making mischief or for engaging in plots and intrigues against His Majesty's Government and their Allies than they would if they were turned out of the Concession and allowed to remain at large in Canton or elsewhere in the interior.
      Colonel YATE: Can the Noble Lord give us any ground for that opinion of his? Most people think exactly opposite.
      Lord R. CECIL: I cannot give any ground except that which appears on the surface of the answer, that a German under supervision is less harmful than a German who is not.
      Colonel YATE: Does the Noble Lord realise how much depends on supervision, and that when you have all these Germans celebrating the "Lusitania" and other things in the British Concession to the annoyance of other inhabitants there, the latter do not like it?

    RUSSIA.

      ALLIED INTERVENTION.
      Major CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has on behalf of the Allies approached President Wilson with the suggestion that he should inquire of those in Russia who, in his opinion, best represent public opinion there whether they would welcome American intervention viâ the East, with the aid of such of the forces of the Allies as were immediately available, in order to save Russia from German invasion, domination, and exploitation?
      Lord R. CECIL: Discussions are constantly in progress between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, as well as the other Allied Governments with the objects referred to in the last part of the hon. Member's
      1196
      question. His suggestion will be noted, but it will no doubt be understood that I am unable to make any definite statement at present.
      Major CHAPPLE: Is there any way by which this subject can be discussed in order to impress on the Government the necessity for immediate action in this matter?
      Lord R. CECIL: I should think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is as good a judge as I am of how best to discuss the subject.

    BOMBING OF ENEMY TOWNS (COLOGNE).
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the decision of the British Government to refrain from bombarding Cologne on Corpus Christi Day was communicated by the German Government to the German people through the Press or in any other way; and whether he can say that the concession was taken advantage of by the German military authorities for the movement of troops or supplies within the privileged area?
    Lord R. CECIL: I cannot say what action the German Government may have taken with regard to the publication of His Majesty's Government's decision in this matter. The second part of the question should be addressed to the War Office.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is the Noble Lord aware that in consequence of this a number of German squadrons were released to take part in an offensive against the British, and in these circumstances will he recommend to the Government that it shall not occur again?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for the War Office.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Referring to the first part of the reply, has the Noble Lord's attention been drawn to the statements in the German papers that Corpus Christi Day is held on a different day in Germany to that in France, and that no bombardment of Paris took place on the Sunday when the celebration was held in France; and, therefore, does it not follow that the whole question has been under discussion in Germany?

    COTTON IMPORTS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before the removal of the embargo on the import of cotton into Switzerland, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Air Board were consulted in the matter; and, if so, will he state whether they did or did not favour the removal of the embargo?
    Lord R. CECIL: Representatives of the Admiralty and War Office took part in the negotiations leading to the removal of the embargo. Beyond this the offices named were not formally consulted. I have received no intimation from them on the subject.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question: Did they or did they not favour the removal of the embargo?
    Lord R. CECIL: I cannot answer it beyond what I have said. There were representatives of these two offices concerned in the negotiations, and I have received no information from them on the subject.

    IRELAND.

      CIVIL SERVANTS.
      Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the arrest recently of two men as well-known leaders of the Irish Republican movement in the district of Nenagh who were employed in the county surveyor's office in that town; and will he say what steps he is taking to ensure that no Irish Civil servants who are paid out of Imperial funds are active and avowed supporters of the revolutionary movement in Ireland?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Samuels): I have seen reports as to the arrests of the persons referred to; they are employés in the county surveyor's office, and are not Civil servants. Proceedings have been taken against them. With regard to the latter part of the question of the hon. and gallant Member, a Civil servant who was an active and avowed supporter of the revolutionary movement in Ireland would not be retained in the public service.
      Major NEWMAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether a single Irish
      1198
      Civil servant has been dismissed his position because he is an avowed revolutionary? Can I have an answer?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give notice? It is obviously a question which the Attorney-General cannot possibly answer without notice. It requires immense research.

      CANTEEN BOARD.
      Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will inquire into the antecedents and connections of the chief inspector of the Navy and Army Canteen Board in the South of Ireland; are the near relatives of this official known to the Irish Government as leaders in Cork of the Irish Republican movement; has this man free access to every camp and fortress in Ireland; and will be ascertain if he has filled the canteens with young men of military age and revolutionary activities?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Careful inquiry has already been made, and it was found that there was no justification for the suggestion contained in the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question.
      Major NEWMAN: Is it a fact that this man has access to every camp of importance in Ireland?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe that within his own territorial jurisdiction he has access, but the inquiries made have shown that he is a most honourable and patriotic official.
      Sir E. CARSON: Is the last part of the question true—that he has filled the canteen with young men of military age?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No; that is expressly denied.
      Colonel McCALMONT: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a case of a man of military age, and believed to be of revolutionary tendencies, and who is in charge of a canteen, will he look into it, and take the necessary steps?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I will look into any particular case the hon. and gallant Gentleman brings before me, but the question is whether this man has filled the canteen with men of military age.
      Major NEWMAN: Have any representations been received from the competent military authority about this man?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe so. It is the military authorities who have made the inquiry.

      CHAPLAINS (SALARIES).
      Colonel Sir JAMES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state the reason why the Local Government Board for Ireland forwarded a recommendation to the Lisburn Board of Guardians suggesting that the salaries of the chaplains ought to be reduced; and whether he is aware that Sunday services entail precisely the same amount of labour be the congregation large or small, that their week-day work is in no way diminished, that they are dependent on fixed salaries, and that the cost of living has greatly increased owing to the War?
      Mr. SAMUELS: The healthy inmates of the Lisburn. Workhouse have been transferred to Lurgan Union, and the Lisburn guardians proposed to dispense with the services of the chaplains. The Local Government Board would not consent to this proposal, and they suggested reductions in the salaries of the chaplains who objected. A conference between the chaplains, a committee of the guardians, and an inspector of the Local Government Board, with a view to effecting a settlement of the matter, is under consideration.

      ALIENS (ANTRIM COAST).
      Colonel McCALMONTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that certain aliens of enemy origin are stall permitted to reside on the coast of county Antrim; and whether he will say upon what date the naval and military authorities were last consulted as to the desirability of the removal of these people to more suitable areas?
      Mr. SAMUELS: A few aliens of enemy origin are allowed to reside on the coast of county Antrim. Consultations have recently taken place as to the question of withdrawing residential permits from alien enemies. I cannot give the precise dates.
      Colonel McCALMONT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state definitely that the
      1200
      presence of these particular aliens has been brought to the notice of the naval and military authorities; and, if not, why?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I have no further information at present that I can give in reply.
      Colonel McCALMONT: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is the third question I have put on this subject?
      Sir E. CARSON: Why are aliens of enemy origin permitted to reside on the coast? That is a question very much exercising the public.
      Sir J. CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman give permission to the Ulster people themselves to turn out these aliens?
      Mr. SAMUELS: Consultations have been taking place about the matter.

      Question POSTPONED.
      Mr. McKEANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that at a place called Carrigartha, near Castleblayney, in the county of Monaghan, a civilian, by name Patrick Duffy, died as a result of gunshot and bayonet wounds inflicted in the early morning of the 4th instant by two soldiers named, respectively, Sleight and Rodgers; that the two soldiers referred to, although summoned by the police, failed to attend the first inquest on the deceased; if he can state the cause of such absence; and if he will say whether, having regard to the verdict of the jury that the military were not justified in their action, any inquiry has been, or will be, held into the circumstances of the occurrence?
      Mr. SAMUELSrose—
      Mr. McKEAN: My question is addressed to the Chief Secretary, and I want an answer from him. Why is he not here?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I understand the hon. Member desires to postpone the answer till the return of the Chief Secretary.

      CLERGY AND CONSCRIPTION.
      Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether clergy have threatened the penalty of eternal damnation on members of their Church if they obeyed the law in Ireland in relation to compulsory military service; and whether prosecutions of clergy for this offence have been, or will be, undertaken?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I am not aware that any one has made a statement attributing to clergy a threat that persons in Ireland who obey the law in relation to compulsory military service would be liable to the penalty of eternal damnation. Statements of a different character, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, were made in regard to persons who assisted in enforcing the law as to compulsory service. As to the last part of the question, I decline to make any statement.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these words, "threatened the penalty of eternal damnation," are taken from a speech delivered by a member of the War Cabinet in another place, who said at the time that he was correct in his quotation?
      Mr. ARCHDALE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the letter in the "Times" to-day from Lord Curzon about it?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I have seen the letter in the papers to-day, and it speaks for itself. As to the question of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) regarding the use of the words "eternal damnation," I have seen them in the quotation, but the hon. Member misrepresents the collocation of them.
      Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman confer with the Noble Lord upon the subject?

    BRITISH EMPIRE ORDER.

      ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
      Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are eligible for membership in the various grades of the Order of the British Empire; and, if so, will he say what appointments to the Order have been made among the officers and men of the force, in view of the devotion to duty and loyalty displayed by the force as a whole, and the conduct of individual officers and men in circumstances of difficulty and danger?
      Mr. SAMUELS: Members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are eligible for the Order of the British Empire, and the Inspector-General is a Knight of the Order; the Commissioner of Police Belfast, a Commander; and County Inspector Holmes, a member of the Order.
      Major NEWMAN: What distinction is given to the rank and file of this corps?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I am sure that honours or appreciation which can be given for the fidelity, discipline, and perfect way in which the Royal Irish Constabulary have been discharging their offices in very difficult circumstances would be approved by the House. I am sure honours of this character are merited.

    FLOWERDOWN CAMP.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the conditions of the Flowerdown working camp, that 300 men are in crowded quarters, that water, cleansing, sanitary facilities, rations, delays in supplying expected tobacco, unsympathetic treatment by officials, withdrawal of postal facilities, all have given grounds for complaint; and, seeing that these men having offered to do work of national importance have suffered more than if they had never consented to do work in their internment, whether he will order an immediate inquiry with a view to scandals being mitigated?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Since the opening of the camp any improvements which were necessary have been carried out, and there is no cause for complaint. The water supply and facilities for cleansing are ample, and the sanitary arrangements are well appointed. Rations are according to scale. There have been delays in obtaining tobacco when the supply has been limited, but I would point out that the ordinary consumer has also suffered in this respect. There are no grounds for the complaint as to the unsympathetic treatment by officials. Correspondence has on three occasions been stopped temporarily for purposes of discipline. The men at this camp work under similar conditions as to pay and housing as the local British workmen.
    Mr. KING: Can we conclude, therefore, that the difficulties at the start have been righted and that these men are working contentedly now?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I did not assume that there were any difficulties at the start.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      LOFTHOUSE CAMP.
      Colonel FABERasked the Home Secretary who was the Home Office official who on two occasions, as reported in the Canning case, wrote a personal letter to the officer commanding at Loft-house Detention Camp asking for permission for visitors to see German prisoners, which visits were regarded as special facilities?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Southampton.
      Colonel FABER: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman's reply yesterday contained the name of the man who signed the pass, and will this foe allowed again?
      Mr. BRACE: I should like notice of that question.
      Mr. WATT: Who are the officials of the Home Office who are protecting these German prisoners?
      Mr. BRACE: Mr. Waller was the name of the official that I gave yesterday, and he is a very distinguished Civil servant.
      Mr. BILLING: Will the Home Office give an undertaking that in future no preference will be given to anyone in Government Departments, or to anyone associated with Government Departments, and that no social distinction will bear weight with the Home Office in enabling people to fraternise with these enemy aliens?
      Mr. BRACE: It must not be understood that I am accepting any of the statements of the hon. Member.
      Mr. BILLING: So undertaking, though.

      RATIONS.
      Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Home Secretary if he will say what are the respective weekly rations of German prisoners of war in this country and of British prisoners of war in Germany under the heads of meat, bread, butter or margarine, jam, tea, milk, and sugar?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this ques-
      1204
      tion.As regards the scale of rations for German prisoners of war in this country, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement which I circulated on the 16th April last in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Enfield. Since then, the meat ration has been reduced to 4 ozs. on three days a week. No butter, margarine, or milk is issued. As regards the ration supplied to our prisoners of war in Germany, I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply given on Tuesday last by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Sheffield, in answer to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Faversham.
      Sir F. HALL: May I ask if steps can be taken to find out exactly how our prisoners of war are being treated in Germany, and whether the German prisoners here will be treated in exactly the same manner and no better?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid I cannot usefully add anything to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), who said he regretted to have to say that there was much to be desired in the treatment of our prisoners of war in Germany.

      TREATMENT AND EXCHANGE.
      Sir F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will consider the advisability of an arrangement being come to for joint representations to be made, and action taken, as regards the treatment and exchange of prisoners of all the Allied countries, instead of continuing the present arrangement under which each country conducts separate negotiations, with the object of taking more effective measures against the possibility of Allied prisoners of war being ill-treated and neglected, as has often been the case in the past?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The Government will continue to act as far as possible in consultation with the other Allied Governments in any measures necessary for the improvement of the conditions of prisoners of war in enemy countries. I fear, however, that the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend would involve so much delay that I am not prepared to adopt it.

      FOOTWEAR (GERMANY AND ENGLAND).
      Sir F. HALLasked the Undersecretary of State for War if leather boots are supplied to German prisoners of war in this country; whether English prisoners in Germany are generally furnished with wooden clogs as footwear when their boots need renewing; and if, in view of the shortage of leather, he will consider as to adopting the same practice in the case of German prisoners?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The boots issued to German prisoners of war are old Army boots which are unfit to be repaired for issue to the troops. New boots, or boots which can be made serviceable for Army purposes, are never issued. Clogs are issued whenever the supply of old Army boots is insufficient. This arrangement is more economical than to issue wooden clogs on all occasions.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      FIRE BRIGADES.
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the fact that it has been decided that Grade 2 men who are liable under the last Military Service Act and are special constables are not to be called to the Army, he is taking any and, if so, what steps to prevent similarly graded men who are members of greatly reduced fire brigades in munition and other areas from being taken into the Army?
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Home Secretary whether, as a result of a conference between the Ministry of National Service and himself, he has issued a circular to town clerks asking for particulars as to the strength and responsibilities of fire brigades throughout the country; whether, pending the receipt of such information, he intends to take any steps to prevent Grade 2 men who are members of fire brigades from being called up for Army service under the new Act; and whether he is aware that unless he does so many fire brigades will be depleted far below the margin of safety?
      Mr. BRACE: By arrangement with the Ministry of National Service, I have obtained from a large number of local
      1206
      authorities returns which give full information as to the reduction of strength of the fire brigades and the classification and duties of men who remain, and I am now in communication with the Ministry of National Service on the question of what exemption can be given to men belonging to the fire brigades who are classified in the lower grades. I should add that I understand the arrangement as to special constables to which the hon. Member for Dartford refers in the first part of his question is limited to the Metropolitan Special Constabulary.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman or the Minister of National Service will try to get firemen who are in Grade 2 exempted, because many of them are doing service of the greatest national importance in large munition areas?
      Mr. BRACE: I shall be glad to consider the point raised.
      Mr. RENDALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what course local and Appeal Tribunals ought to take pending final arrangements between his Department and the Ministry of National Service, having regard to the fact that there are now before these Appeal Tribunals men who are members of fire brigades and who are likely to be called up any day?
      Mr. BRACE: It is difficult to answer a question like that right off. Will my hon. Friend be good enough to put it down?
      Mr. RENDALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least make some suggestion to the tribunals that they should delay coming to a final decision in these cases whilst he is obtaining the necessary information?
      Mr. BRACE: I shall be very glad to consider it and see what can be done.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether equality of treatment is meted out to Scotsmen in the three settlements of Princetown, Wakefield, and Knutsford for conscientious objectors in sending these men to Scotland when vacancies occur there in establishments; and, if so, will he say how many have been so sent from the first-named settlement?
      Mr. BRACE: I cannot give the figures asked for. The selection of conscientious objectors for employment does not depend on their place of origin, but on their capacity for the work, the distance to be travelled to the place of employment, and other circumstances. I may add that I am not convinced that Scotsmen invariably prefer to be employed in their native country.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that hopes were given to these men that they might return to Scotland, and that, they have been working all the better in consequence, and that therefore his implied promise ought to be carried out?
      Mr. BRACE: If either of the conscientious objectors desires to make an application, he may do so direct.
      Mr. WATTasked the Home Secretary whether he has had a petition from the Scotsmen amongst the conscientious objectors in the Princetown settlement asking that they should have the privilege of a Presbyterian service in the same way as is given at Wakefield and at Knutsford; and, if so, will he say whether any and what action has been taken to provide this?
      Mr. BRACE: No, Sir; but the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors received a petition in May last from five Scotsmen employed at Prince-town asking that a centre for Scotsmen might be established in Scotland. The Committee were at the time negotiating with employers in Scotland for the employment of a large number of men, and these men were noted for transfer to this work. The negotiations, however, fell through, owing to the repugnance of other men to work with conscientious objectors. It is not practicable to make special arrangements for these men at Prince-town, but the matter will be borne in mind.

      VOLUNTARY RECRUITING (IRELAND).
      Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether the hon. and gallant Member for West Clare has accepted a post in connection with the voluntary recruiting campaign in Ireland, and has received a commission as colonel in His Majesty's Army; and, if so, whether he will be permitted to continue his propa-
      1208
      ganda in favour of a republic in this country in association with his recruiting efforts?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member for West Clare has not accepted a post in connection with the voluntary recruiting campaign in Ireland, but has undertaken to raise a battalion by his personal efforts, and for that purpose has received a commission as colonel in the Army. The hon. Member, I am confident, may be relied upon to conduct his recruiting campaign without introducing into it any political propaganda.

      BOOT AND SHOE TRADE.
      Sir WALTER ESSEXasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service whether he is aware that the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives affirm that 50 per cent. of their male members have now been enrolled, and that the manner in which it is proposed to deal with calls for service upon the remainder is so resented by the men that a strike is threatened; and will he say what steps it is proposed to take to avert such trouble?
      Mr. RENDALLasked the Minister of National Service (1) whether he intends to issue his contemplated Order to take the pivotal men engaged in the boot and shoe industry; if so, what does he propose to do to allay the feeling of revolt which the officials of the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives say is likely to follow; does he still refuse to meet a deputation of employers and trade union representatives on the matter before he acts; (2) whether he is now prepared to meet the employers and workmen in the boot and shoe trade and consider with them the desirability of further drafts of men from this trade being provided by a special committee representing the trade instead of by official orders which gravely jeopardise the trade and irritate the workers?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): A deputation was received at the Ministry of National Service this morning at which the points raised in the questions of my hon. Friends were discussed. I am happy to state that a satisfactory understanding was arrived at. An assurance was given that before any new Order was issued a further conference with the representatives of the

      1209
      employers and operatives would be arranged. There is, I understand, no dissatisfaction with the Order now in force.

      ASSURANCE SOCIETIES (EXEMPTIONS).
      Major CHAPPLEasked whether the Prudential and other English assurance companies' superintendents are receiving any preferential treatment over those of Scottish assurance societies in the matter of exemption under the Military Service Act, 1918?
      Mr. BECK: No, Sir. The same arrangements are being made for Scotland as for England.
      Sir JAMES AGG-GARDNERasked whether assistant overseers engaged at present in the preparation of the lists of electors under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, are exempt from the operation of the new Military Service Act until the completion of their work?
      Mr. BECK: Assistant overseers engaged in the preparation of the lists of electors under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, are not exempt as such from the operation of the Military Service Acts, and the question of their exemption is a matter for the decision of the appropriate tribunals. Under present instructions, however, full time officials of the professional, administrative and clerical staffs of local authorities are not called to the Colours if in low medical grades or categories, and assistant overseers, if employed full time as Local Government officers, are accordingly protected in that capacity.

      CALLING-UP NOTICES.
      Sir JOHN JARDINEasked whether men, after passing the examination of the National Service medical board and receiving a classification card stating the grade they are placed in, are entitled at once after receiving the printed notice to join as soldiers to make any application that on the ground of age or special fitness they may be attached to service on the land or in a munitions or other factory; and, if so, will he say to whom such application should be made and in what manner, and how much time is allowed for such an application?
      Mr. RENDALLasked why men who have received their calling-up notice but are not yet in the Army and who, if in
      1210
      Grade 1 are over forty-five, and if in Grade 2 are over thirty-five, are not allowed to volunteer for war work under the new scheme?
      Mr. BECK: Men of the new military age under call for military service will, if of the appropriate age and grade, be permitted to enrol under the War Work Volunteer Scheme or the War Agricultural Volunteer Scheme up to and including the 6th July. In such cases the man's calling up notice will be suspended for a sufficient period to allow him time to apply for a protection certificate after taking up the work for which he was enrolled.
      Instructions have been given that calling-up notices shall not be issued to men of the new military age until ten days after their medical grading. This affords such men after their medical examination an opportunity of offering themselves for enrolment under the War Work Volunteer Scheme or the War Agricultural Volunteer Scheme before receiving a calling-up notice for military service.
      Particulars of this scheme can be obtained from Employment Exchanges, but it must be clearly understood that no man can be enrolled under the War Work Volunteer Scheme until he has been offered to an employer for a definite vacancy and accepted by him.
      Mr. RENDALL: Will the hon. Gentleman state if we can get a copy of the statement referred to at the Vote Office?
      Mr. BECK: It may not be at the Vote Office, but it will be in the Library shortly. The instruction has been given, but I do not know whether it has reached the Library yet.
      Mr. RENDALL: When will the notices for provincial recruiting be sent out? Will he explain what is the position of men between forty-four and fifty-three who wish to be enrolled and go to the Labour Exchanges and find there is no work for them; will they be safeguarded until work can be found for them?
      Mr. BECK: As regards the latter part of the question, certainly not. It would be impossible to have a number of men who have enrolled for work of national importance and afterwards find that they were not available for military service.
      Mr. RENDALL: Will the Ministry find them work?
      Mr. BECK: Telegraphic instructions were issued to the Employment Exchanges yesterday.
      Mr. RENDALL: Will it be the duty of the Employment Exchanges to find work, if possible, for these men?
      Mr. BECK: No; there are certain vacancies which urgently require filling in order to enable this work of national importance to be done. Certain opportunities are offered to men of the older ages and of low medical categories, but there is no question of finding work for the men, and thus depriving the Army of their services.
      Mr. KILEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say where those lists of vacancies can be obtained?
      Mr. BECK: At the Employment Exchanges.
      Mr. MOUNT(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is the fact, as stated in the Press to-day, that further calling-up notices of men engaged in agriculture have been postponed till after the harvest, and whether this postponement applies to notices which have already been sent out, but where the men to whom the notices apply have not been posted?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; that to the latter is in the negative. I understand that men who have already received their calling-up notices must obey them.
      Mr. MOUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the date of issuing the calling-up notice, in order that men may be posted by 30th June, has already expired in cases where the war agricultural committees have done their best to get their required quota by the desired time, and that in those cases no advantage will be given to agriculture by this so-called concession?
      Sir R. WINFREY: The reply that I have given was given after consultation with the Minister of National Service.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman postpone altogether the calling-up of agricultural men, in view of the fact that we were officially informed by the Government that there were not sufficient men over here to supply the deficiency?
      Sir R. WINFREY: That is a qustion which must be addressed to the Minister of National Service.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement in the Press yesterday that the Cardigan farmers are handing back their calling-up notices as the result of meetings held throughout the county, and—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question:

      TRIBUNALS (EXEMPTIONS).
      Mr. STEWARTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has any information showing that tribunals have improperly protected men because their fathers are friends of members of those tribunals and are improperly exempting them; and, if so, whether he proposes to hold any inquiry with a view to the dissolution and reconstitution of such tribunals under the powers contained in the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stephen Walsh): My right hon. Friend is not in possession of any such information.
      Mr. STEWART: Has the hon. Gentleman read the speech of the Director of National Service?
      Mr. WALSH: Yes; I have read that speech, but it has nothing to do with this answer.

      WIDOWS' SONS.
      Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Undersecretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. George Ames, of Elham. Kent; if this woman's husband, a builder with a small one-man business, died since the beginning of the War, leaving her a widow with a family of fourteen children; that her three eldest sons joined the Army by voluntary enlistment, of whom one has been killed and one wounded; that after the father's death the business was kept alive by the fourth son who was under military age until August of last year, when he became of military age; that this fourth son was then exempted from service, in view of the circumstances of his family, but has now been called up owing to the tribunal having no power to continue the exemption under the present rules; and whether, having regard

      1213
      to the military record of the family and the circumstances of the case, he will discharge one of the sons from the Army to enable him to carry on the business for the support of the family or, at all events, will grant him sufficient leave to enable him to make arrangements for the disposal of the business?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: This case has already been carefully considered, but in view of the present urgent need for men, I very much regret that it is not possible to take the action suggested.
      Mr. McNEILL: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the chairman of the tribunal and another member of it, a Member of this House, stated that they would have granted an exemption if it had been in their power to do so, and that they had expressed a wish that one of the other sons might be temporarily released to look after the business?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No; I was not aware of it.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman comb out some of the A1 men in the Government Departments?

      MILITARY SERVICE (No. 2) ACT, 1918.
      Colonel ROYDSasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether an Order in Council has yet been made under Clause 4, Sub-section (6), of the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918; and, if not, will he say when such Order will be made?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; the Order in Council was made on Tuesday last.
      Colonel ROYDS: Will an opportunity be afforded to the House for discussing the Order?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: That is a matter purely for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but personally I should be glad if the arrangement were made.

      VOLUNTEER FORCE.
      Colonel ROYDSasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether instructions have been given to tribunals and directors of National Service not to order or call up for service with the Colours members of the Volunteer Force who have volunteered for service in special
      1214
      service companies, and that the position of these men as regards exemption and right of appeal will not be prejudiced by reason of such special service; and what is the position of a man who has volunteered for special service and has subsequently received a calling-up notice or been refused a further period of exemption by a tribunal?
      The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): Public announcements have been made to the effect that exempted men, thirty-five years of age or over and in Grade 2, who volunteer for service in special service companies, are not to be prejudiced as regards their tribunal position, and detailed formal instructions are in preparation. There was, however, no intention to exempt from ordinary military service men already liable to be called up before being actually embodied for the Special Volunteer Service. As certain men's offers for special service have now been accepted instructions have been issued that a calling-up notice issued on or after the 25th instant to a man in Grade 2, thirty-five years of age or over, accepted for Special Volunteer Service, is not to be enforced. A man to whom a calling up notice had been issued on or before the 24th instant must respond to that notice, although he may previously have offered himself for Special Volunteer Service.

    ALIENS.

      LAW OF NATURALISATION.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Home Secretary if he will introduce an Amendment to the law regulating the naturalisation of aliens to secure that every alien shall, on receiving his certificate of naturalisation, declare the name by which he will be known, and that it shall be a penal offence for him to use any other during his period of naturalisation?
      Mr. BRACE: I will bring the hon. Baronet's suggestion to the notice of my right hon. Friend on his return.
      Mr. BILLING: Will the Home Office consider the advisability of making it a criminal offence to change one's name in this country unless it is done by deed-poll?

      GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
      Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State to the

      1215
      Air Ministry whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a list of all members in and employés of his Department who are of enemy origin or birth; and, in cases where their names have been changed, will he state their name at birth and also, if naturalised, the date upon which they were naturalised?
      The hon. Member had given notice of questions in similar terms addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, the Minister of National Service, the Minister of Pensions, the Postmaster-General, the President of the Local Government Board, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping.
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I can add nothing to the reply which my night hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to similar questions yesterday.
      Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman devote the time he has saved in answering these questions collectively to considering the advisability of interning all Germans in this country?

      NATURALISED GERMANS.
      Mr. WATTasked the Home Secretary whether it is the policy of his Department to allow all naturalised Germans who have been ordered out of certain areas by the military and police because of their well-known pro-German leanings, conversation, and actions to take refuge in London, in the same way as is permitted to E. A. Meyer, ordered out of Westcliff-on-Sea by the police and military, who is now employed by Schiff and Company, Austrian stockbrokers in Throgmorton Street, and who daily goes in and out about his business there, getting all information from London city conversation; and, if not, will he say what he proposes to do in such cases?
      Mr. BRACE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given him by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the 24th April and 1st, 13th and 15th May which dealt fully with this matter.
      Mr. WATT: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why the Home Office have not taken the view of the Chief Constable, who takes a very serious view of the conduct of this man?
      Mr. BRACE: The Home Office have taken the Chief Constable's view.
      Sir E. CARSON: Why is it that a man who is driven out as being undesirable in one place is allowed to go to the very centre of the City?
      Mr. BRACE: I will consult my right hon. Friend upon his return.
      Mr. BILLING: Will the Home Office give an undertaking not to give him Government employment?
      Sir J. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that businesses which at the commencement of the War were carried on by naturalised Germans in close association with German subjects or German companies, and were wholly or mainly under the control of German subjects, cannot be wound up under the Trading With the Eenemy (Amendment) Act, 1916; and whether, having regard to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade, he will at once introduce legislation to amend that Act, so as to enable such businesses to be wound up?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): I presume that the hon. and learned Member refers to cases where the outbreak of war had the effect of dissolving a partnership existing between partners in this country who are naturalised British subjects and partners in Germany. These cases have generally been dealt with by vesting the enemy interest in the custodian, in order that it may be realised by him. I am looking into the matter, with a view of deciding whether it is necessary to take further powers in such cases. I shall be glad to confer with the hon. and learned Member on the matter.
      Sir E. CARSON: Would me right hon. Gentleman also look into the case where the only remaining partner is a naturalised German, who seems to carry on the business as if it were an English one?
      Sir A. STANLEY: We shall take that very wide view in making an investigation.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the Committee in their Report referred to Ettlinger and Company, and

      1217
      recommended that further legislation should be passed in order to enable the Committee to deal with this case and cases of a similar character?
      Sir A. STANLEY: Yes; my attention has been called to that particular recommendation in the Committee's Report, and I think answers have been given in the House bearing upon it.
      Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman avoid consulting the Home Office if he wants to get any results?
      Sir J. BUTCHER: Do I understand legislation will be introduced to give effect to the unanimous recommendations of the Committee?
      Sir A. STANLEY: May I be excused from giving a definite answer without consulting my right hon. Friend?
      Colonel LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an early opportunity of discussing this question?

    ROYAL AIR FORCE.

      EQUIPMENT.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Undersecretary of State to the Air Ministry whether any persons associated with the control of the Royal Air Force and of its equipment have any financial interest in companies supplying machines or material for their construction: and, if so, will he give the names of these persons and state the positions they hold?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): The only person in the Air Ministry to whom the hon. Member's question applies is the Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force, and as regards the position of my right hon. Friend, I would refer to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 16th of November, 1917, which still holds good. Control of supply of equipment for the Royal Air Force is a matter in which the Ministry of Munitions is largely concerned, and the statement already mentioned deals with the position of the Ministry in this matter.

      ACCIDENTS.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Undersecretary of State to the Air Ministry how many officers and men of the Royal
      1218
      Flying Corps and the Royal Air Force have been killed by accident in this country during the past six months; and whether at the coroners' inquests that have been held in connection with these accidents expert evidence has been given as to their cause?
      Major BAIRD: It it not in the public interest to give the figures asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the second part of the question, a Court of Inquiry by senior officers as to the cause of any accident is immediately held, and these officers give evidence at the coroner's inquest. In any case where it appears possible that the construction of the aeroplane was at fault a further inquiry is made by a special accidents committee responsible directly to the Air Ministry.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Why is it that the figures asked for in this question have been given on previous occasions and now cannot be given? Is it because there has been a great increase in the number of accidents?
      Major BAIRD: I am not aware on what occasion those figures were given. I am quite prepared to tell the hon. Gentleman in private why they cannot be given. Indeed, there was an answer to a question not put explaining that these figures would be misleading unless they were accompanied by the statement of the number of pilots under instruction and training, and it is impossible in the public interest to give that information, for the simple fact that the Germans do not give us that information.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman, at any rate, bear in mind the concern that is felt about the large number of accidents that are taking place?
      Major BAIRD: I am informed that is so, but if the hon. Member attended the meeting addressed by the Secretary of State upstairs he will recollect that my right hon. Friend went very fully into this question, and, in view of the additional circumstances to which I have referred, there is no justification for alarm on the ground that there is an undue number of accidents.
      Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that the great proportion of accidents have happened in machines Known as the R.E.8?
      Major BAIRD: Oh, no; certainly not.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any assurance—
      Mr. SPEAKER: We had better pass on. There are over 100 questions to-day.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the yearly number of appeals for the years 1914 to 1917, with the percentage of those for and against old age pensioners or applicants for old age pensions?
    Mr. S. WALSH: I have been asked to answer this question as regards England and Wales, and I am sending the hon. Member a statement of the required particulars. I understand that he has been asked to obtain the figures for Scotland and Ireland from my right hon. Friends the Secretary for Scotland and the Chief Secretary.
    Colonel Sir C. SEELYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the position disclosed in the reply given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 31st January in which it was stated that an old person over the age of seventy-two could receive an old age pension while in receipt of earnings up to £2 a week while an old person between the ages of seventy and seventy-two could obtain no old age pension if his or her earnings were over 8s. a week; and if he will bring in a short Act to remedy this?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. and gallant Member refers, I presume, to the reply given by me on the 31st January last to the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire. If this be so, he has not represented correctly the position as disclosed in that reply, and I must refer him to the statement actually made by me, to which I have nothing to add.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      EXTRA RATIONS (GIRLS).
      Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his Department has in contemplation granting an extra ration of food to the
      1220
      girls of the nation between thirteen and seventeen years of age in the same way as it has been granted to boys; and, if not, will he say the reason of this, in view of the necessity of preserving the health and strength of the future mothers of the race?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): Yes, Sir. I am consulting my advisers on this matter.

      FOOD COMMITTEE'S.
      Major CHAPPLEasked whether any provision has been made for the full representation of co-operative societies on county central food committees?
      Mr. CLYNES: The original instructions issued to local authorities by the Food Controller asked them to consider the desirability of appointing representatives of the co-operative movement as members of the food control committees in their areas, and I understand that such appointments have been generally made. I shall be glad if the hon. and gallant Member will inform me of any instance in which further representation appears to be required.
      Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that certain food production committees in Scotland are remitting to one of their number to decide whether there shall be permitted or otherwise all appeals of agricultural workers between eighteen and twenty-three; who, therefore, has the final say, after a certain point, as to whether these men shall serve or not; and, if so, will he say whether this mode of action has the sanction of his Department?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): For the purpose of considering whether applications on occupational grounds lodged by agricultural workers under the Proclamation of the 20th April should be certified by the Board of Agriculture, the Board, acting with my approval, asked each district agricultural executive committee to appoint a member or officer to act as the Board's local representative in the matter. The Committees were also asked to arrange for obtaining the services, where necessary, of any other members of the committee to assist the Board's representative with their local knowledge in

      1221
      considering any given case or set of cases. In cases where, after discussion with the representative of the National Service Department, there was disagreement as to whether certification of the application was justified, reference was made to Edinburgh for discussion between the Board and the Director of National Service and for final decision of the point. The work is now complete.

      NATIONAL KITCHENS.
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether national kitchens have any advantage over caterers for working-class consumers in respect of finance, rent, rates, taxes, and supplies of provisions?
      Mr. CLYNES: The only advantage that the national kitchens have over caterers for working-class consumers is that advances are made from Imperial funds to local authorities in respect of the full capital outlay on approved schemes. These advances are free of interest, but the capital is repayable in ten equal yearly instalments.
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether any large firms of caterers for the working classes with establishments in all parts of London have offered to place these establishments, without profit, at the disposal of the Department for use as national kitchens, with their experienced staffs, thus avoiding the need of costly new premises and of engaging large staffs of inexperienced persons who would have been available for other work of national importance?
      Mr. CLYNES: A deputation of catering firms recently put forward the suggestion that their establishments should be utilised as national kitchens, and they have been requested to submit definite proposals for consideration.

      FRUIT (PRICES).
      Sir F. HALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if, under the recent Order with reference to fruit prices, no restrictions are imposed as to the price for sale by retail of 5lbs. of fruit or less; whether local food committees have power to prosecute food retailers who make excessive charges in cases in which food prices are not controlled; and, if they have no such power, will the Department consider the
      1222
      question of conferring upon the committees authority to prosecute in cases in which extortionate prices are sought to be charged?
      Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is that no such restrictions are imposed except in the case of strawberries, for which a maximum retail price of 9d. per lb. has been fixed. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The answer to the last part of the question is that the Food Controller is constantly considering whether it is in the public interest that the price of any particular foodstuffs should be fixed. He does not, however, consider that it would be practicable to conifer on food committees the indefinite powers suggested in the last part of the question.
      Sir F. HALL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the local food committees are, at all events, capable of judging the best steps to be taken, and, under the circumstances, does he not think such authorities might reasonably be left in the hands of the local committees?
      Mr. CLYNES: Well, as I have already said, we do not think that the authorities should have the indefinite powers suggested, but we do seek their judgment, and in collecting that judgment try to arrange that the decisions shall be uniform so as to cover all local authorities.

      HARVEST WORK (ROADMEN).
      Colonel FABERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any steps have been taken to secure roadmen for harvest work?
      Sir RICHARD WINFREY: The Road Board have been approached for the assistance of roadmen on farms during harvest. The Ministry of National Service are also bringing to the notice of all local authorities the urgent need for men to assist with the ingathering of the crops, and requesting them to release as many of their employés as possible for harvest work.
      Colonel FABER: Will the hon. Gentleman see that this question is hurried up, as time presses?
      Sir R. WINFREY: I will.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (VISCOUNT GREY'S PAMPHLET).
    Mr. HOLTasked the Prime Minister whether the Propaganda Department is circulating Viscount Grey's pamphlet on the League of Nations amongst neutral and enemy countries?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Ministry of Information has given Viscount Grey's pamphlet a wide circulation in neutral and enemy countries.
    Mr. KING(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether a pamphlet entitled the League of Nations by Viscount Grey of Falloden has been published in disregard of Regulation 27 c; whether he has inquired of the author, and the publishers, the Clarendon Press, Oxford, their reasons for disregarding this Regulation; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. BRACE: I am advised that the pamphlet referred to is not one which comes within the terms of the Regulation. It has to do not with the "present War or the making of peace," but with the state of the world after peace has been made. In the words of the pamphlet, "The establishment and maintenance of a League of Nations is more important and essential to a secure peace than any of the actual terms of peace that may conclude the War."
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the terms of his own Regulation which are "intended, or likely to be used, for propagandist purposes in relation to this present War and the making of peace," and that in connection with speeches on the War the pamphlet has already been largely quoted even by members of the War Cabinet?
    Mr. BRACE: I am advised by my legal advisers that it does not come within the Regulation.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Did the right hon. Gentleman before drafting the reply read the pamphlet, and is he aware of its contents?
    Mr. BRACE: I have read the pamphlet, but I do not remember all its contents.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are repeated references in the pamphlet to the rulers of Europe and to President Wilson, to
    1224
    this War and to the outcome of this War, and that the only thing that would justify the War—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have the whole of the pamphlet read.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I want to ask—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of any further questions.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: On a point of Order. You may recollect that a short time ago I desired to put by private notice a question to the Under-Secretary of State for War with regard to a prisoner who had been landed on the West Coast of Ireland. You, Sir, in your discretion, would not allow me to put that question on the ground that urgency was required for questions by private notice. I want to-ask what is the urgency of the question to which we have just listened?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The urgency is this: If the law is being violated, it is undesirable that it should continue to be violated.
    Mr. KING: I beg to give notice that, in view of the extraordinary answer, I shall call attention to this matter on the Adjournment to-night.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether the hotel at Skinbur-ness has been bought by the Government; if so, whether the furniture, the equipment, and the goodwill of the licence to sell liquors were included in the sale; what was the price paid; and what was the object of the purchase?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The premises and other interests mentioned in the question have been acquired by the Central Control Board at an agreed price of £6,750 as a necessary part of the scheme for the direct control of the liquor traffic in this part of Cumberland.
    Major CHAPPLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the property could have been bought for less, and will he say what need there was' of purchasing a hotel there?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The answer to the last part is contained in the reply I have just given. As to the price, it was negotiated with a valuer of the Board, approved by the Central Control Board, referred to the Treasury, and approved by them.

    GENERAL GOUGH.
    Mr. MARTINasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint General Gough to some imporant position in connection with the Canadian forces?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

      PENAL SERVITUDE (SCOTLAND).
      Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether John Maclean, who recently was condemned under the Defence of the Realm Act to several years' imprisonment, is being treated as a political prison in the same way as English and Irish prisoners under the same Act are being treated, or whether he is being made to work along with criminals and wear similar uniform to them; whether any leniency has been shown to him in the way of allowing his food to be brought in to him three times daily; and whether it is still to be extended to him at Peter-head?
      Mr. MUNRO: John Maclean is undergoing his sentence at Peterhead Convict Prison under the ordinary conditions of penal servitude. The law of Scotland makes no special provision for the treatment of political offences, and I am informed that English and Irish prisoners sentenced under the Defence of the Realm Act to penal servitude do not receive special treatment. Maclean has received great consideration in the matter of meals both during his previous penal servitude sentence, of which he served less than half, and since his further conviction. Whether such treatment can continue will depend upon general considerations of prison discipline, and upon the medical advice received regarding his condition and requirements.

    HOUSING (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland what progress has
    1226
    been made with the housing scheme for Lanarkshire which was sanctioned some months ago; and when building operations in connection with the erection of the 250 houses authorised will be commenced?
    Mr. MUNRO: My hon. and learned Friend is mistaken in referring to a sanctioned scheme. Any statements that have been made on behalf of the Government have always referred to the financial sanction which was necessary before the scheme could be proceeded with. This sanction was duly applied for, but is not as yet forthcoming. Correspondence is still passing, and I hope to make a further statement shortly.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very considerable delay has already taken place in connection with this scheme, and that the local authorities concerned are very disappointed at that delay? In view of the urgent need of coming to a decision, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that a decision shall be come to without any undue delay?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am aware of the anxiety felt by the local authorities. I am also aware of the time that has elapsed since the first statement on the subject was made. I cannot, however, give an undertaking in respect of the latter part of the question of my hon. Friend. Certainly there has been, and will be, no avoidable delay on my part.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if his inquiries into the position of enemy aliens and enemy businesses in this country are confined to information from officials who are administering these matters; and will he say what steps he has taken to ensure impartial guidance being given to him?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; and as regards the second part, I can add nothing to previous replies on this subject.
    Sir R. COOPER: Would the Prime Minister be willing to receive a deputation from Members of this House upon this subject before he comes to a decision?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If an application is made to the Prime Minister, I am sure he will be glad to consider it.
    Mr. BILLING: I beg to give notice that unless the Government take some action between now and Monday, I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on Monday to call attention to the matter.

    UNITED STATES ARMY.
    Colonel C. LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether he has any reason for refusing to inform the Members of this House the number of Americans at present in France or at the various seats of war; and whether he will say how many more American troops can reasonably be expected upon the Western Front before the end of 1918?
    Mr. BONARLAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Is it not the fact that the German Press have and are continually denouncing the Americans, and is not the secrecy of His Majesty's Ministers calculated to support their fabrications?
    Mr. BONARLAW: I think the Germans will have found out by other means than the Press that the Americans are in France.

    RETIRED OFFICERS (INCOME TAX).
    Colonel YATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it has been brought to his notice that retired officers who have been re-employed and have become entitled to a gratuity for their services are having this gratuity included for taxation purposes in their total income for the year in which it is received, and so in many cases are having their incomes raised on to a higher scale of taxation, so that they gain little, or may be actual losers, by the grant of the gratuity; and will he have this hardship inflicted on these officers removed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A gratuity to which a person is entitled under his engagement as remuneration for services rendered is regarded as income for Income Tax purposes and is in effect a part of his salary. I might add that in no case could the recipient of such a gratuity be the loser, as suggested in the question.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been repaid to payers of Excess Profits Duty in respect of deficiencies arising in business results subsequent to a payment of duty to the Treasury; whether many claims for repayment of this kind have been actually lodged, or are expected to be lodged, with the Inland Revenue Department; what is their estimated amount for the financial year now current and for last year, respectively; and whether there is any option with the Government as to making a cash repayment or an entry of book credit in respect of such amounts reclaimed in the case of firms continuing in business and therefore subject to a still further accounting?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Claims of the character referred to are continually being received and dealt with. The amount of duty in respect of such deficiencies of profits set off in the assessments at the time they were made was nearly £9,000,000 for the assessments made in the financial year 1917–18, but no separate classification of the subsequent discharges of assessments and repayments of duty under this head is available. The reply to the last part of thi3 question is in the negative.

    ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Pensions Minister how many limbless men have been fitted with artificial limbs; how many are still unfitted; how many of those unfitted are ready and waiting to be supplied; how many of those fitted have returned for refitting or repairs; and what is the average cost of each artificial limb supplied?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen): Up to the end of last month, 18,307 men had been fitted, or were in process of being fitted, with artificial limbs, and 12,855 were still unfitted. Of the latter number, 4,321 were ready and waiting to be supplied. It is not possible to state how many of those fitted have returned for refitting or repairs, as in many cases the orders are given direct to limb makers by local committees or commandants of military hospitals.

    1229
    As the prices of artificial limbs vary so greatly with the nature of the amputation, the type of limb selected and the attachments, appliances, and fittings necessitated by the circumstances of the case, it would be misleading to name any figure as representing the average cost of each limb supplied.
    Major CHAPPLE: Will he say what is being done for those who are now unfitted in the way of supplying them with temporary artificial limbs pending the provision of permanent artificial limbs?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We are making large additional purchases, and in the next few weeks the accommodation in this respect will be much better.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. ALDENasked the Pensions Minister whether Driver H. J. Suker, of 203, Park Lane, Tottenham, No. 50393, Royal Field Artillery, 29th Reserve, who has been incapacitated since the beginning of the War, after constant medical examination has had his pension reduced from 38s. 6d., including the allowance for four children, to 11s. 4d.; and whether, seeing that the man is absolutely helpless, he will have the pension increased to the original 38s. 6d. per week?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The reduction of pension from 38s. 6d. to 11s. 4d. was due to the fact that on his last examination by a medical board the man's disablement was assessed at 30 per cent. In view of the information which has been brought to my notice by the hon. Member in private correspondence, instructions have now been issued for the man's immediate re-examination by the Special Medical Board.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Pensions Minister whether the drawing of a dependant's allowance by a father of seventy-two years of age for a son serving disqualifies a parent, having no other means of support, from enjoying the old age pension?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The receipt of a dependant's allowance does not constitute a disqualification for the grant of an old age
    1230
    pension, but dependant's allowance received by a claimant to an old age pension has, under the law, to be taken into account for the purpose of deciding whether on the ground of means he is entitled to pension.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether 13s. a week is considered a sufficient sum for disqualifying a man from getting his old age pension?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that question.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Undersecretary of State for War if the total weekly pay of married soldiers in the London area living at home with their families under the consolidated or family allowance system, including pay, family allowance, and London area allowance, is 35s. 8d., or with one child 41s. 8d.; if the corresponding amounts in the case of a soldier on the separation allowance system of payment are 42s. 4d. and 49s. 2d., respectively; and, if this difference does exist, whether the War Office will at once take steps to level up the pay of men receiving consolidated allowances at least to that of soldiers paid the separation allowance rates, having regard to the inadequacy of the weekly pay of 35s. 8d. to enable a soldier to reasonably maintain a home under the existing abnormal conditions?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I much regret I cannot at present add anything to my reply of the 12th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras West.

    POST OFFICE ENGINEERS.
    Mr. ALDENasked the Postmaster-General if he has yet decided what action he proposes to take with reference to the redundant Post Office engineers, between seventy and 100 of whom are still unable to obtain promotion?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The majority of the redundant engineers who can be regarded as qualified for the position of assistant engineer have now been promoted, eight promotions having been made recently. I regret that no further action can be taken at the present time.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is its intended to take fresh action later in view of the fact

    1231
    that two or three years ago these people were promised promotion? Is action intended later on in regard to these redundant men?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Perhaps later on.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that when promotions are made, if the existing officers can carry out the duties, they will be given to them?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: That will be considered, but I cannot give any definite promise about promotions.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a promise has been given to me to that effect by the General Post Office, and will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is carried out?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice.

    OMNIBUS ACCIDENT (TOST OFFICE WIRE).
    Mr. ALDENasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Joseph Sketchley, of Tottenham, who met with an accident in a General motor omnibus from a broken Post Office wire, which seriously injured his neck, is still unfit for work, and that both a Harley Street specialist and his own local doctor agree and have given him certificates to this effect, contrary to the opinion of the Post Office medical officers, who state that they consider him able to work; whether he is aware that the £60 granted has not even been sufficient to cover the cost of his illness, lasting over four months; and, under these circumstances, whether he is prepared to make an additional grant?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I have been making further inquiries about this case, in connection with letters recently addressed to me by the hon. Member. I am writing to him on the subject.

    COMPULSORY LAND PURCHASE (HOUSING).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked whether, in connection with the Government's housing scheme, it is intended to confer upon local authorities powers for the
    1232
    compulsory purchase of land for housing purposes on the basis of the Government valuation of land under the Finance Act of 1909?
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: A Committee has been appointed by the Minister of Reconstruction to consider and report upon the defects in the existing system of law and practice involved in the acquisition and valuation of land for public purposes. That Committee has made a Report, but this does not deal with the question of valuation for the purposes of purchase. This matter, it is understood, will be dealt with in a subsequent Report, on receipt of which the question of any alteration of the law on the subject will be considered.

    MUNITIONS.

      LEAVING CERTIFICATES.
      Sir F. HALLasked the Ministry of Labour if the Government of the United States, having had an opportunity of reviewing the results obtained in this country under the system of leaving certificates, compared with the conditions which have followed the abolition of such certificates, has decided on and after the 1st August next to control the distribution of all unskilled labour throughout the United. States employment service of the Department of Labour; and if the Government will consider the question of the establishment of similar methods, with a view to conserving and utilising labour to the best possible advantage?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): I have no official information with regard to the first part of this question, and in any event I very much doubt whether in the conditions existing in this country any compulsory system for the control of unskilled labour would be advantageous. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, workmen falling under this description may enrol voluntarily as War Work Volunteers or War Agricultural Volunteers.
      Sir F. HALL: Has the hon. Gentleman received a Report from America acting in regard to this matter?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We have no official account of it.
      Sir F. HALL: You have seen the Report?

    MERCANTILE MARINE (APPRENTICES).
    Mr. LEIF JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the Ministry is now pressing shipowners to engage as many apprentices as possible with a view to the future manning of the mercantile marine; and, if so, whether arrangements will be made to increase the separate accommodation for apprentices on standard ships to something more than the berths for two cadets which has so far been the plan in standard ships?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): Special representations have been made to shipowners urging the engagement of as many apprentices as possible, and this policy is being followed on all the ships for which the Shipping Controller is responsible. We are taking measures to increase the separate accommodation for boys on standard ships.

    STANDARD SHIPS.
    Mr. L. JONESasked who exercises the patronage involved in placing standard ships under the management of ship-managing or ship-owning firms; on what principle and in what order the firms are selected; according to what rules are the number of ships placed in their hands arrived at; and does the principle of allocation bear any relation to the numbers of vessels managed by the firms before the War or under requisition at the present time?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The Shipping Controller appoints the managers of standard ships. In doing so he has regard mainly to the experience of firms in managing similar distribution as widespread as possible.
    Mr. JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman say by what method the Shipping Controller works this business. Does he act through his own office or through agents?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: He acts through his own office.

    DISEASE IN BEES.
    Sir WALTER ESSEXasked the President of the Board of Agriculture
    1234
    whether he will publish at an early date in the Board's journal the Report on Isle of Wight disease in bees made and presented by Drs. Fantham and Porter?
    Sir R. WINFREY: A summary of the general conclusions of the Report was published in the Board's journal for February last. It is not proposed to publish the Report in its entirety at the present time for reasons of economy in paper and printing.

    ABYSSINIAN CAMPAIGN.
    Colonel YATEasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether, as this year is the fiftieth anniversary of the Abyssinian campaign, it is the intention of the War Office to honour in any way the survivors of that campaign?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Honours were given to survivors of the Crimea War and Indian Mutiny, but the Abyssinian campaign is not considered to have been of such importance as to merit a similar procedure.

    INTERNED PRISONER (LIEUTENANT VON TIRPITZ).
    Colonel FABERasked the Undersecretary of State for War on how many occasions the German prisoner, Von Tirpitz, has received a pass to leave Donington Camp, and who signed the passes?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Lieutenant Von Tirpitz was never interned at Donington Camp. He has never received a pass to leave any camp in which he has been interned.
    Colonel FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to how many times Von Tirpitz has been out, and whether at Christmas, 1916, he left the camp, and on that occasion said that he was going out for a jolly good "blow out"?

    MADSEN GUN.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he can, consistently with the public interest, say to what manufacturer or group of manufacturers the Madsen gun belongs; whether such owners were the owners of

    1235
    the gun when it was known as the Rexel gun; and whether the experiments now proceeding as to its possible improvement are being conducted at the public expense and in the public interest?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Madsen gun is the property of the Danish Rekyl Riffel Syndicate, Copenhagen. It is believed that the syndicate took over the patents of M. Rexel, who died some years ago. The company's agent has been invited to manufacture a gun with a longer barrel which will be tested to see if the objections to the present gun can be overcome. This is being done in the public interest.

    NURSES (MESS ALLOWANCE).
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether any advance in the mess allowance to nurses has recently been made to meet the increased cost of food; and whether he has satisfied himself that the increased and increasing strain being put upon nurses in the execution of their duties is being fully met by an adequate supply of nourishing food?
    Mr. FORSTER: An advance of 4s. 2d. was authorised in February, 1917. I have no information to suggest that the nurses are suffering in consequence of an inadequate supply of nourishing food.

    INCOME TAX (TERRITORIAL OFFICERS, MESOPOTAMIA).
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether British Income Tax is deducted from the pay and allowances of British Territorial officers serving in Mesopotamia; if so, will he state under what law or order and from what date did such deductions begin; and at what rate and by whom are the deductions collected?
    Mr. FORSTER: Military officers in receipt of pay from British funds are liable to British Income Tax, whether in Mesopotamia or elsewhere. The deduction is made under Section 146 of the Income Tax Act of 1842. The deduction begins concurrently with the issue of pay, the rate is the military rate under the Finance Act, 1916, and the deduction is made under War Office Orders by the Army agents on behalf of the Board of Inland Revenue.

    ROYAL ARTILLERY (STAFF OFFICERS).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether Divisional Artillery Staff captains, Staff captains, Royal Artillery, attached to corps, and Royal Artillery Army Staff captains all receive the same rate of pay and allowances; and, if not, will he state what is the difference?
    Mr. FORSTER: All Staff captains outside the War Office are paid alike, namely, £400 per annum.

BILL PRESENTED.
FLAX COMPANIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL,—" to enable companies and other bodies to give financial assistance to Flax Companies," presented by Mr. FORSTER; supported by Mr. Wardle and Major Baird; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. EUGENE WASON reported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they had appointed Mr. J. W. Wilson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Education (Scotland) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Sheffield Corporation (Consolidation) Bill.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Defence of the Realm (Beans, Peas, and Pulse Orders) Bill, without Amendment
Amendments to—
Pontypool Gas and Water Bill,
Red Cross and Order of St. John Bill,
Chepstow Gas Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation." [Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the city of Bristol to construct additional dock works; to extend the city and county of Bristol; and for other purposes." [Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords.]

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Read the first time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1889), to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Can the Leader of the House tell us what; business will be taken in the House next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Education Bill, Committee stage, will be taken on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
  Thursday will be Supply. I will give the Vote at the beginning of next week.
  Sir E. CARSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Imports and Exports Licensing Bill will be introduced and a statement made on economic policy?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope that a statement may be made before the Recess, but my right hon. and learned Friend will understand that part of this subject is now being discussed at the Conference, and possibly I may ask the House to delay the statement.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give a day before the Recess for a discussion on the question of the internment of enemy aliens in this country; and can he say when we may expect the Recess to take place?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Obviously I cannot answer the last part of the question. As regards the first part, I do not see at present any reason for giving a special day for that subject.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opinion of the House on the matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have always expressed my readiness, and have acted upon it, to give a day whenever there is a general desire for it. In this case I hope the statement we may make will render that unnecessary.
  Mr. PRINGLE: If this matter be of sufficient importance to require the personal attention of the Prime Minister, is it not of sufficient importance to allow of Debate in this House?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said the question whether or not a day shall be given depends on the issue of the Conference. My hope is that after it has been considered further, another Debate may not be deemed necessary.
  Mr. KING: Can we have the Home Office Vote next Thursday, which would give an opportunity for discussion?
  Mr. BILLING: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Gentleman about to take his seat would never have taken his seat were it not for the undertaking given to intern the Germans?

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Harry Greer, Esquire, for the Borough of Battersea and Clapham (Clapham Division).

  SUPPLY.— [15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1918–19.—[Progress.]

  MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE.

    STATEMENT BY SIR A. GEDDES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of National Service."—[NOTE: £100 has been voted on account.]
    The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): In the course of certain Debates that took place in this House last week there were certain points raised in connection with the expenditure on the Minister of National Service to which it might do no harm for me to refer briefly. One of those points was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) in a speech in which he said, in effect, that the Ministry of National Service was an extravagant Department—I think that is a fair summary of what he said—and that its staff had been collected at a time when the experience of those at the head of the Department was limited, when you could not know what the requirements of the Department were. Before I pass on to other matters I should like to refer briefly to the reconstituted Ministry of National Service, as it now exists. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that the Department as it now exists was not

    1253
    a new creation, but was formed out of the original National Service Department, plus the recruiting Department of the War Office, plus a new Department dealing with medical questions, and various other minor new Departments dealing with other questions which were entrusted to that Ministry. I should like to refer to the general policy which has been pursued, because the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury were not the only remarks on the subject of the Department. The staff which was taken over was a very big staff, and, from the time of the reconstitution of the Ministry there has been an unending effort to reduce the expenditure on these services. I believe that the results that have been attained are not altogether unsatisfactory. The actual expenditure upon the administration of the services which were taken over intact from other Departments is now being carried out with a saving in the neighbourhood of £100,000 a month on staff and administrative expenses alone. I believe that when the accounts are finally balanced at the end of the year it will be found that the staff has been enormously cut down and that on salaries alone there will be an average saving of £120,000 a month. That may be exceeded—I hope it will—but I should like to assure the Committee that throughout, since the reconstitution of the Ministry, the policy followed has been to secure the greatest possible economy in connection with administration and to keep the staff at the lowest possible figure.
    4.0 P.M.
    I now turn to subjects which, perhaps, may be of more general interest. The first subject with which I wish to deal is one which recently has excited a certain amount of attention and a good deal of criticism, namely, certain questions arising in connection with the medical examination of recruits. The first point with which I wish to trouble the Committee is the general question of grading, what grading is, and what it is supposed to be. There is no question really more difficult for any body of medical men to tackle than the question of dividing up any group of individuals brought before medical men or a medical board into subgroups which will be really closely bounded by clearly defined limits of physical fitness, because physical fitness, like all other biological attributes, is not evenly distributed, nor is it an absolute thing In any hundred men examined, representing a fair sample of the popula-
    1254
    tion, there will be found to be a certain number who are perfectly fit and a certain number who certainly to the professional medical eye, as well as to the ordinary lay eye, are unfit, and between these extremes there will extend an absolutely unbroken series of men who will extend from the more fit to the less fit, and there will be no naturally clearly defined line which will separate those who are more fit from those who are less fit. That is the basal difficulty with regard to grading. Even supposing that the men examined—the hundred men we are thinking of—are all of the same year of birth there will still be a distribution of these men between the fit and unfit, and there will be men occupying every possible intermediate position in regard to fitness. In the case of the younger men there will be an accumulation of men towards the fit end; in the case of the older men there will be necessarily an accumulation of men towards the unfit end. But for each age there will be an ideal standard of fitness. That ideal standard of fitness, although it may never be attained by any individual under examination, is quite a real thing for the men of that age.
    In the past, under the War Office, when the War Office was responsible for the medical examination of men about to enter the Army, an effort was made to grade or categorise the men in accordance with their future usefulness in the Army. It was prophetic grading or categorisation. It had underlying it a real strategical conception that certain men who were fit for certain forms of military work. This aspect of grading is a very difficult one. Let us suppose we have a hundred men stretching in age from eighteen to fifty, everyone of whom is reasonably considered a very fit man for his age. Suppose all are available for service in the Army. The question which then arises will be this, How can these men best be made use of in the Army? I hope it is clear that that is a question which can only be decided by a man who has a complete knowledge of the various arms of the Service and of the duties required to be performed by each of those arms. It would not be a medical question at all. By hypothesis we suppose that these men are all as fit as they can be for their age and that they are available for military service. The utilisation of them comes to be con-

    1255
    sidered. That must be a question which must ultimately be decided by men of military experience and military knowledge and, indeed, by men who know the exact conditions obtaining in the field in this War. If the disposal of these men between the arms of the Service were entrusted to individuals who had not that knowledge there would undoubtedly be a waste of men—a number would be wrongly posted. Therefore it appears to me quite clear, and I hope the Committee will agree with me, that in deciding how a man is to be utilised in the Army there are two separate considerations.
    The first is the purely medical consideration as to how fit the man is; the second consideration is how the man who possesses such fitness can best be employed in the Army, and that falls to be decided by men with experience of the conditions of this War. That is at the base of these difficulties—the difficulty of deciding how fit a man is and that of deciding how a man ought to be employed in the Army. These two difficulties constitute the basal problem in connection with grading or categorisation. The posting of them is a separate function. Under the old scheme, as I have said, when these men were dealt with by the War Office, an attempt was made to carry out these two operations at one time and to get the doctors working on the medical boards to decide, not only the medical problem as to how fit a man is, but also the further problem—what class of work the man is most suitable to do in the Army. That led, as was inevitable, to great waste, because civilian medical practitioners in large measure were being asked to decide something which required military experience, and, if I may venture to go back to the past, I would say that the great difficulty which led to the breakdown of the military recruiting boards was the imposition of this double function upon them. A great part of the criticism which was directed against these boards was due to the fact that they were attempting to perform two functions simultaneously, one of which they were qualified to perform and for the performance of the other of which they had not the necessary knowledge. At the time when it was decided that the medical examination of troops should be dealt with by the Civil Department this matter was very fully considered, not only by the Department itself, but by the Medical Advisory Board and by a large number of
    1256
    competent civil consultants. The question put to them was, What was it fair, right and proper to require medical men to do with regard to this grading and how far It was safe to expect civil medical men to be able to decide the military value of any individual brought before them? The answer they gave to that question wag that the furthest a medical board composed of civil medical practitioners should be expected to go was to say whether a man was fit for his age or not. That was the advice received from the Medical Advisory Board and from these consultants who were called in, and it lies behind the definitions which were given to the terms Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3 last autumn, when these terms were introduced. The reasons that the terms Category A and Category B1, B2, and B3, and so on were abandoned for recruiting medical boards was simply this, that we were changing at that time—last October—the ideal which was before the medical board, and we published the new definition at the same time as we published the new terms. It is expressed in that definition that these terms Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3, and so on have reference to the age of the men.
    But that carried with it something much more important. It carried with it a completely new system of posting. In the old days the attempt was made by medical boards to place individuals who became available for Army service in one or other of seven departments or grades. After the change was made the medical boards, instead of placing men in one of seven grades, were in fact placing them in three grades for every year of the ages under consideration. There are now, from the ages of eighteen to fifty inclusive thirty-three year ages, so that at the present moment when a man comes forward for posting he may be placed in any one of ninety-nine separate departments—Grade 1, twenty-five, and Grade 1, thirty-three, being separate and distinct from Grade 1, forty, or Grade 1, fifty. Now the posting is done as a result of the consideration of the man's grade and his age, and the posting instructions take into consideration two factors. For instance, suppose that there are at the moment vacancies in the first-line Infantry, in the second-line Infantry, in the Artillery, and in other corps. To the first-line Infantry are allotted the men who fulfil two specified conditions—that they are in Grade 1 and within certain ages. To the second-line

    1257
    Infantry there will be allotted a certain number of Grade 1 men within certain specified higher ages and a certain number of Grade 2 men of the younger ages. To the Artillery will go certain Grade 1 and Grade 2 men within specified ages. It is obvious that if you are to maintain an Army in the field there must be at monthly intervals at least consideration of the type of men who are coming forward, and the supply of men of any class or grade or age available, so that the best men available may be posted to that arm which requires the best physique. It is upon that principle that the whole of the present organisation is based, and has been based since last October. Perhaps I may be permitted to put my point in a few words, that the men at the time of medical examination are divided up into ninety-nine grades—three for each of the thirty-three age years. So many of these grades are allotted to the Field Army, or to a portion of that Army. The Artillery is a wide service, for in it you have field batteries, garrison batteries, siege batteries, antiaircraft gun batteries, and so on. The type of physique wanted for an antiaircraft battery is quite different from the type wanted for a field battery. Therefore you have got to get men divided up into a large number of compartments, if you are to avoid waste. It is the failure, perhaps, on our part to explain fully what the system is which led to a great deal of the present criticism, and that is why I took the course of speaking first in this discussion, because I felt that there is a good deal of criticism which is the result of not understanding. I have had a good many talks with people since the last discussion and have found that they have not really understood at all what we were doing. The instructions, of course, have been available.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: They have been to the opposite effect.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I do not think so. I quite see, and I admit fully that I should have seen it before, that one of the instructions, that which was quoted in the House last week, about the equivalence between the grades and the old categories, is most misleading, because there has been a change in the practical meaning of those terms, "Category A" and so on, in the Army. They have retained those terms exactly the same as the terms which were used before, and
    1258
    yet they apply a different meaning to them. They did not follow the National Service Ministry when we changed the term from category into grade, and that is part of the difficulty. It is quite clear that that is a very real difficulty, a difficulty which one had not realised, and I was extremely stupid not to have realised it. I should have seen the point. I apologise for my stupidity. It did not fall within the actual limits of my responsibility, and it is really a most misleading instruction as it stands to-day.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Whom does it mislead?
    An HON. MEMBER: The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I think it did mislead the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, and some remarks I made about his misunderstanding were remarks for which I have to apologise, because there was no doubt whatever that the instructions as they stood, if anyone was not actually working them, and did not know exactly the limits of the one departmental responsibility and the other, could very easily be misinterpreted.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Have any instructions been issued by the War Office to recruiting officers as to the corps or unit to which they should post men of a particular age grade?
    Sir A. GEDDES: These are posting instructions which are issued monthly, and there is issued every month a very long instruction showing exactly what the age and physical qualifications are which are required for certain corps. The whole of the posting of the men is carried out under most careful supervision. When the men pass from the control of the Ministry of National Service over to the War Office, to the Air Ministry, or to the Navy, they go to reception stations, and at the reception station, in the case of the Army, there is what is called a posting board, which consists of a field officer who has experience of the present War, either directly by personal experience or has full information of how men of various ages are standing, a medical officer, and also a posting officer, who-has full information given to him every month as to the requirements of each of the arms of the Service, and the classes of men who should be posted to that arm. The actual instructions are issued monthly in the form of an Army Council Instruction to these officers. Obviously a great

    1259
    part of the information in that posting instruction must be secret and confidential, because it gives the numbers of men who are required for the various arms at the time. Suppose the Machine Gun Corps is being increased. There is, of course, an increased allotment to it, and if the instruction were published broadcast it would give away information which is obviously private. I have discussed a good many of these points with the War Office, and I know they hold this view, and I do not think it is possible that the monthly posting instruction should be made public. But there are considerable portions of it which are not confidential. The general principle upon which the posting is proceeding, for example, is not a confidential matter, and I am in consultation with the War Office, and will go further with that consultation, to see how much of that posting instruction can legitimately be embodied in our instructions which are public. Obviously you cannot give the numbers going to the Tank Corps, the Machine Gun Corps, or the Artillery, nor could you give the numbers going into the second-line Infantry or anything of that sort. But these posting instructions to a large extent are not really secret at all, and there is no reason that I can see why a portion of them should not be published. It is just to draw the line between the portion which can be and the portion which cannot be published with due regard to the national interest that is important, and that will require a certain amount of consideration. I hope I have made these points clear, that the question of a man's employment in the Army, the Air Force, or the Navy is determined by the consideration of two factors, the physical fitness of that man as discovered by the medical board—a purely medical consideration—and his age, which, after all, is a fact which is ascertainable, and that age is considered in relation to the experience of the campaign as to what degree of physical strength fit men of various ages are capable of attaining. I should like to impress on the Committee the fact that, under the present system, which has been worked since last October, there is very much greater delicacy in determining the fitness of these men than there was under the old system. There we had seven categories in which the men were supposed to be put by the medical boards, but into
    1260
    which, as a matter of fact, it was not possible for the medical boards in many cases to put them with any degree of certainty at all, because it was a mixed problem, not pure medical and not pure military, but a bit of it was medical and a bit of it was military. So now, I believe, under the present system, we are getting a much smaller percentage of waste of man-power. That is what we have been aiming to get, and what I think experience is showing that we are getting. I do not believe it is possible to go back to the old system of medical boards attempting to put men into these different categories. There is no possibility of drawing a definite and distinct boundary between one grade and another, or between one category and another. But the medical boards should concern themselves with the simple medical problem, is the man fit for his age or is he not? The medical men who are doing the medical examinations for the Ministry of National Service are not officials, and they are not whole-time men to any extent, though there are necessarily a few whole-time men. In the vast majority of cases they are civil practitioners who are giving a portion of one, two, three, or four days in the week to help in this work.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: What is the tenure of their office? Are they subject to dismissal?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The medical men are provided by the profession itself through its local official organisations, the local war executive committees. They prepare panels which include men in practice in the district who are willing or who have time to do a certain amount of work on the medical boards. The war executive committee may refuse to put a man's name on the panel. That, I believe, has happened, but no Government Department has anything to do with whether a man's name is on the panel or not, or is removed from the panel or not.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are they paid by time or by the case?
    Sir A. GEDDES: They are paid by sessions of two and a half hours. These medical men are not in my sense servants of the Ministry of National Service. That is to say, we do not in fact appoint them. There is a formal approval, which has never been withheld from the names sent forward by these professional committees. Nor does any Government Department dismiss them. If any individual

    1261
    on one of the panels was guilty of misconduct, the tribunal which would decide that would, in the first instance, be the local war executive committee of the medical profession, and if they thought it a case of misconduct they would remove a man's name from the panel. So that there is, in fact, no Government control over the individuals who are working on these boards. That has been deliberately arrived at.
    Sir F. LOWE: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Department issue any instructions to these medical boards?
    Sir A. GEDDES: There is no control over the individuals who constitute the medical board. They have nothing to hope for from the Ministry of National Service beyond remuneration for a session or so many sessions per week. They have no promotions coming from the Ministry of National Service. That is a perfectly deliberate arrangement, because from the very earliest days of the history of the medical boards of the Ministry of National Service it was recognised that there would in all probability—and I believe it is absolutely borne out by experience—be a far higher standard of professional work if we left the profession itself to select the men who were to perform it. The general direction with regard to the working of these boards—that is to say, the professional, technical, medical direction, not the administrative direction about hours, pay, and so on—are issued from the Ministry of National Service after consultation with the heads of the profession. They are issued after full discussion by the medical officers in the Medical Advisory Board, which works with the Ministry of National Service, and there is consultation in all cases dealing with certain physical disabilities with recognised specialists in that particular branch of the profession. Instructions with regard to the effects of heart disorders upon grading are not issued by the Ministry of National Service out of its own head, but are issued to the boards after consultation with specialists upon heart disorders. Similarly in the cases of ears, throat, or whatever it may be. It is very important to remember that these instructions are discussed by the Ministry of National Service Advisory Medical Board with specialists in the subject and the instructions are agreed on with certain specialists before they are even brought to the Advisory Medical Board,
    1262
    which thereafter may or may not correct them. But I think in every case the Advisory Board has agreed with every technical professional instruction.
    I am not trying to shake off any responsibility for the instructions. Once they are agreed, they are issued in the name of the Ministry of National Service, who must accept full responsibility for them, and do. I am just stating the procedure under which these instructions are prepared. Once these instructions are issued, the whole of the medical boards naturally are expected to conform to them. A great deal of recent criticism with regard to medical boards has been directed against the wrong place. The medical boards have been working very well in the overwhelming majority of cases. The criticism about the grading of the older men that has been hurled at these boards has been, in my opinion, directed to the wrong place. It ought to have been directed straight against the Minister.
    An HON. MEMBER: So it is!
    Sir A. GEDDES: That which is coming against the Minister is in the right direction. That which is going against the medical boards as to their grading according to the age and fitness of the men is not going to the right place. There has been a lot of criticism directed quite unfairly against the practitioners who constitute the boards, and in saying this I am speaking not only to this Committee, but I hope to those who are outside the walls of this House. These practitioners have been accused of grading men without proper examination, and so on. That may have happened in the case of one or two boards, but it certainly is not the case with regard to the vast majority. I have to remind the Committee that there are no fewer than 2,500 medical practitioners from civil practice, who are the very salt of the profession on the general practice side, working on these boards, and I would assure the Committee that it is not because it pays them. They do it out of a spirit of patriotism and because they realise that at this time it is a form of national work which they can do for the country. If there is to be any criticism of the work of the boards to-day I hope it will be directed not against the boards, but against me. The next point is that of the men of the new age period. It has been said that a very large number of men of the new age are being taken for the

    1263
    Army. It has also been said that a disproportionately large number of men of the new age period are being passed into the higher grades. I am in a very great difficulty at this stage, because I obviously cannot in the national interest give the figures in full. Therefore, if the Committee will forgive me—I know it is an undesirable practice—I would like to show them two charts. It was only because I realise that I cannot give the figures that I had this chart prepared, which will show pictorially exactly what is happening, and if members of the Committee are sufficiently interested to desire to have an opportunity of seeing them afterwards perhaps I can arrange to have them put in the Library. This (exhibiting chart) deals with men of the new age period. The long orange line, which extends nearly the length of the whole paper, represents the total number of men affected by the recent military age. The black line represents the 7 per cent. who the Prime Minister said, we propose to post this year. The blue line is the number of men who have been medically examined up to date, and the line which is very faint, and I am not sure whether hon. Members can see it, represents the number who have been posted up to date. That is the dreadful number of men posted out of the whole of this long column, which we have been told is ruining the business prospects of this country.
    Sir C. HENRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what that small line represents as compared with the 7 per cent.?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Taking the total of this line (pointing to the orange line), this email thin line represents one-third of 1 per cent. of the total column.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what proportion of those medically examined have been passed in Grades 1 and 21
    Sir A. GEDDES: I have another picture to show to the Committee.
    Sir C. HENRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the 7 per cent. has been exceeded by those who have been medically examined up to date?
    Sir A. GEDDES: 11.2 per cent. have been medically examined, and less than one-third of 1 per cent. have been posted. The men who have been medically examined include those who have been
    1264
    absolutely rejected, those who have been placed in Grade 3, which, in accordance with the undertaking given to the House at the time of the passing of the Bill, we are not posting at present, and also the whole of the men who are before the tribunals. This next diagram (exhibiting diagram) deals with the grading.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of the men who have been medically examined have been already posted?
    Sir A. GEDDES: One-third of 1 per cent. of the total number of men of the orange line. You can work it out. I am not good at mental arithmetic This chart, which shows the medical grading of the men, deals with the period since the men of the new age began to be medically examined. We are told that a very large number of the men of the new age—in fact, the statement has been quite cheerfully made that a higher percentage of the men of the new age are being passed for Grade 1 than of the old age. The first of these figures represents the results of the grading of the men of the old age. Red represents the men placed in Grade 1, green those placed in Grade 2, black those placed in Grade 3, and blue those place in Grade 4. Those at the top are men of the old age. Hon. Members will see that red is a very high column in every one of these diagrams.
    Each of these blocks represents the-finished work of the medical boards in each of the regions, and London, which has been the most criticised, comes first. In the lower part you will see that there are two periods represented, and these deal with the men of the new age period. The colours have the same meaning. You will see there the result of the medical examination of the men of the new age period at the bottom of the second diagram, red meaning Grade 1, green Grade 2, black Grade 3. and blue Grade 4. These diagrams can be seen by everybody. I think that this first diagram will show that an enormous number of men of the new age has not, at all events on a percentage basis, yet been removed from civil life. I would like now to direct the Committee's attention to the safeguards which are provided for these men when they are medically examined. These safeguards are very numerous. Suppose an individual of the new age or the old age is medically examined. He first of all has the right of appeal, if he dislikes his

    1265
    grading, to a National Service medical board for re-examination, and many do appeal, and, as a result, many are downgraded and many others have been upgraded, and many have been left in the grade in which they were originally placed.
    Sir F. LOWE: Is leave always given for that?
    Sir A. GEDDES: It requires no leave from anybody. The only thing is they are fitted in as vacancies occur at the earliest possible moment for examination. If there is a rush of men being examined, as occasionally happens, and quite inevitably happens, a board may hurry through cases, and men are disappointed; and if you are giving a week's notice for medical examination, you have to arrange ten days ahead for the men who are to be medically examined, as it is impossible in cases like that, where a large number of men have to be re-examined, to ideal with them all at once.
    Sir H. NIELD: What is the board which deals, in the first instance, with a man over forty-three, who is called up for medical examination? Is it a National Service board or some other board?
    Sir A. GEDDES: It is a National Service board.
    Sir H. NIELD: Is there a right of appeal from that board to the assessors or not?
    Sir A. GEDDES: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to go on, perhaps we will get over the ground more quickly. I am speaking of a first examination by a National Service board, and of a second examination by a National Service board, and I am going to tell the Committee something which, perhaps, they do not know already, that we have got established, because of this re-examination being asked for, in many parts of the country—it is not possible in London at the moment because of the shortage of medical men, but it is done where there are enough medical men for the purpose—what is, in effect, an Appeal National Service board to which men may go as vacancies occur. This board does not do what I may call primary examination. It does the re-examination. Suppose the man is still dissatisfied, and by this time applies for a third examination, it is time, if there is no proper ground for a further examination, to refuse one;
    1266
    and if a man then goes on and applies, he may be refused the right of further examination, but he has then the right to go to the Appeal Tribunal, and that tribunal has the right of saying whether he shall or shall not be examined again. In many cases the Appeal Tribunal says, "Go back to the National Service medical board and be examined there," and arrangements are made accordingly. That has been a very common practice in many parts of the country, but if a man says, "These National Service medical boards do not satisfy me," the Appeal Tribunal can then send him to the assessors. So there is a further safeguard. The medical assessors are not under the control of the Minister of National Service at all. They are under the control of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and I would like to make it clear to the Committee that the Appeal Tribunals, the lay tribunals, are in fact a part of the ordinary routine machinery for securing medical examinations for the men examined. The Appeal Tribunals do not stand outside the medical examination machinery. They are an integral part of it in deciding what men shall go in for examination by the assessors.
    That does not end the medical safeguard. If a man be posted he has still, immediately afterwards, to run the gauntlet of another medical examination of a more or less thorough kind, depending upon his age, and the standard which he is supposed to attain. If he is a young and obviously fit man, of course it is not necessary to have a very thorough examination. The man is simply marched past the doctor, who sees that he has got no infectious disease, or, if he has, that it is at once dealt with. That is done by the medical officer at the reception station for the service into which the man is going. If he is going into the Navy, the medical examination is by the naval authorities. If he is going into the Army, he is medically seen and examined by the Royal Army Medical Corps. I really, indeed, do not think that we can add very much to that series of safeguards. Remember that we have introduced especially, and of set purpose, with deliberate forethought, a stage at which the lay mind could be brought to bear upon it—that is, the lay mind of the Appeal Tribunal. That was done after great consideration and a great deal of thought, because we came to the conclu-

    1267
    sion that it would be very much better that a lay mind should be brought to bear upon this question of the medical boards—medical grading, and so forth.
    Sir F. LOWE: Has the applicant the right to obtain professional assistance in applying to these various tribunals for medical re-examination?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Certainly he has the right to have professional assistance before the lay tribunal.
    Sir F. LOWE: The Appeal Tribunal?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The Appeal Tribunal.
    Sir F. LOWE: That has not been so in some cases.
    Sir A. GEDDES: So we have a whole series of appeals and safeguards, and it is very difficult to see what further right of appeal could be introduced without hopelessly clogging the machinery. I think that we have gone as far as is reasonable. Now it is said that, in spite of all that, a certain number of men are whirled into the forces without proper medical examination, simply because they do not know. I do not know how any man could avoid at all events two of the stages. He has got to go before a National Service board—that is inevitable—and he has got to go before the posting board of the service to which he is being sent, if he is going into the Army at all. My experience of this shows me that there is always a small percentage of men who are put by the medical service board in a wrong grade. Sometimes they are graded too high and sometimes too low. That is inevitable. The percentage is very small, but the men who are passed through with too high a grading are "caught," if I may use that term, at the reception station, where the medical eye is again passed over them, and their physical condition is again assessed.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is the examination at the reception station made by one medical officer or by a medical board?
    Sir A. GEDDES: There is a board, which is called the posting board. It consists of one field officer, a combatant officer—this is the case of the Army. I cannot tell the exact composition in the case of the Navy—a medical officer and a posting officer.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Suppose the medical officer at the reception station
    1268
    classifies the man in a higher grade than he is classified at his medical examination—what is his position then?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The medical officer at the reception station cannot classify him. He cannot put a man up. He can only send him back.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: He has done so. I know of cases.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I would be very much obliged to my right hon. Friend if he will let me have any cases, because that is strictly against the instructions. There is a further safeguard inside the Service. That is that the men in the lower grades, if there is any question of their being graded high, are sent to what are called Recruit Distribution Battalions, where they are kept under observation for a period. I think that I am right in saying that the minimum is two months before regrading can be effected. That, I think, answers the point made by my right hon. Friend. There must be this lapse of two months while the men are under observation in this recruiting distributing battalion.
    Mr. A. RICHARDSON: Is there any reason for not telling a man what his rights are if he is not satisfied? It is reasonable to give a man notice of what are his rights. It has never been done.
    Sir A. GEDDES: If the Committee think that this should be done, I will consider it. Personally, I have never tried to conceal from anybody what his rights are.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: It is not a question of concealing. It is a question of not telling.
    Sir A. GEDDES: If it is considered necessary, I have no objection to putting notices up everywhere.
    Sir H. NIELD: Did not the junior of the right hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary, when his attention was called yesterday to the Chiswick Tribunal, and it was very specifically pointed out that men were misled through not knowing their rights, and many had allowed the time to elapse, and he was asked if, in those circumstances, he would print on the margin of the form requiring attendance for medical examination notice stating that if the man was dissatisfied he would have the right to

    1269
    appeal within five days, answer that he would make no exception, that he could print no such notice on the form, because if he did it in one case he would have to do it in all?
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir A. GEDDES: It must be obvious to all members of the Committee that it would be quite impossible to give the whole of the Regulations on every calling-up notice. A man would require a good thick book every time he was called up. We quite certainly agree to put up a notice—
    Sir H. NIELD: Put it in the form.
    The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members had better reserve their remarks until after the Minister has concluded, when they will have an opportunity of stating their points.
    Sir A. GEDDES: There is really no room in the form for the notice, and I am quite sure, if we put up one at the depot, that ought to satisfy any reasonable man who goes to be examined. There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about the way men have been medically examined and passed forward to the Army, and one knows that there is a good deal of unrest in the public mind, because they think that these men of the new age period are being sent forward to the Army to be mixed up with men of the younger class. I have already explained how we deal with men of the new age period. Each man of the new age period has a number in the National Service, and has opposite his number a large O. That large O was a distinguishing mark for the older men, and the use of that distinguishing mark has simply been carried on for use in the case of men of the new age period. The O is put opposite the number, indicating that the man is of the new age period. Not only is his category marked in this way, but the man's medical history sheet is also similarly marked, in order that there may be no mistake from carelessness or oversight at the reception depot. The posting officer looks at the sheet, and immediately sees the O opposite the man's number. Men in Grade 3 are distinguished in the same way with an O opposite their number, and that also appears in the medical sheet. I hope the Committee will recognise that a great deal of thought has been exercised in the case of these
    1270
    men. The thing has not been rushed; the men have not been simply whirled into the Service without consideration. These safeguards exist. Consultations take place between the National Service Department and the War Office, and these consultations have been practically continued since the beginning of this work.
    There is a further point to which I wish to refer. I have received from Members of this House, and from the public, a very large number of letters recently, saying that the men of the new age period were promised—and that is quite true—that the young men would be strongly combed out before the older men were taken. The combing is going on, and is going on extremely well. The numbers which are coming out are satisfactory, and I think that we have really fully carried out that undertaking. It may interest the Committee to know that for every one man of the new-age period that has been taken, approximately just under thirty young men have been called upon. I think it will be seen that we are really carrying out that undertaking, and certainly we intend to do it to the best of our ability. But it must be obvious that we cannot suddenly whirl away all the young men from the work they are doing, without producing utter chaos. It is a slow business at best. We have speeded up enormously in the last few weeks, but the rate at which we are going forward is not really satisfactory to me. I want to see more of these young men combed out, and more of the older men, because the older men have got to train. You cannot have a gap after the young men have gone, so that the older men are being obtained in order that they may be in training so that no gap shall arise. It is impossible to take all young men for military service, and in some cases where we have taken them, I am afraid that the combing out has been overdone.
    It really is important to realise what these men of the new age period are required for, and what is the policy which lies at the back of this new military age, the policy is really this: It is obvious, and it is common knowledge, that we have fewer young men than we had. We have recruited an enormous number, and the men of youth and fitness remaining in civil life are becoming more and more precious objects of national possession. In the Army there are largo numbers of services which require to be performed, but which do not necessarily call for the

    1271
    priceless qualifications of youth and fitness. Vacancies which are made in these services in the Army will have to be filled up, and men of the new age period will have to fill such gaps when the younger men are wanted. It must be obvious to the Committee that when you get nearer to the bottom, you are drawing men of greater value in civil life, and, recognising that, we are exercising all the care and humanity that we possibly can. Though it may be of little use, in days like these, to expect or look for humanity in the machinery of recruiting, nevertheless, every effort is made by us to retain just as much humanity as we possibly can in dealing with the cases of the men. I believe that many members of the Committee will realise that so far as humanly possible the Department of National Service has done its best to maintain a humane outlook. It is because we are getting so short of the younger men that men of the new age period are required for second-line Infantry and subsidiary services in the Army.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by Grade 2?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am not referring to Grade 2, but to secondary and subsidiary services in the Army, not primarily in the first-line trenches, and not primarily even in assault work. Perhaps the idea may be best conveyed to the hon. Member's mind if I suggest a comparison between the second line of the British Army and the Territorial Infantry of the French Army, and a further comparison with the Land-stürm of the Germany Army. I think that comparison indicates most closely my meaning.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds, I wish to know whether he can guarantee that these men of the new age period in Grade 1, whom he says he wants for secondary services, when they get to the Army, will be put to secondary services. Can he guarantee that?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I obviously cannot, as Minister of National Service, guarantee what will happen in circumstances of pressure and of fighting, but I can assure the Committee that, so far as it is humanly possible, the War Office has pledged itself to accept the undertaking as to putting these men of the new age period to secondary services in connection with the Army.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will these Grade 1 men be in separate units or battalions?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I think, when the Army is fighting, anything may happen, but until that occurs these men will not be mixed with young Grade 1 men. Grade 2 men may be, and I think will be in the same units, and I think that is necessary if we are to maintain continuity, but they will not be mixed up with young Grade 1 men, except in such times as exigencies compel men to fight, just as, at the end of March, the men who were passed for Labour battalions, took their place in the fighting line and fought extraordinarily well. But that was an emergency. Obviously, I cannot give any undertaking as to what might happen in a considerable emergency, but, so far as possible, the War Office has undertaken and agreed to see that these men are used for secondary services in the Army, and I have not heard of any failure on their part to carry out that pledge.
    Before I sit down there is one thing I would like to say to the Committee, and through the Committee to the tribunal system outside this House. My right hon. Friend had given notice of it to-day, and it is on the subject of the tribunals and illegitimate pressure being brought to bear on them. The question was not put, but I understood it to refer to a sentence in a speech—a rather long speech—which I made in Manchester the other day, a sentence which I believe to have been misinterpreted. I may have spoken carelessly, but the point which was in my mind at that time, I may inform my right hon. Friend, when I was speaking of the retention in civil life of young men whose removal would not create a panic was not only—it was quite clear in the speech—of men protected by tribunals, but also of men protected by various administrative protective machines. I spoke with a considerable amount of heat on the subject of the fathers and other relatives of young men who have been trying to bring pressure upon the executive authorities to secure exemption for their sons. That has been interpreted as being a reflection upon the tribunals. It was not meant as a reflection upon the intergrity of the tribunals, but as a rebuke for a practice well known, I believe, to every member of every tribunal in the country, and also to a great many Members, if not every Member, of this House, where influence is attempted to be brought to bear of a

    1273
    social, business, or some other kind on those who have to decide the question of a man's exemption. That is what I was speaking of, that is what I was referring to. In the speech as reported—it is not a, verbatim report, of course—I think it quite likely that what I said lent itself quite naturally to the interpretation—I am not complaining of the report—it would appear that I was saying that individual members of tribunals were guilty of improper conduct. If what I said could be construed in that way, I apologise to members of the tribunals for having conveyed that.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I only want to say a few words in answer to some of the statements, very satisfactory statements, which have proceeded from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Geddes). He has to administer in times of great difficulty very unpopular Acts, and therefore he has all our sympathies. In two speeches to which we have listened, and of which he delivered himself last week, a speech in this House and a speech at Manchester, I do not think he detracted from his difficulties. But the speech this afternoon will, I am quite sure, in the opinion of most members of this Committee, have cleared up a great many misunderstandings on both sides, and will have considerably eased the running of the machine of which he is in charge. Let me say, first of all, in reference to what my right hon. Friend has just told the House is his explanation of he present attitude towards tribunals, that I accept that explanation, but I must tell my right hon. Friend that if he had not given that explanation he would have made the work of tribunals exceedingly difficult, would have aroused a storm about his ears which it would have been very difficult for him to allay, and would, I am quite sure, have detracted from the proceedings in this Committee. As he has frankly withdrawn nearly all, if not quite all, his allegations against the members of the tribunals, I need not dwell very long upon that point. I would only say that so far as my personal experience of tribunals in my own part of the country is concerned, I have found that because of the fact that I was an employer of labour or an owner of land having a tenant on that tribunal—or for some other reason of that sort—I was treated much more sternly by tribunals on which it might be thought I could bring some pressure to bear than if I had no connection with them, and I
    1274
    think that is the universal experience of Members of this House amongst those who could be thought to have a social pull. I am sorry my right hon. Friend used that expression, and I wish he had retracted it as he did the other part of his statement.
    Let me say a word with regard to what took place in the Debate last week. There, again, my right hon. Friend has frankly told us that it is he who misunderstood the representations that were made by the chairmen of tribunals in this House—by my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Chairman of Committees and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Middlesex (Sir H. Nield), and so forth—that it was he who misunderstood them, and not they who misunderstood and mistook the instructions given to the tribunals. He has told us quite frankly also that it was the retention by the War Office of a word which he had discarded from his official vocabulary which led to this misunderstanding on his part. There is, however, one remark I should like to make about the categorisation of men, and it is this: So long as the men were between the ages of eighteen and forty, the standard of physical fitness which you applied to them was practically a positive standard. Could a man do such a thing or could he not? Could he walk 5 miles or 10 miles? Could he haul a gun, could he fire a rifle straight, and so forth? It was a positive standard—
    Sir A. GEDDES: It was so absolutely up to October, but these points which have just been referred to were all cut out at that time and have not been in use since.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend will see the point I am going to make. When you proceed to apply the same standard of physical fitness to men of forty-three and fifty, you cannot apply a positive standard; it must be a relative standard. The sun shines in Mesopotamia with equal force on a man of forty-four as it does on a man of twenty-four. It shines much more fiercely on a man of forty-four, and yet you are testing him, as you think, by a lower relative standard of fitness. You say he is to be fit relative to his age. You cannot test him by that. In theory it may be all right, but in practice it is all wrong. The fever which assails' a man in a tropical climate, the desert in which he has to march, the

    1275
    heat in which he works, the want of water or food—there cannot be a relative standard. It must be a positive standard, but that weighs far more heavily on the man over forty-three than the man under that age. Therefore, unconsciously or consciously, and with the best will in the world, you are applying an absolutely different standard to these men you are sending into the Army. What has happened in regard to the examination of these men by medical boards? In the course of the Debate last week my right hon. Friend said that the action of the medical boards had caused him serious alarm, and he told us this afternoon that it was not the generality of medical boards which had caused him alarm, but a certain specific or limited number of such boards, and he then proceeded to tell us that there were certain safeguards which would protect the recruit when examined medically from any stupid or emotional action of the medical board. My right hon. Friend gave us a whole list of them. There were, I think, five appeals to various medical authorities, each of whom was to revise, if necessary, the decision of its predecessors. What we want to know is not whether on paper these safeguards are provided, but whether in practice they are observed. We want to know whether they are mere paper safeguards and illusory, or whether they are in practice for application to every recruit who thinks that he is ill-used in being put into a higher grade than his physical fitness ought to allow? Rich or poor, fortunate or unfortunate, whatever their station in life, they should all be brought before the board and relegated to categories irrespective of their previous social history.
    We understand that at some period of his examination legal assistance is to be put at the disposal of the recruit if he so desires, if he can afford to pay for it, and if he knows he is entitled to employ it My right hon. Friend said it was impossible to stud the notice paper with warnings of every sort and kind, but let him think how important this is to a man who comes up to undertake a kind of work for which he was never prepared, and never had in his mind until he was actually called up, to know that all these chances of reconsideration are really open to him. I know quite a number of cases of men who have said they have been
    1276
    extremely well treated when called up for medical examination, but they have come back to me and said they had no idea there was any further medical examination. That was never pointed out to them on the papers by the persons by whom they were called up, or by the medical officers by whom they were examined, and when I said I understood there were further chances—I had no knowledge of this elaborate programme which has been mentioned this afternoon—they asked where they were to get them, how could they find out, and I confess that I was unable either to give them that information or to obtain it from any source of which I knew. I hope all the information my right hon. Friend has given us this afternoon may be spread broadcast throughout the classes of men who are to be included, and that the information he has given so freely will be put at their disposal as well as ours. I want to say one word on the 7 per cent. chart, and let me, in passing, remark how inconvenient I think it is to the House that we should have to rely on this system of charts. They are produced with the best intentions by the Minister, but it is not the way in which to afford information to the House.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Give us a film!
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: We ought to have the information soon, and in a more specific way than can be given by this chart. What does the 7 per cent. mean? Upon what calculation does it rest? It cannot rest upon any previous knowledge of the medical condition of the persons to be examined. I asked six months ago upon what basis it rested and upon what calculation it was made, why you took 7 per cent instead of 10 or 5 per cent., whether it had reference to the losses in the field or to the population who might come within the purview of this Act, and I have never had an explanation. I listened very carefully to what was said this afternoon by my right hon. Friend, and he never ventured upon an explanation. It is no good showing me a chart and saying, "We calculated to take up 7 per cent., but we have, as a matter of fact, only called up one-third of 1 per cent." I want to know why you think these numbers of men between forty-three and fifty years of age would give you 7 per cent., and if, as a matter of fact, they do not give you 7 per cent. normally, are you so instructing your medical officers

    1277
    and your tribunals that whether the yield ought to be 7 per cent. or not it shall be 7 per cent.? I hope the Committee see the importance of this point. Supposing 7 per cent. represents 250,000 men, and the medical history of those people will only yield you 150,000 men, do you strain the orders to your medical boards in order to give you 100,000 men who are not really fit, but who, in order to make up your imaginary numbers, you are going to force into the Army, to the detriment both of the Army and of the civil population, which is deprived of their work? That seems to me to be the most important point which can be raised in connection with this Debate, and it is one upon which I hope we shall get some enlightenment. I think there is a good deal to be answered in this respect. In the Debate the other day the right hon. Gentleman said that instructions would be issued to the tribunals that more men of these ages must be obtained. Irrespective of their fitness or of their worth to the Army, more numbers, he said, must be obtained. Why must they be obtained—because they are fit?
    Mr. PRINGLE: No; to make up for Ireland!
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I do not know what the explanation is, and the Minister will no doubt give it, because otherwise you are taking men out of the civil population who are useful in production and putting them into the Army, where they become consumers and are no use as soldiers. That is the paint to which I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention, and to which I hope he will give an answer, either himself or through the mouth of the Under-Secretary. He will not, I hope, complain—in fact, he cannot complain—of the importance of this Debate, because unless the questions which are raised by the National Service Act are settled satisfactorily to the population which it affects, he will find that it is not only in Ireland that there will be serious objection taken to recruiting, but that the contagion will spread to this country.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN (Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means): I am very glad, first of all, that the question of the tribunals has been cleared up quite adequately, because, as I understand the Minister, he frankly and most unreservedly withdraws any suggestion on his part that the tri-
    1278
    bunals were responsible for the detention of men in civil life who otherwise ought to have been in the Army, and that that detention had been caused by anything like a "social pull," because it is so-obvious that if that, were so, so far as the tribunals were concerned, a complete and absolute remedy lay in his own hands, since all he had to do was to touch the lover, and the National Service representative would at once appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, who would very promptly deal with the matter. And even if the Appeal Tribunal were at fault, the National Service representative would only have to ask for a review to at once bring the matter before the public, or, failing that, report it to the Local Government Board, and the matter would be adequately and promptly dealt with. It is satisfactory that that matter, however unfortunate the phrase was, has been definitely cleared up. I entirely agree with what the Minister said as to the protection which has been most unfairly given to very large numbers of young men under the wide umbrella of what is known as Munition Departments, men with not only direct official connection, but where there are sub-contracting firms. I entirely agree with him there, that that is a state of affairs which calls for prompt and effective handling, because it is quite obvious to us all that you cannot go on calling up men of the older ages while these young men are known to be about, getting large wages, when they ought to be serving the country in the Army.
    I may be very captious and hypercritical, but I am still very nervous about the position with regard to the men of the older ages, and there is nothing, I am also sorry to say, which my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon to make it clear at all that there is going to be any change in regard to the fundamental criticism which we make—indeed, I will go farther and say which we respectfully demand-that the men of the older ages shall have at least as favourable a medical examination as the men of the lower ages. Sweeping all the charts aside, that is the real position. I see my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition present, and I am sure that he will agree with me that that was the understanding upon which the Second Reading of the Bill was obtained. The Minister has told us that there were some standard definitions of what was meant by Grade 1, which were then in force, and, indeed, accessible to

    1279
    anybody who dug in the recesses of the Library for them, and that there had been no change from that. I want to examine that statement. What was the definition? In Number 13 of 1917, N.S.I., dated 17th November, 1917, it says:
    "Grade 1 is generally equivalent to category A, i.e., general service, in the old classification."
    What is "general service"! Surely it means a man who can take his place in any part of the campaign, from the firing line to the back of the base line. The definition goes on:
    "It includes those who attain the normal standard of health and strength, and are capable of enduring the amount of physical exertion suitable to their age. They must Be free from any serious organic disease or deformity."
    That was followed by M.N.S.R. 24 at a later date. I do not quite know that date.
    Sir H. NIELD: In May.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Then that was after the passing of the last Military Service Act. I will read it:
    "Grade 1.—This grade will comprise those who attain the normal standard of health and strength and are capable of enduring physical exertion suitable to their age. The men must not suffer from any organic disease, with certain exceptions specified hereafter, and must have no grave physical disability or deformity. Minor defects, such as of the teeth and of eyesight, which can be removed or compensated for by artificial means will not be regarded as disqualifications. Men who fulfil the conditions of Grade 1 will also be fit for general service in the Army."
    Again we have "general service." In the first circular quoted by me they were the governing words at the start of the definition. Here they are at the end, but still they are the dominating words of the whole definition. Now we come to the other document, that of the 29th April, 1918:
    "Amendment of M.N.S.R. 24.
    Grade 1.—The older men will be placed in Grade 1 if they possess the full normal physical fitness to be expected of their age. Such men must not have any serious physical defect, and must not suffer from progressive organic disease. They must be able to endure physical exertion involving a considerable degree of strain, and to undergo gradual physical training in order to fit them for military duty.
    NOTE.—The physical training for the older men in this grade will be carried out under special medical supervision."
    Not one word there, in the circular of the 29th April, of men of this class being fit for general service. I suggest that the Minister, when he was making his replies
    1280
    to us on the floor of this House, neither when he read the definition in reply to a question, nor when he read the definition in reply to my hon. and learned Friend (Sir H. Nield), did he mention one word about the question of being fit for general service in the Army. He directed his attention solely to this last circular of the 29th April. What I say is this: There can be no sort of doubt by anybody who applies an impartial mind—I am not saying I am impartial because I am feeling rather strongly about this, so please rule me out—but anybody who applies an impartial mind to this matter can come to no conclusion other than this, that there was a change in the physical standard by which men were to be examined after the Act was passed as compared with when the Bill was here in our hands. There can be no doubt about it. There was a change. I go farther and say that not only was that change made in the circular, but that the change was made in the instructions to the medical officers. I had the opportunity of meeting one or two medical officers of rather high standing in this matter, and they frankly admitted to me that the only thing they had to consider was whether a man was possessed of a sufficient physical fitness suitable to his age, and then they had no option but to pass him Grade 1. To the extent that I have attacked medical boards with regard to their classifying these men Grade 1 on that ground, I apologise to them. They were acting under orders. I will read what one medical officer who wrote to me said:
    "I am, unwillingly, at present, a member of a medical board. Whilst the duties were confined to the younger men one was performing what was at best an unpleasant duty and a painful necessity. The examination of the older men, however, is another matter. Practically the whole of the rank and file of my board inwardly revolt against it, and it has only been the assurance that these older men when passed into the Army will be dealt with under careful medical supervision that has reconciled us to passing them in anything above Grade 2."
    He also said that the medical boards were not free agents on account of the instructions which had been issued and to which they had to work; and he went on to say, in rather a long letter, that any criticisms directed to them had been unfair because they were not free agents in the matter. They had to work to these instructions whether they liked it or not, and had to pass these men Grade 1. This is the fundamental question. Has there, or has there not, been a change in the medical

    1281
    standard? There has been a change. When these men come up, classed Grade 1, before the tribunal, they do not get the same consideration. We want Grade 1 men, and the result is that in tribunals throughout the country these men of the older age are getting far less consideration from the tribunals, as compared with men of the lower ages. Members who have seen notices in the Press will remember what I and my colleagues who are sitting with me upstairs were driven to do, namely, to treat Grade 1 as Grade 2. It is most unfortunate, I agree, that we should do so, because it brings us at once into direct conflict with the Department, with which we should like to work. What advantage is it to me to work against my right hon. Friend? We are engaged in a great War. We want all to work together, but it is profoundly important—and more important in war even than in peace—that we should see that people have some guarantee that they are treated on standards of fairness and justice. I agree it was a drastic step to take, but all I could do was to say, "Very well. It is called Grade 1; the only way in which we can work it is to call it Grade 2." All over the country there are men who have followed my example, and I suppose there are others who have not.
    That is the sort of thing which cannot go on. It must not go on. We must come to a common understanding. I will put this to my right hon. Friend: Does he, or does he not, agree with me that the House—he was here through all the Debates—as a whole understood that the medical standard for the old men was to be the medical standard for the young men? That was what the House thought, anyhow, and that is the only fair thing. You will get a good many more men if graded 2. I passed in quite a number this morning because they were Grade 2, and, on the whole, it was a fair grade, and the pressure for men is great. There must be some way round this. Whatever it is, I do not know. It may be stated at a later date, but the present position, I repeat again, is really getting intolerable. You cannot go on having these tribunals acting in these different ways.
    With all possible respect—I deliberately say this—unless we have an understanding—a clear understanding such as we arrived at with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board as to the Regula-
    1282
    tions—that the men of the older age are going to be at least as favourably considered from a medical point of view as men of a lower age, I shall unfortunately have to go on with the attitude I have taken. So will my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Sir H. Nield), and in the case of many tribunals all over the country. That is a state of affairs which is no credit to us as a people who want to pull together in this War. Let me repeat that there has been, as far as this House is concerned, a change in the medical standard, which is working unfairly and unjustly on the men between forty and fifty. It cannot go on, and they must be at least as fairly treated as the younger men.
    There are one or two minor things I cannot allow to pass. All over the country men are still being asked at the conclusion of their medical examination to sign a paper, stating that they are satisfied with the way in which their medical examination has been conducted. To every lawyer in this House, and I hope to every fair-minded man, that is a most unjust procedure. It amounts to what we know as "duress," and if taken before any legal tribunal in the country, a signature under those circumstances is not worth the paper it is written on.
    Sir A. GEDDES: It is absolute news to me that this is going on. It is also absolute news to the responsible officials of the Department. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me either now, or this evening, or to-morrow morning, where this is going on, because I am assured that there is no such proceeding? It did occur at Conduit Street. An official there, anticipating that he would receive complaints, started a complaint book, and it was at once turned into a certificate. It was most undesirable.
    Mr. PRINGLE: But did this official tell them they had an appeal?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Apart from that, I know of no such practice having arisen, and in this case it was stopped weeks ago.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I have letters from all over the country, and I have had statements made to me.
    Sir G. BARING: In the case of a certain regional board, man after man, just after he had been examined, was asked to sign a book saying that he was satisfied with the examination.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I am very glad my right hon. Friend did not know it. Here is another matter. It is small, and I am sure he does not know of it. It is clear that any man who has been medically graded has, under the Regulations, the right within five days of lodging an appeal, and, as regards his calling-up notice, he has seven days to appeal. My right hon. Friend will be astonished to learn that in many cases it is the practice, where a man is passed Grade 1 or Grade 2, before he leaves the medical examination room, to be served with a calling-up notice. It telescopes the five and seven days, and the poor fellow leaves in a state often of collapse, not knowing where he is. There is another matter which is also rather small, but which I must really mention. The shortage of doctors, we all know, is getting extremely acute, and the call upon doctors on medical boards is very great. Therefore you are reducing the ordinary man's chance of getting a doctor to examine him and obtaining a certificate for the medical board to tell them really what is his physical condition. The result is that these men have no chance at all.
    It was a sickening list I had last Thursday. I had only about ten or twelve cases to-day, and some, I admit, were cases without any foundation at all. But I wall just mention one case to-day. I took a careful note. This man had a hydrocele. He was forty-three. When he was examined he told a doctor something about the trouble. There was only one doctor who examined him, and, at the conclusion of the examination, he stripped the man and saw the hydrocele, and said, "You ought to be tapped." The man said, "I was tapped about three weeks ago." The man's physical deformity was apparent from his clothing. When that man left the medical room he was handed a card marked "Grade 1." It is quite evident that there has been, and is, a very, very grave condition of affairs. Nobody wants to make personal scores in time of war, or, indeed, at any time. It is not a bit of good. There is a common sense in this Assembly and a great sense of equity and justice which is always latent here. What I tell my right hon. Friend is this, that that sense of the House of Commons is against him on this point. Will he really recognise it? The House of Commons wants fairness for the men between forty and fifty—that they should have at least equality of medical
    1284
    examination with the younger men. That is the fundamental thing. Nothing else really matters. All the rest we can arrange.
    I make another appeal to my right hon. Friend. I have made one or two already, and I am not at all without hope. Why not meet us on this matter? One would not mind if you were doing any good for the Army, but you are not. For every battalion of unfit men, or those men of older age who get into the Army, you want two battalions of really Grade 1 men to look after them. It is unjust to the individual, a burden to the Army, and has awful results in pensions. That is what I feel. There are five or six hon. Members in the House who know something about it. There is my hon. Friend (Sir W. Cheyne), there is the hon. Baronet, and there is my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir W. Collins), who are great experts in that great profession. I am quite certain if we met together, we could settle the whole thing, always providing—I do not want any misunderstanding about this—that we get rid of this physical standard of fixing a man's grade according to his age, and not according to his physical fitness for the Army.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir W. COLLINS: I have listened with very great interest to the valuable and good-natured speech made by the Minister of National Service. He told the Committee that hon. Members required information, and he imparted a good deal of it. I think in the speech to which we have just listened the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for National Service will probably agree that he himself has also received some information. This House is always ready to receive information, though perhaps it resents being instructed. The House does not in any way resent the introduction of lecture theatre diagrams if they serve to illustrate a question which does not lend itself to-statistical statement. This is not the first occasion on which this House, or Committee, has discussed the question of medical examinations. I well remember the Debates, and took part in them, during the time when the Review of Exceptions Bill was passing through Committee of this House. I remember that some of us gave warnings of the difficulties that would tend to persist in the method of categorisation. I remember the

    1285
    Second Reading of that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House assured us that steps would be taken to make the system of medical examination as perfect as possible, and so prevent the criticisms that had already occurred being repealed in the future. Nevertheless, in June of last year, when the Army Estimates, if I remember rightly, were under discussion, a further Debate took place on the question of these medical examinations. On that occasion I remember reminding the House that the honourable medical profession was probably seen at its best when it was doing its legitimate work in tending the sick and wounded on the field of battle, or in the casualty clearing stations, or in the base hospitals, or in the hospitals at home, and that it was probably seen at its worst when it was endeavouring—more or less unsuccessfully—to carry out the military directions that proceeded from an administrative authority. I also indicated at that time that, after all, medicine and surgery, though progressive sciences, were not exact sciences, and that they did not lend themselves very readily to this strict routine method of classification which a system of categorisation had imposed upon them. I said an impossible task was being placed upon the medical men who were asked to perform this process and duties of categorisation. I noticed in the Report of the Special Committee, which was at that time set up to consider the working of these medical examinations, that I received the unsolicited corroboration of the gentleman who was then inspector of recruiting in connection with the medical boards, and is now Chief Commissioner of Medical Service in the Ministry of National Service. In answer to question 394 he said:
    "The first point I should like to make—because it is the basis of nine-tenths or a very large proportion of the difficulties we have to face—is that the medical profession in this matter has been asked to do an impossible task. You will remember what Sir William Collins said at the Debate on Thursday evening—one of the most important remarks, which perhaps did not quite attract the attention which it deserved—that the medical profession, in dealing with this matter of categorisation, had been set a task which is medically and physically impossible to carry out accurately and well."
    Nevertheless, at that time, to use a phrase of Charles Reade:
    "The impossible had disguised itself as a fact and it was going through the hollow mockery of taking place."
    Those who endeavoured to criticise and call attention to this matter found that
    1286
    their words fell on deaf ears. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that he has remedied the method of categorisation by substituting the method of grading. I venture to think the question before the Committee is: have the defects disclosed in the former system under the War Office been removed by the transference of the administration to the National Service Department, and is the change from the seven categories into four grades—one of which grades also has three sub-divisions—eliminated the difficulties to which Sir James Galloway called attention in the evidence I have just quoted? I venture to think that it has not. We are still asking the doctors, who have struggled to do their best under most difficult circumstances, to do the impossible. I quite agree with the eulogistic remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Those who have endeavoured to carry out his instructions still maintain that under the four grades, one of which is sub-divided into three sub-heads, the same impossible task is being set as was the case with the seven categories of the former system. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand him, thinks, as he has now appointed an advisory medical board, that this is a purely medical question. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Sir D. Maclean) has indicated that it cannot be a purely medical question. It is not, as we were told the other evening by the right hon. Gentleman, comparable to a life insurance examination, nor is it like recruiting in the old peace days. There the problem was to pick out the fit and reject all the doubtful or the unfit—to take the plums and to pay no attention to the rest. At the present time, however, these boards are set the task of taking the whole male population from eighteen to fifty-one, and, as the result of a five to fifteen minutes' examination, classifying them into four grades for the purpose of fitness for military service. I have before me the various instructions which have been issued. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that he has got rid of the notion of the strategic or teleological motives which obtained under the old system, and has made it purely a medical question. He has not done so; it is impossible. It is a question of military knowledge, and also of medical knowledge, and, above all, common sense should be applied in order to decide to what use a man should be put to. The general proposition that we have heard that a man who is good for anything, say,

    1287
    in earning his livelihood in civil life, is good for something or other in the Army, is sufficiently disposed of by the Report of the Select Committee.
    There is a good deal of confusion of thought in the proposition that a man who is fit, for his age, is therefore fit for some service or other in the Army. It is quite clear that when you reach a certain age that a man may be fit for his age but yet entirely unfit for any purpose in the Army. He may be ah octogenarian! Surely when you begin to sort out the whole population it must appear that as you get nearer to the older ages and further away from the younger ages that there must be a larger proportion who, though they may be fit for their age, may not be fit for any military purposes. The older men, therefore, cannot be expected to be put into the top class, whether you call it Grade 1 or Category 1, in anything like the same proportion to their total number as is the case in the second or the third decade of life. On that point I have great sympathy with the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last endeavoured to enforce. I agree with him that a solution of this problem must not be, and cannot be, found by hard and fast methods of instruction or direction to boards. We hear of the London board being slowed down—whatever that may mean! We heard the other day of the reaction of the German offensive in another connection. We have heard of a circular in the Library which indicated that the number of men sent forward must be doubled. These kind of things suggest that the boards are not free agents, and you cannot expect to get the best work out of them under those circumstances. I would close, as I began, by saying that the medical profession does not require justification. Those who recall the fact that in this great War more than 1,000 casualties have come from the medical profession serving at the front, that more than 200 have made the supreme sacrifice, and that many others have fallen wounded upon the field—I say, with this in view, the medical profession requires no justification. It has done its service well in this War. But it cannot do impossible tasks. I think that this method of making examinations, whether according to category or by the grade system, is setting an impossible task to the medical profession.
    Sir H. NIELD: I should like to associate myself entirely, if the right hon Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) will allow me, with the words which fell from him a few minutes ago when he gave an experience as chairman of the principal section of the County of London Tribunal. The problem the Ministry of National Service must face at once is the question of whether or not they can guarantee that when a man passes out of their control the Army will recognise the standard which they themselves have tried to set up. I listened very carefully to the speech which was made last Thursday, and I have listened carefully to the speech which was made by the Minister of National Service to-day. He has frankly told us that he cannot guarantee that the War Office will do this or do that. That is what troubles chairmen of tribunals. They are confronted now by the most difficult cases. The higher the age the more difficult the case, because a man has got ramifications in business to a very large extent and deeper than the younger men—though it is astonishing to find how often men under forty are in the position of the control of, and of being indispensable to, very large affairs in the commercial world. The difficulties are increased tenfold when you come to deal with men between forty-three and fifty-one who are engaged in business. If we are told, as we have been told for some months past, that if they are found to be Grade 1 men—and the idea has been up to quite recently that a Grade 1 man necessarily meant a man fit for general service—there are at least three circulars justifying our supposing that that is the case—then many a man has been sent into the Army who is not fit for the Army because of the pressure that has been put by the National Service Ministry upon chairmen of tribunals, who have accepted that grading as being indicative of a man of full health and capable of doing work in the Army. Let us see for a moment how the matter stands. There still seems to be some obscurity as to what was meant by the 7 per cent.—and I am glad to see the Prime Minister is on the Front Bench now, for speaking in this House on 9th April, on the occasion of the passing of the Military Service Bill of this year, he said:
    "The proportion of men from forty-two up to fifty whom we expert will be available is not very high—something like 7 per cent.; that is only 7 per cent. of the men from forty-two to fifty will be available for the Army. I hope I have made that clear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1918, col. 1355, Vol. 104.]

    1289
    I will accept that. We understand to-day that 7 per cent. of the total number of men who are between those ages are brought in by the new Military Service Act of the present year. Seven per cent. of these men will be fit for the Army in the sense that they will be expected to be fit for the firing line. I do not think the Prime Minister dissents from that view.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I never said that.
    Sir H. NIELD: No, no!
    The PRIME MINISTER: I presumed that it would be 7 per cent.
    Sir H. NIELD: I agree, I agree! I read out the words of the right hon. Gentleman, and then I said I understood that he meant the firing line.
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, no!
    Sir H. NIELD: Very well; that shows the issue. The Prime Minister was more generous to the older men. Let us see what was said by the Minister for National Service, speaking in this House on 20th June—that is, last Thursday. He said:
    "He would be a brave man who, because of some personal disagreement with the policy that has been followed, would say that he would not allow these men to pass through to the forces. They are required and urgently required. It was announced to the House two months ago that 7 per cent. of the total block of men of the new age were going to be required to be posted this year. That has been twisted and turned as if it meant that only 7 per cent. of them will be fit for service. The statement stands—I have repeated it on many occasions in the House—as true to-day as it was then, that it is absolutely necessary, if we are not to dislocate our arrangements for maintaining the forces in the field, that we should have 7 per cent. of the total number of men of the new age before the end of this year and that they should come in a steady flow."
    That is a very different thing.
    Sir A. GEDDES: Speaking on the 15th of April last, in Committee on the Military Service Bill, I said:
    "The Prime Minister said, in introducing this Bill, that 7 per cent. of the men affected by the extension of the age to fifty would be liable to be called up this year. That is to say, it has been estimated by the responsible Department that the rate of recruiting of these older men, even under the pressure for men which now exists, will be rather slower than the rate of recruiting which has affected the men of the age period immediately junior to them."
    Sir H. NIELD: I will switch off that point and give a practical illustration of
    1290
    what is taking place. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford put down a question, and he asked the Minister of National Service—
    "If he will state what the total number of men examined and the number of man passed Grade 1 by the National Service medical boards at Bristol for the weeks ending the 4th, 11th, 18th and 25th May, and the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22nd June last, respectively; and what number of such men were between forty-three and fifty-one years of age."
    The answer to that was given by the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Beck) as follows:
    "It would be contrary to the public interest at the present time to give the figures asked for by my hon. Friend, but I may say that excluding re-examinations the percentage of the total number of men of the old military age examined at Bristol during May and the first fortnight of June who were passed Grade 1 was 71 per cent., while the percentage of the total number of men over forty-three examined who were passed Grade 1 was 18.6 per cent."
    That question was asked because the medical board at Bristol were passing men too quickly. I take the lower figure because it is smeared on my paper, and I will assume they were passing Grade 1 at the rate of 6 per cent. I do not know whether it is 6 per cent. or 16 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Minister for National Service went down to Bristol, and, as a result of his intervention, the percentage was raised to 21.5 per cent.
    Sir A. GEDDES: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that I went down to Bristol and interviewed the medical board?
    Sir H. NIELD: Yes.
    Sir A. GEDDES: Since the passing of this Act?
    Sir H. NIELD: Yes; such is my information. The letters I have received say that the Minister for National Service went down. And I am ready to communicate to the right hon. Gentleman the letter which contains the statement I have made, suppressing the name of my correspondent.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I was down there the week before last, but the statement that I saw the medical board, or any member of it, so far as I know, is incorrect. I did see the Commissioner, but I have no recollection of having discussed the action or the working of the Bristol Medical Board with him. I did hear that the medical

    1291
    boards had received instructions that they were to increase the number of men passed in Grade 1, and as soon as I heard that I went down to see exactly what was happening. On arrival there I found that this particular board had been passing a very high percentage of men in Grade 1, and that it had received no instructions but a table showing that, as a result of this work, a very much larger number were being put into Grade 1 than other boards. I was told that someone had said that they had been instructed to raise the percentage of Grade 1 men, whereas, as a matter of fact, their attention was being drawn to the fact that they were passing too high a percentage. I imagine that because I went down to find out about that matter that that is the reason this inaccurate statement got about. I did not see the board at Bristol.
    Sir H. NIELD: As far as I am concerned, the letter I have shows that my statement is perfectly well founded. The question put to them from the Department was put with a view of seeing whether those boards have, in fact, passed 21 per cent. and 22 per cent. of Grade 1 men. The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means quoted a letter from the Midlands. I also have received one from the Midlands, and I will read it to the Committee:
    "24th June, 1918.
    Sir,—I am a member of a medical board and have been reading your interview. That members of medical boards disagree with the calling up of men over forty-five for medical service is, I think, shown by the enclosed cutting from the 'Birmingham Mail.'"
    I may say that there was no cutting enclosed. The letter proceeds:
    "The doctor's letter therein I should think fairly represents the views of members of medical boards. I have frequently heard such views expressed. Nevertheless, I would contend that the examinations are fair. Every man is asked if he is satisfied with his examination before he signs the book. The responsibility for calling men up to fifty for the Army is Parliament's. The responsibility for grading 'fit for age' is the National Service boards and is, I suppose, sanctioned by Parliament. Occasionally mistakes must occur, but really the percentage is very few. In saying this I do not contend that the men passed Grade 1 are fit for military service. The general opinion of members of medical boards is that they are not, but the responsibility is not theirs. They can only grade men on the lines laid down in the pamphlet of instructions issued to them. Members of Parliament have protected themselves from military service at any age and imposed military service on medical men up to fifty-six, a curious contrast, and an instance of class
    1292
    legislation. There was no protest from Parliament on this account. You speak of medical boards dividing Grade 3 men into A, B and C classes. They do no such thing. They grade a man 1, 2, or 3, and there their work ends. The President of the Board, an Army man himself, makes this distinction, and the examining boards have no say in it. The whole thing is a gigantic farce—the comb-out a mockery—the works comb out the men they do not want to keep. Even to-day at the medical board two or three hunchbacks and two men with crippled arms presented themselves for examination. The young fit men are kept by the works, and declared to be indispensable. Manufacturers' own sons are practically all indispensable. The friends that they take into the works for nominal purposes find shelter under the umbrella, and are also indispensable. A young fit man is graded 1, his friends get at the employer, a controlled firm, they apply direct to the Ministry of Munitions for the man and get a secret instruction to keep him. Kipling would have to change his tune if he wrote now, and it would be:
    The young men cheer in their thousands, As the grand-dads go to the War.
    To see the crowd of often grey-headed men, out of all physical condition, either toil-worn workmen or fat shopkeepers, ill-nourished elderly clerks, that present themselves for examination, makes one doubt the sanity of those who call them up. A certain proportion of them are graded 1. There is no alternative if one follows instructions, but, oh, the crop of pensions that will follow their wholesale breakdown when exposed to hardship!
    A little introspection should lead Members of Parliament, instead of blaming medical boards for carrying out their enactment as defined by the National Service Board, to consider whether the blame is not their own, for sanctioning the calling up of older men before there had been a real comb-out of the young and fit."
    That is one of a great number of letters showing dissatisfaction attached to the medical boards acting upon those instructions. Those instructions ought to be promptly reviewed. Let me give the Minister of National Service a few instances in addition to those I have already given to the House. There is the case of a man named Greenshields, of Kenning-ton Park-road, aged forty-four. He was examined at Conduit Street on the 21st May, 1918, and put into Grade 1. He was re-examined at Whitehall, apparently under the chairmanship of the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means on the 24th June, and he was reduced to Grade 3. If that man had not been sent back by the tribunal sitting upstairs he would have passed into the Army as Grade 1, but he was reduced to Grade 3 because he had suffered from fistula and h æmorrhoids for sixteen years and he had been operated upon in 1914; he was suffering also from varicose veins, and œdema of legs and feet; his eyesight was bad, he

    1293
    had myopia and astigmatism, his right eye was practically blind, and his left eye defective. Can it be supposed that a man of that description was passed as Grade 1? It has been said that Grade 1 is to be regarded as the equivalent of Al under the old system.
    Now I come to another matter, and while I am anxious not to keep the Committee, I think this is a question which does call for the strongest denunciation on the part of those who have to deal with these matters. In spite of the instruction that tuberculosis must be regarded as a matter vital to keeping a man out of the Army, these cases are passing into the Army again and again. In this case I again offered to put the information I possess into the hands of the Minister of National Service. I pass over a number of cases, and I come to one which I must read. It is the case of a man named Blucert, who had flat feet, was suffering from jaundice and gall stones, requiring an immediate operation. He was relegated to the Reserves by that notorious board, the Mill Hill Board, in 1917, after two hours' examination into the documents. The Committee will be astonished to hear that when certain documents were called for to clear up a certain point the whole dossier was, figuratively, thrown at our heads, and in that dossier appeared correspondence from the medical authorities at Mill Hill suggesting to the War Office that I should be prosecuted under the Defence of the Realm Regulations for having called attention to the improper grading that was going on. That affords an illustration of what the temper was at that time. That particular board at Mill Hill had rejected this man in 1917 after two hours' examination, and yet he was passed as Grade 1 at Whitehall on the 13th of the present month. Surely that is an indication of the way in which these examinations are taking place. One more ease, and I have finished—
    "Maurice Geller.—Stones in kidney. One already removed by operation. Attended hospital for six years. Was graded by the medical board at Whitehall on the 20th of this month, Grade 2, notwithstanding the instructions of the Ministry of National Service, S.R. 24, that such a man was to be rejected."
    That is the condition of things. Can you wonder when you look at the conditions that are imposed? I am told that in two sessions, nominally two and a half hours each, or five hours altogether, which generally becomes six hours, and often
    1294
    seven, before they can clear up and get away, for which the sum of two guineas is paid, an eminent doctor, whose name I will not mention, but who practises as a specialist, was called upon to examine between sixty and seventy hearts in a day. Is it possible, under those conditions, that men can be properly examined, with several boards sitting, with a number of clerks present, and with a number of recruits being examined? Roughly speaking, some hundred men were talking and asking questions, and yet the delicate operation of listening to the beats of the heart had to be performed by a doctor who values his reputation at the rate of sixty men per day, and that for the handsome remuneration of two guineas. We have complained of the operations of certain boards, and I think the Committee has a right to complain that the very men of the Army Medical Corps who were found unsuited for this work have been retained under the new system. The same notorious president of the Camber-well Board who was shown again and again to be most unfitted for his position has not only been retained under the new system, but has actually been appointed Assistant-Director of the whole region of London. There you have a man who, according to my information—and it is professional information—is not the kind of man to secure the best results by any means. I will invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Colonel Lewtas and to Colonel Tyrrell. We were assured that the change meant civil board instead of military boards, but military men have been retained, and will continue the system as presidents and overseers, and it is that to which we object. If an alteration were made in that respect, and if the highly respected chief of the medical services would reconsider those points, I think he would be materially able to cure the defects of which we com-plain in certain parts of London. I feel that unless and until the question is grappled with firmly there will be no material alteration.
    I propose, just briefly, to refer to one or two points that my right hon. Friend made against me last week when he replied to me, I think a little unfairly, in respect of three matters. When he was reading the instructions defining the new grading as compared with the old classification, he thought that I scored a debating point by asking him to read on to the end of the instruction, which con-

    1295
    tained the vital words, that Grade 1 was equivalent to the old A1 of Army classification. I thought that was the kernel of the whole business. He thought it was only a debating point. We are accustomed when we cite documents in Courts of law to read the whole of the document from beginning to the end, that part which is for us and that part which is against us. To-day the right hon. Gentleman says that we are under a misapprehension as to the effects of that instruction, and that we have misunderstood it, but, as my right hon. Friend below me pointed out, it has been repeated again and again. It was repeated in the circulars of February and of April, and until this very moment there has been nothing official to distinguish the status given by the old classification from that given by the new grading. There was another point to which I called attention. I said that the circular issued on 3rd June had given rise to the whole difficulty of the medical boards by speeding them up. It was a circular issued by the Deputy-Controller of the London region. My right hon. Friend expressed very considerable surprise, and stated that when he became acquainted with the fact in the ordinary course of routine he at once summoned a meeting of the chairmen of the whole of the medical boards and explained the mistake. The instruction was cancelled and withdrawn within a week. I make this complaint against my right hon. Friend. He will remember that he received a very courteous letter, signed by myself and by my hon. Friend the Member for Shields, some few days before the question was put down. I am sure that he will not deny that he received that letter. It was acknowledged by his secretary, who said that the right hon. Gentleman had been away in the provinces, but he would write an answer and receive a deputation at an early date. That was dated 1st June. No further communication was received from him, and on 6th June a question was put down for 10th June, asking whether any alteration in the instructions which had been given to the medical boards as to grading had been made. He complains of my having made a point of that fact. If that medical circular had been so promptly corrected, why in the world was it not told me in answer to the courteous letter of the hon. Member for Shields and myself?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): My right hon. Friend was away in the country, and I was more or less in charge. I understand that Sir James Galloway telephoned my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Shields, asking them to call, so that he might explain the matter, and the hon. Member for Shields did call and see him on this point.
    Sir H. NIELD: This is the first time I have heard of any communication by telephone to my chambers or to my house asking me to call. I know that my hon. Friend told me that he had received such a request, but why was it not promptly said, when writing to me on 1st June, that this circular of 3rd May was to be cancelled immediately, instead of leaving me under any misapprehension? I think it is a matter in regard to which I have some right to complain. I do not propose to say anything more with regard to the complaints about the right hon. Gentleman's speech at Manchester. I notice that has been rectified by my right hon. Friend, who has said that his words have received a meaning which he did not intend to convey. He also said that he said something which was not reported. I wish that he had taken care to see that that portion of his speech in regard to keeping back men by protection certificates had been reported, because the number of men protected by those certificates is a very large proportion. I hope that he will take care that the observations which were not reported at Manchester are promptly made public as far as it is possible to do so. When one comes to consider the case of the older men and the sympathy entertained for them by the right hon. Gentleman, one's recollection is at once brought to the words of Lewis Carroll in that very celebrated work, "Alice in Wonderland," when dealing with the walrus and the oysters:
    "'I weep for you,' the walrus said,
    'I deeply sympathise,'
    With sobs and tears he sorted out
    Those of the largest size,
    Holding his pocket handkerchief
    Before his streaming eyes."
    I assure him that we are called upon to administer a very painful duty, and, having to do it constantly week in and week out, we feel that the position is one of very great difficulty for us, and that unless we are materially helped with

    1297
    regard to the difficult question of grading and are able to have more confidence in the medical board's decisions we shall be obliged to consider whether it is possible to go on any longer under the present onerous conditions.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would not have intervened in this Debate had it not been that there are two or three matters which require to be cleared up from the general point of view. I regret that I did not hear some of the speeches which have been delivered in the course of this Debate, but I have had a summary of them given to me. The Committee will bear in mind the circumstances under which the additional demands upon the man-power of the country were made. It is not a question of sympathising with the men who are called up. I am perfectly certain that everybody does that, and that my right hon. Friend has the deepest sympathy with people who have to part with their businesses and give up their professions, as has my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down. I am sure that he will be the first to acknowledge that It is an invidious task, Whether you administer National Service, or whether you assist in the machinery as a chairman of a tribunal.
    It was nothing but the grim necessities of the hour and the danger in which our country was placed that forced us to propose a singularly drastic measure for calling more men to the Colours. About 6,000,000 men have been taken out of civil life in this country, including those who have volunteered. Any measure now for taking more men must necessarily mean greater hardships than those that were imposed upon the first drafts for military service, and the difficulties of those who administer these Acts are great, as my hon. and learned Friend knows very well. I cannot help thinking that a good deal of the trouble which has arisen has been due to a misunderstanding. The older men, and specially those who are to serve, are under the impression, when they are graded in the way which has been described by speeches in this House, that it means that they are to pass into the fighting line. That is not so. When I talked about 7 per cent. of the men between forty-three and fifty-one, I did not mean 7 per cent. for the fighting line. There is no intention of that—none. I have in front of me the proposals of the War Office with regard to the use to be made of these men. It is
    1298
    rather in the services behind the line and in services in this country, but it does enable the military authorities to comb out men who would be fit to put into the fighting line if you have other fit men to take their places behind the line. To that extent it is increasing the combatant strength of the Army. It is very important that that should get into the minds not merely of the men themselves, but also of the tribunals administering these Acts. If it be assumed that you are taking the men of forty-five to fifty and putting them to fight in the front trenches, there is no intention of that kind at all. From the Army point of view, it would be folly and it is quite unnecessary. Of that I can reassure the Committee.
    At the same time, seeing that there is a misunderstanding, it is important that it should be cleared up. I am sorry that I was not present when my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Chairman of Committees spoke, because he is a special authority on this subject. I understand he threw out the suggestion that Members of this House who are chairmen of tribunals should meet my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service, and enter into this matter and try to clear it up. That is a most admirable suggestion. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Geddes)—that is my apology for interrupting the course of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) at that very moment. It is an admirable suggestion, and is far and away the best means of clearing up the misunderstanding. I believe there are seven Members of this House who, as chairmen of tribunals, have direct and special experience of the administration of these Acts. It is a difficult task they are discharging. They are coming up day by day against these questions, some of them very hard questions. No doubt some of the cases mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend are very hard cases. There will always be hard cases. The whole business is a hard business. War is a hard business—a very hard business. You will always have exceptionally hard cases. My right hon. Friend who is administering this Act thinks it is desirable that these gentlemen should come together, and interchange views, so that my right hon. Friend could get the benefit of the special experience of those who are administering these Acts, and should clear the matter up. I have not the faintest doubt that, if they do meet, all these difficulties will be

    1299
    swept on one side, and the public will be considerably reassured in regard to the subject. I am very glad to be able to say that they have arranged to meet. The sooner they meet the better, because it is interfering with the administration of the Acts, and the need for men is very great. The need for men behind the line is very great. It is not merely a need for men for the firing line. The need for men behind the line is almost as great, if not greater. For that reason I sincerely trust that this meeting will be arranged at the earliest possible moment, and that they will be able to clear up these difficulties, and to reassure the public and the tribunals upon this subject.
    Major Sir B. FALLE: Will the discussion be without limitation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They can discuss the whole subject. I hope that when they meet there will be no attempt to set any limitation upon the discussion, because it is of the greatest importance that my right hon. Friend should have the full benefit of discussion with these gentlemen, who know so well, from what they have had to encounter, what are the difficulties in the administration of the Act, and we shall be grateful for their help. I know that the men of forty-three to fifty-one are only too anxious to do their best for their country, but they want to be treated fairly, It is the intention of my right hon. Friend that they should be treated fairly—I know it. In my judgment and in his judgment they are being treated fairly; but there is a misunderstanding about it. Therefore, let us clear it up. That is all I have to say on that subject. I think the sooner the meeting takes place the better it will be for all concerned.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Will the results of the meeting be made public?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope there will be some method of making them clear. If there be any misunderstandings, they must be cleared up in public; otherwise the necessary purpose would not be achieved.
    Sir TUDOR WALTERS: Will you put down the Vote for the salary again, and not pass it to-day?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I am not in charge of the business of the House, I may be upsetting the whole arrangements by doing that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: If no other question arises the Government will get the Vote on the last day of Supply.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Unless promises have been given. As my hon. Friend knows, it is the Opposition who really fix the Votes to be taken for discussion. That is the tradition of the House. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tells me that he agrees that the Vote should not be passed to-day. May I say one word in addition? There is an idea that the older men are taken, and that there is no combing out of the young men. I am very glad to be able to say that that is incorrect. We want the younger men for the fighting fine. At the present moment, for every one man over forty-three who is posted, there are thirty young men being posted. I do not want to give the figures, for the simple reason that it would suit the enemy very well if someone were to got up, and give the figures of the numbers of men posted. I can assure the Committee that the number of young men being combed out is very considerable. Here, again, I want to make rather a special appeal. The objections there do not come from the young men, but, naturally, from the industries. Each industry begins to protest. One industry says, "If you take the young men, then this industry cannot produce coal." Agriculture says, "We cannot produce the necessary corn." You go to another industry, and they say, "We cannot turn out the necessary munitions." In each case the protest is a perfectly bonâ fide one. It is made, not in order to protect particular men, but rather in order to increase or to maintain the output. If you were to treat each case on its merits, it would be very difficult to answer it, but the aggregate result would be that we should not get the men.
    Therefore, I would make a special appeal to those who feel in their hearts that they have a very good case to present to the House and the country in respect of a particular industry, to remember that the same appeal is made in respect of each industry, and that if we were to grant the concession in respect of those industries, the result would be we should not get our men. The emergency is a serious one; it is an overwhelming one. I can assure the Committee that the need for men is one of which the Government are bound to take note, and the House of Commons itself, which is ultimately responsible, is also

    1301
    bound to take note of it. I know the effect upon the output in these cases, but the comb-out in this country is incomparable with the comb-out in Germany or in France. I want the Committee to bear that in mind. I know it is said that the Americans are coming. It is perfectly true that the Americans are coming, and are prepared to be brigaded with our divisions. But that is on the distinct understanding that, when the new comb-out materialises, the men who come in will take the place of the Americans, so that they can form their own divisions. That is the honourable understanding on which President Wilson was prepared to send a very large force of Americans to France, in order to be brigaded with the British Forces. Under these conditions, it is vital to us and to this country that we should proceed with the comb-out, drastic as it is, in order to maintain the strength of our Armies in the field, that they may be able to defeat the enemy, and that we may also maintain the power of this country at a time when it is so vital to us.
    Mr. ALBION RICHARDSON: I am sure the speech of the Prime Minister is one which will be received with great satisfaction, not only by this Committee, but by the public of this country. As one of those who have acted for the last two years as chairmen of tribunals, may I say that the Minister of National Service is quite wrong when he starts out to make an attack upon tribunals as not having the same concern and the same desire to assist the Government in the conduct of this War as he has himself. We have precisely the same anxiety to see this War successfully prosecuted. The right hon. Gentleman went too far when he said, addressing those chairmen like my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Chairman of Committees, myself, and other members of this Committee who have given this voluntary work for two years, that we were, in making public criticism of the way medical boards have done their work, doing something detrimental to the best interests of the country. I do not accept that view. My own view is that, if that protest had not been made, we should have failed to get the very satisfactory assurance we have just received from the head of the Government. May I state briefly the reasons which prompt me, at any rate, to speak in terms of severe criticism of the way in which the medical boards—I do not say it is the doctors
    1302
    upon them—or the way in which the medical board system has been conducted under the management of the Ministry of National Service. It is not a small matter. It has been quite unnecessary, without adding a single fit man to the Army. These boards have been the means of passing as lit for service thousands of men who were admittedly unfit for service. It causes untold misery and suffering which are not only undeserved, but quite unnecessary, and which do not contribute an iota to the winning of the War. Incidentally in doing what they do they are hampering rather than strengthening the Army, and have been the means of causing amongst the public a widespread discontent. The facts are not disputed. The fact that these boards, in numerous cases, have failed to put men in anything like the right categories cannot be disputed. The right hon. Gentleman the Deputy-Chairman of Committees told us the other day—and it is our experience too—that something like one man out of every three men who are sent to the assessors is either rejected or placed in a lower grade. It is not our condemnation, but the condemnation of the Ministry's own assessors, which is called in evidence to show that these boards are not doing what was properly expected of them by those who set them up.
    7.0 P.M.
    May I join with the Minister of National Service in paying my tribute to the way in which the doctors themselves have done their work? The doctors cannot fairly be blamed. I was taken last Saturday over the Conduit Street medical establishment. It was not known who I was. I was taken over by Dr. Sydney Smith. I went through several rooms. I was struck with the consideration and courtesy shown to each one of the men during their examination. I was very much impressed with the desire of the doctors, in each examination of a recruit, to give to him the same careful attention as would have been the case if the man had been his private patient and was asking for his opinion. That is not the point. The point is that the doctors are put under limitations which make a proper examination under the present system impossible. I had not a stop-watch with me at the time, but, roughly speaking, I should say that the examination lasted something like four minutes. It was made by two doctors, and the chairman of the board, sitting at the table, went through the medical sheets and considered whether or not the man

    1303
    should be placed in the grade suggested by one of the doctors or in that suggested by the other doctor, because, in a great many cases, the doctors do differ on this point. That is the first reason why I say the boards do not get a fair chance. There is another reason which I think is very deserving the attention of the Committee and of the public. The boards act continually under the spur of my right hon. Friend. Whenever they do their work, as he regards it, slowly, whenever the grading is not exactly what he considers it should be, or whenever too many men are placed in Grade 2, notice is sent out, in tones savouring of reprimand, to the board for doing what it is doing. The board is reprimanded because it puts in the category it thinks right men whom my right hon. Friend's advisers hold should be in a higher category. The third reason the board is not given a fair chance is that the members are compelled to grade men, not by fitness for work but by fitness at the age in which they happen to be. My right hon. Friend has challenged me to give an explanation of what I call the incitement to grade men too high. [An HON. MEMBER: "An illustration of the reprimand!"] I may point to the circular of the 3rd April, which was sent round to the medical boards. Will the Committee be good enough to give me their attention for a moment, as this is really a very important matter? This circular sets out, in words which would rejoice the heart of a special pleader, four examples showing how different medical boards working in the same region have done their work. I will not read the whole of the figures. I will take two extreme cases. One board—call it Board B—placed 19 per cent. of the men whom it examined in Grade 1. Board D placed 39 per cent in that grade, hoard B, again, puts 59 per cent. in Grade 3, while Board D only put 18 per cent. in that grade.
    Mr. BECK: Was not this before the last Act was passed?
    Mr. RICHARDSON: I am a ware of that. But I am using the illustration to show the way in which medical boards are incited to put men in a higher grade. Now the disparity in the work of the two boards may be accounted for on three hypotheses. I may be that the two boards were examining men who were in the same standard but who happened to be
    1304
    physically different, and that they were therefore justified in placing the men to that extent in different grades. That is my first theory. The second theory is that one board graded the men too highly, and the third theory would be that the men who were placed in a low grade by one board were graded on too low a standard. My right hon. Friend evidently makes no investigation as to which of these three hypotheses are right, but he jumps to the conclusion that the Board which is placing the men in the lower grade is wrong, that boards are putting men in Grade 3 without sufficient reason, and that by a more careful selection and by grading the men more closely in accordance with the approved standard many men now put in Grade 3 might well be placed in a higher grade. He does not suggest that the men who have been placed by the other board to a very large extent and in a higher ratio in the higher grade have not been properly so placed, or that the board has exceeded its duty, but he attacks the boards which have placed too many men-as he regards it, in the lower grade and too few in the higher. He goes on to say in this circular:
    "It must, however, be impressed on all concerned that the constant practice of grading too low by National Service medical boards is necessarily followed by the loss of men for the Army who are well suited for military service."
    That is what I mean by the spur and incitement to medical boards who, according to their independent judgment, are doing right. They are by a document of this character incited by the Minister to act otherwise, and they are told, for his purpose, to put men in a grade which they themselves think they should not be put in. That is one of the remarkable bundle of circulars which the right hon. Gentleman has placed in the Library. The second is a document which was referred to the other evening, and which, I think, deserves even closer attention than it then received, and certainly a better answer than was given by the Minister. On the 3rd May—we are now coming down to a recent date—a gentleman named C. H. Bedford, described as "Commissioner of Medical Services, London regions," sends out a document from the Ministry of National Service, the effect of which is that every man shall be examined by one doctor only, but, in order to deceive the recruit, and to cheat him into the belief that he is being examined by two doctors, it is laid down that the second doctor shall

    1305
    go through the pantomime of an examination, although, in fact, there is no separate examination.
    Mr. BECK: Read it.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Yes; I will read it. The words are:
    "So far as possible, in view of the necessity for prompt action….the recruits will be examined throughout by one examiner, who will be careful to refer all questions of doubt to his colleague as well as to the chairman."
    And later it goes on to say:
    "And ordinarily confirmation of the chief features of the examination should be duplicated, e.g., heart examination, to prevent the usual complaint of recruits that they have only been examined by one doctor."
    Clearly that is the purpose of the second examination. It is not that the second doctor may form an independent judgment, but he is to go through the pantomime of placing a stethoscope against the man's chest. This document I know has, and quite rightly, been repudiated by my right hon. Friend. Directly it was brought to his notice he cancelled it, and I do not for a moment impute to him the spirit which underlies it. I understand, too, that the chairmen of many boards have been told to disregard this circular. There is only one other document I would like to refer to, and again I use it simply as an illustration of the way in which medical directions are sent out. It deals with the ease of some munition workers who were found affected by T.N.T. poisoning. The doctors had the hardihood to put them in Grade 2 thinking they were not men who were quite fit for general service purposes. Their action in so doing called down upon their heads denunciation from the National Service Ministry. This document is signed by "J. Wallace, Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services," and it reads thus:
    "It has been brought to (our) notice that a number of munition workers have been found to be temporarily unfit for service in the field (and placed in Grade 2) because they are suffering from the minor effects of T.N.T.… The Chairman of the T.N.T. Committee, Ministry of Munitions….states that the minor effects of T.N.T. poisoning are best treated by placing the affected person under conditions as regards fresh air, exercise and good feeding, such as recruits experience while training. Under these conditions the T.N.T. is rapidly eliminated and its effects disappear. This is confirmed by the S.I.O., Woolwich Arsenal."
    This is only one out of a bundle of these circulars which have been sent out, and I do not think I am wasting the time of the Committee in inviting attention to them.
    1306
    I suggest that my right hon. Friend in sanctioning the issue of circulars of this character is really not discharging the duties of his office in a way the public has a right to expect. So far as these documents are concerned, they do not do justice either to him or to the medical examiners or to the boards to whom they are addressed. It is largely owing to the issue of such circulars as these that men have been landed into the position in which they find themselves of never knowing whether the grade in which they are placed has the slightest relation to the service which they may ultimately be called upon to perform. I think I have demonstrated that these medical boards are not treated fairly by being allowed to do their best under the circumstances under which they have to work. My third point is that the system of grading is one which can never be satisfactorily worked by any medical board or any medical men in the world. They are told they must not have regard to the military character of the work for which the man is to be used, but they have simply to say whether the man is a fit man for his age. What does that really amount to? Let me give one illustration. It is a hypothetical case. A man of twenty-five comes up for examination; he is found to be suffering from some organic disease which may not be severe or progressive, but still the doctors think he is not fit for Grade 1; and therefore, holding that he may be fit for garrison work at home, they put him in Grade 2. The next recruit examined is a man of fifty. He is not suffering from any organic disease. He is suffering from the increasing weight of years and is, in the opinion of the doctors, able to do the same work as the younger recruit of twenty-five who has just been put into Grade 2—garrison work at home. That man, being normal for his age, is put in Grade 1, and when these two men come before the tribunal applying for exemption—I do not say the London tribunals do it, because we know too much. We know why a man is put there. But with hundreds of tribunals throughout the country what is the fate of those two men? Of the Grade 1 man of fifty they say, "We are very sorry. He is older, but is found by the board to be the fitter man. He must go," while the young man of twenty-five in Grade 2 is left. The fact is that according to this system of grading they are precisely of the same military value, and

    1307
    one man, being twenty-five years older and probably less fit to do the work and more useful in civil life, is the man who has to go into the Army. I should have thought that was clear. It must be clear surely to the right hon. Gentleman. Is it not obvious? What is the answer to it? I quite follow what he has said as to the many advantages of the system which he suggests, but what is the answer to this fatal flaw in it, that it misleads every tribunal which has to adjudicate on these cases? Is not that a good reason for altering it? If not, what does he regard as a good reason for altering any system which has been set up by his Department? I should have thought that was conclusive against the system. It has misled tribunals already, and as the Deputy-Chairman said, and I think everything that has been said by the Minister of National Service shows the wisdom of his view, the only way to deal fairly with the matter under the present system is to treat every man passed in Grade 1 who is over forty-one as a man who is fit only for Grade 2. That is the only practical system under which the present system can be made workable at all.
    I read with great pain the observations which the right hon. Gentleman thought it right to make about tribunals the other day. [Interruption.] I think I am speaking not only for myself, but for all who have been working for the Army, as my right hon. Friend is, to get the best Army we can, but not to cause unnecessary hardship in cramming men into the Army. I am sure we all have a personal respect for the right hon. Gentleman. We all recognise that he is doing very great work as the head of the Department, but he must not be too sensitive to criticism, which is promoted by a desire only that the Department of which he is the head shall be worked with greater satisfaction to the public than it has been in the past. With that sincere desire I commend the observations I have made, and those which have been made by others who have spoken before me, to his most serious consideration.
    Mr. SMALLWOOD: I think all who have heard the Debate so far will have come to the conclusion that there is but one voice, and that is fair play for these older men. Those of us who have had experience know perfectly well that they have not had fair play, and were not
    1308
    going to have fair play unless it had been raised in this House. The Minister for National Service has put before us a plan which, so far as we can understand it, should work perfectly well, but it is such a fine plan that it is bound to break down when it comes to be worked. It is like a fine machine which cannot work if the merest speck of dust gets into it. We have been told that although these older men are put in Grade 1, when they pass out of the hands of the Minister of National Service into those of the military they will do with them as they have done with others. I want to show what has happened in respect of men younger than these. I have tried for some time to show what has happened in respect of certain men who have been sent into the Army and how they have been dealt with when they have been put there. Here is a case about which I wrote to the Under-Secretary for War three or four months ago. He was an epileptic when he was taken into the Army. I tried to get him out, but was not able to do so. Only a fortnight ago that man was found dead in his bed, in his own tent, not having had any medical attention. This is the history of the case. He enlisted in May, 1915, and was sent to France the following October. In that same month he was in hospital at Rouen. In December he was put to light duties.
    Sir C. HENRY: Is not the hon. Member referring to matters which concern the War Office, and do not come under the purview of the Ministry of National Service?
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly that last remark, as far as I caught it, was wholly military administration. The hon. Member will no doubt be careful only to bring up matters which are under the control of the Ministry of National Service. There will, no doubt, be a later opportunity of dealing with matters controlled by the Army Council.
    Mr. SMALLWOOD: I was trying to show that, as we were told this afternoon, men pass out of the hands of the Ministry of National Service into the hands of the military, and it is only by the experience of the past that we may see what has happened to them. It is because of that that I am mentioning this and one or two other cases. In September, 1916, the man was again in hospital at Rouen, and I have a certificate showing that he was suffering from epilepsy. He was sent to England

    1309
    and was put into hospital. In December, 1916, he was at a convalescent home at Seaford. On 9th June, 1917, he was again sent to France on active service. His mother wrote stating that he was far from well. In January and February, 1918, he was in the trenches in France again. He had several attacks of epilepsy there. In March, 1918, he was in the University Hospital at Southampton, wounded. On 3rd April his parents were wired for owing to epileptic fits. He was subsequently discharged from the University War Hospital and had to rejoin his battalion on 29th April. On 16th May he was found dead in bed at Wimbledon Common Camp from an attack of the same nature. I have another case, brought right up to date, of a man who has been sent out to France again during this last week. He arrived in France in 1916. He was not a strong man by any means and ought not to have been in the Army. He was in hospital from 5th November to 8th December and then again from 5th January, 1916, to 17th February. In 1917 again he was in hospital.
    Sir F. BANBURY: How can it be in order to deal with something which arose in 1916, before the National Service Ministry was in existence.
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member's point was what might happen to a person who had been put in Grade 1. He is entitled to give a single illustration of that, but not to labour it, because, after all, that is a matter which can properly be brought up on the Army Estimates.
    Mr. SMALLWOOD: Then I will save any such cases that I have until that time, I have not yet been able to find out why there was a need for these older men to be rushed in in such quantities. We were told by the Leader of the House not many days ago that the Americans were coming in day by day. He said the stream of men started as a small stream and then broadened to a river, and we have been told that they are now coming over by hundreds of thousands. These older men will take, at any rate, from four to six months to be trained. They cannot be of very much use until the end of the year, and it seems to us, when we have a large reservoir of men to draw from, as we have at present, that these older men are not needed to anything like the extent we are told. I am sorry I have been unable to give the cases I wished to mention, but I must bring them up on some future occasion.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I wish to direct the attention of the Under-Secretary to two or three instances where the Ministry, as far as my information goes, has distinctly and deliberately broken pledges given to ex-Service men during the last nine or six months, which is causing, and will cause, still further dissatisfaction among ex-Service men. The Minister for National Service, on 10th April, said, with reference to the rights of discharged men,
    "We do not intend to qualify in any way the pledges and the arrangements which now govern the position of these men."
    The next day he amplified it, and said:
    "I said we seek no legal power to touch these men. We do not in fact seek to touch these men, who have deserved well of their country."
    That being so, I take it that the privilege given to these men is amply secured on the word of the Minister for National Service, because these are matters, though perhaps he does not know it, which are very deeply resented by the ex-Service men who are affected. An organisation of ex-Service men of which I am a member, among other communications from the Ministry, received a letter dated 20th June of this year, a very courteous letter. I am not in the least complaining of its tone. It laid down three propositions which are distinct violations of the pledges given by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to ex-Service men. The first thing he says is that
    "men who have served overseas in the present or in previous campaigns and who were discharged time-expired and have since offered themselves for enlistment and been rejected are not within the exceptions to the Act and are liable for service under the Act."
    That is absolutely going back upon the pledges given by the Ministry of National Service who say that a man who has served overseas in this or in any previous war who has been discharged as time-expired and who has come up again during this War and been rejected as a man not fit, is not liable for any further examination. Cases have occurred in which men have been called up and been subject to second examination. I need not labour the point because the right hon. Gentleman guaranteed all our rights and privileges on the 10th of April, and in October, 1917, the Ministry of National Service agreed that this concession as to being excepted under the Act should also apply to men discharged time-expired after service overseas in present or any previous war if, subsequent to discharge,

    1311
    they had offered themselves and been rejected. In a letter on the 8th of April they confirmed that concession and suggested that we should include in our leaflet, under the heading "men not liable at all," all men who
    "having been discharged on the termination of their period of service after service overseas in this or any war, were afterwards rejected or again discharged on the ground of ill-health."
    There is not the slightest doubt that cases are happening in contravention of the pledge given by the Minister of National Service. The letter, to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, goes on to say:
    "Under instructions about to be issued it is proposed that all men within paragraph 4B of the First Schedule to the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918, should be allowed the period of twelve months from the date of their discharge, or until the 1st August, 1918, whichever is the later, in which to find work of national importance."
    It is rather difficult to construe the meaning of that sentence. It can be taken two ways. If it means that every man who is discharged shall have twelve months from the date of his discharge as a minimum to get work of national importance, that is all right.
    Mr. BECK indicated assent.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Then I would ask the Under-Secretary, who agrees with me, if he will take steps to deal with the numerous cases in which this rule is being constantly broken and men are being called up within two or three months after their discharge. I will give a few cases. Here is a ease of a man who is discharged as medically unfit with a pension, six months ago, recalled for re-examination and placed in Grade 3. That is absolutely against the rule.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Whereupon, the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod having come with a Message to attend the Lords Commissioners, the Chairman left the Chair.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley) resumed the Chair.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, having returned,
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1918.

  2. Defence of the Realm (Peas, Beans, and Pulse Orders) Act, 1918.

  3. Horse Breeding Act, 1918.

  4. Westgate-on-Sea Congregational Chapel Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1918.

  5. Provisional Order (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1918.

  6. Motherwell (Water Supplementary Supply) Order Confirmation Act, 1918.

  7. Brixham Gas and Electricity Act, 1918.

  8. Yorkshire Electric Power Act, 1918.

  9. Harrods Stores Act, 1918.

  10. Pontypool Gas, Water, and Electricity Act, 1918.

  11. Red Cross and Order of Saint John Act, 1918.

  12. Chepstow Gas Act, 1918.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of National Service."—[NOTE: £100 has been voted on account.]
  Colonel ASHLEY(resuming): When the interruption took place I was giving the Under-Secretary for the National Service Department several instances in which what he declares to be the intention of the Department, to give discharged men twelve months in which to find employment, has been violated. I had only given one, and I must give two or three, just to show that this is not an isolated case. I could give lots more, because it has been carried out on a very considerable scale. A man who has not been overseas and was discharged as totally unfit in August last year has been called up for this month. He did not get the twelve months. A re-enlisted man, previously discharged as medically unfit, sent home from India suffering from

  1313
  tuberculosis, in January this year—he should not have been called up again at all—was posted to a Labour Corps for work of national importance this month. Another man who has not been overseas, who was discharged as totally unfit in December last, and given a gratuity, was called up for work of national importance on the 1st of April this year. A man with a silver badge, who was discharged as totally unfit in December, 1916, was replaced in Grade 1 and told to rejoin the Army. I shall take the liberty of sending about two dozen of these cases to the hon. Gentleman, from whom I hope they will receive consideration, and I trust that he will see that what he admits to be a breach of the pledge, is not continued.
  Take now another pledge that has been broken. I need not go into the technical points. Broadly speaking, the Committee will remember that men who suffer from neurasthenia and other allied diseases were specifically excepted from the Review of Exceptions Act—that is to say, they were all men who were not to be called up again. I understand that in this letter which was received from the Ministry of National Service it is stated that, owing to the new Military Service Act, there are certain classes of men who will not receive that protection, namely, men who have not been overseas; because, under the Act of 1918, protection to shell-shocked men is only given to those who have been overseas, whereas previously, under the much abused Review of Exceptions Act, all men, whether they had been overseas or not, were protected by law and by the statement of the Minister of National Service in the House that all protection given to discharged men would be continued. That is absolutely broken by this new instruction, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman at once to take steps to fulfil the pledges given to these shell-shocked men—there is a considerable number of them—who have not been overseas—men in coast patrols, and so forth. But whether they are few or many, the pledge was given, and we ask to have it carried out. I would urge upon the Ministry of National Service, in the interests of the country as a whole, and also in the interests of discharged men, that tribunals should not be pressed as they are now to make the older men find work of national importance. We have now reached a stage in
  1314
  which there is a very large body of discharged men in the country. They are increasing by thousands every week, and form a very large source of labour supply, and I would put it to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee whether it is a sound policy to go on dragging up by the roots the businesses of men between forty-three and fifty, taking these men away from their homes and their businesses and compelling them to find work of national importance, when there are so many discharged soldiers who are perfectly well able to perform the job which the tribunals compel these other men to take up, with the alternative of going into the Army.
  I will give an instance. I know a man, aged forty, in Grade 2, who was making £400 a year before he was forced to take up work of national importance. He was paying Income Tax. He has now got a clerkship at £2 10s. a week. That clerkship could perfectly well be filled by a discharged soldier, and the country could continue to get Income Tax, which it is now losing, while the man is now losing his profession. Circumstances have changed, and the tribunals have not seen the change. A year or eighteen months ago this would have been all right, but, with the increasing body of men who are available for employment, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to think over the question whether instructions could not be sent to tribunals to be a little more chary about the way in which they impose upon the older men the obligation of finding work of national importance. I think that it may be wrong, but there is undoubtedly deep down in the minds of discharged men and of the nation as a whole the feeling that in spite of the combing out much remains still to be done in that direction. I have had many letters on this subject. One of them was received to-day from Chelmsford, in Essex. It deals with the case of a man who was discharged from the Stirling telephone works at Dagenham owing to slackness of work, while at the same time single men belonging to Grade 1 were being retained. I would ask the hon. Gentleman is he quite sure that he has not got a large number of Grade 1 men in the Ministry of National Service? There is a great number in Woolwich Arsenal. I would ask him to do all he can to expedite the comb, because it does create a great deal of dissatisfaction among ex-Service men.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: We all agree with the last point made by my hon. and gallant Friend. As to the question of putting discharged men to work which is necessary for military purposes which it is easy for them to do and at which they can earn money rather than bringing them back to the Army for purposes for which they are not suitable, I hope that the Ministry of National Service will take note of the matter, because it is very important not merely in the interests of discharged men themselves, but in the national public interest as well. I think that the Committee were very grateful to the Minister of National Service for his very clear, frank statement as to the present system of grading and posting men. None of us who heard that statement can have the slightest doubt of his most earnest desire to avoid any injustice to these older men and to treat them with the utmost fairness and put them in that position in the Army for which their strength fits them. But we cannot disguise from ourselves that in the working of that system great difficulties have arisen, difficulties which have been pointed out by the chairmen of different appeal tribunals, and for which a solution has to be found. It is satisfactory that the Prime Minister has decided to have this conference between the Minister of National Service and the chairmen of tribunals who are Members of this House for the purpose of solving these difficulties. Might I ask my right hon. Friend whether that conference is going to deal with the whole question of calling up and employment and grading these older men, or whether it will consider the question of grading alone? I should imagine that a conference of that sort should be left to discuss any practical question that turns up in regard to the posting and employment, as well as the grading of these men who are now being called up for the first time. I sincerely trust that the result of the conference will be to find a practical workable solution of those difficulties which undoubtedly have arisen.
  8.0 P.M.
  The system which the right hon. Gentleman has told us of to-day—namely, of grading men not according to their military capacity, but according to their age, undoubtedly was calculated in my judgment to lead to misunderstanding and dissatisfaction. When you have a Grade 1 man aged twenty-five and a Grade 1 man aged forty-five, the natural assumption would be that they were both fit for
  1316
  general service. The Grade 1 man aged twenty-five is undoubtedly fit for general service, and he is liable to be sent at any moment into the fighting line, but when you come to talk about a Grade 1 man aged forty-five it is a misconception to say that he is fit for general service and should go into the fighting line, but he is called Grade 1 all the same. Therefore the use of the term "Grade 1" according to the present system is misleading. It is used to describe two different things. A Grade 1 man of twenty-five means a fit man of that age, and a Grade 1 man of forty-five means a fit man of that age. Therefore I think that the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means might be adopted—that Grade 1 should mean the same thing in all cases, no matter what the man's age. In other words, that it should mean that he is fit for the fighting line; that Grade 2 should mean, whatever the man's age, that he is fit for general non-combatant service; and Grade 3 that he is fit only for Home service. In other words, the grading of men, whatever their age, should be solely and fully dependent on their capacity for military service. I understand that is what is proposed, and it appears to me to be most useful. I would like an assurance that no men of over forty-three now being brought in will be put in Grade 1, and sent to the firing line as part of the fighting units. I do not know whether it is possible to give that assurance, but I should have thought that the number of cases of men between forty-five and fifty-one who are physically fit to endure the strain of the fighting line is extremely small. I should be glad if my hon. Friend who is attending to this matter at the moment will give us some assurance on that point. There are two other matters I want to refer to; one is this: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the instruction which was issued by the Army Council to what he described as the posting boards, namely, the Army boards, which decide to what arm of the Service the men are to be sent. He told us these instructions had not been made public, but went on to say that a portion of them might be made public. I think it would be a great source of satisfaction to the men who have been called on, whatever their age may be, to know the general principles on which they are posted to one or other branch of the Service.

  1317
  I take note of the assurance of my right hon. Friend that we shall have these instructions published, and I think it will give great satisfaction both to the men involved and to the country as a whole. I should also add that I trust that the men who have been called up will be given the fullest opportunity of knowing what their rights of appeal are. I undertake to say that not one in ten of them who are graded graded 1, 2, or 3, as the case may be, has the slightest idea of his rights. As the right hon. Gentleman told us, those rights are very large, and ought to be an ample protection. That would be satisfactory to the men if they only knew that tinder the instructions they have those rights. I have no doubt that this point will receive careful consideration. The last point on which I wish to touch is this: In common with many other Members of the House, I hear that the men who are being called up to be medically examined are being stripped stark naked, and are kept in that condition for as much as two hours. I dare say hon. Members have the same case in mind as I have, in which a man who was called up was kept stark naked before his turn for examination came. It is quite right that the doctors' time should be economised by somebody being ready for the examination when one has been disposed of, but I submit that there is no necessity for a man being kept so long stark naked while others are being examined.
  Mr. BOOTH: Seven at a time!
  Sir J. BUTCHER: I do not know whether seven are examined at a time, but I hope that this is a practice which does not prevail generally, though it does prevail to a great extent, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service will see that the matter is given careful attention. I am well assured that Ministers do not desire such practices as I have described—men kept stark naked for two hours; I think their desire is that the work should be conducted with the greatest fairness and care; still, I do ask the hon. Gentleman to take note of the fact, and issue a definite instruction to medical boards concerned in these examinations to see that these things do not happen. I welcome the conference, because the misunderstandings that have taken place have undoubtedly been the cause of grave dis-
  1318
  satisfaction, which I hope will now be removed, and that the work of examination will go on more smoothly and with satisfactory results.
  Mr. COCHRANE: I think it is extremely unfortunate that it should have been necessary to have this Debate on the Medical Services to-day, because it tends to undermine the confidence of the public, not only in the fairness but in the efficiency of the medical examinations, which is very much to be regretted. At the same time, having heard the Debate this afternoon, I do not think anybody can doubt that it has been fully justified. I regret the necessity for the Debate this afternoon on another ground, and that is that the conditions which have been described do not really obtain over the whole country. I have made careful inquiries in the part of the country I come from, and I have failed to hear of any substantial complaint with regard to the conduct of the medical boards. When I tell the Committee that in the county of Northumberland a considerable amount of pressure has lately been brought upon the medical boards in consequence of the comb out of the miners, I think the absence of complaints says a very great deal for the way in which those medical boards are conducted in Northumberland. In other parts, also, in which I have made inquiries I have failed to find any ground for complaint, and, therefore, it does seem to me that it would not be fair to condemn the conduct of these medical examinations over the whole country.
  Unfortunately, the condition of London appears to be quite the reverse, and there is abundant evidence that men have been insufficiently examined, and also that unfit men are being passed into the Army in considerable numbers by the medical boards. It is only about twelve months ago that this House set up a Select Committee to inquire into the working of the medical boards at that time, and it will be fresh in the mind of the Committee that certain recommendations were made by that Select Committee, which were adopted by the Government with amazing rapidity. These representations were directed to two main objects—firstly, the elimination of the military element on the medical boards and, secondly, ensuring that every recruit should receive a complete and fair medical examination.

  1319
  The Debate this afternoon seems to me to have been particularly directed to the grading of the men. But I would respectfully remind the Committee that there is a condition precedent to the grading of the men, and that is the medical examination, and it is with regard to the medical examination as at present conducted that I desire to make a few observations. As a result of the Report of the Select Committee, within a very short time the question of medical examinations passed out of the hands of the military altogether into the hands of the National Service Ministry, and I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that within a very short time general satisfaction replaced the general discontent throughout the whole country. What is the present position? We have heard this afternoon—I do not think there is any reason to enlarge upon the evidence which has been produced—of the growing discontent at the present moment. To enable the Committee to understand what the present position is, however, I would remind them of the normal constitution of the medical boards as set up by the Minister of National Service when he took over the whole question of recruiting and of the medical boards.
  The normal constitution of those boards was to be a chairman with four examiners, and it was specifically laid down in the Instruction issued by the Ministry of National Service that an experienced board constituted in that way might be expected to examine twelve recruits per hour, or sixty recruits per day, in two sessions of two and a half hours each. Comparing that with the constitution of the board as it obtains to-day, I want to omit the chairman, because, under the instructions, the chairman is not encouraged to do any examining himself. On the contrary, he is discouraged from doing so, and that is not to be wondered at, when one remembers that his functions are to record the decisions of the board, to act as referee in doubtful cases, and to do the grading of recruits, on the advice, and according to the findings of the members of the board. Obviously, therefore, he has not very much time to do examination work himself. The board being constituted of the chairman and four examiners they have to deal with sixty recruits in the two sessions, and it follows that each recruit-is examined for five minutes by each of
  1320
  the four examiners of the board, which gives the recruit a medical examination of twenty minutes. What has happened? That method gave, generally speaking, most excellent results, as the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means has stated on two occasions. What has happened since then? On the 3rd of May, an Order was issued by the Commissioner of Medical Service in the London region which entirely altered the procedure, and that, I suggest to the Committee, is at the bottom of the whole trouble, so far as the London area is concerned. There is a good deal in connection with the Order which in my opinion wants clearing up. In the first place, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions, in replying to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing on the 10th June, referred to the Order as the "alleged circular," as if to throw some doubt upon its authenticity. I do not think that was in the mind of my hon. Friend for one moment; I do not think he meant to convey that by the words he used, though they are capable of that construction. What was the position on the 10th June when my hon. Friend made that reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing? The actual position was that the Order, or alleged circular, had been under the consideration of the Ministry, and as we learnt on Thursday evening last, had been cancelled within a week of its issue. I do respectfully suggest that it might have been fairer to my hon. and learned Friend if that explanation had been given in reply to his question, rather than the answer which was given.
  What did that circular do? It substituted boards with a chairman and two examiners for the board, as formerly constituted of a chairman and four examiners, and at the same time it called upon that reduced board to examine eighty recruits in two sessions of two and a half hours each, as compared with the sixty recruits that the larger board was expected to do under the original National Service Instruction. I am going to assume again that the chairman of that board does no examination himself having regard to his manifold duties, and in that case it amounts to each recruit being examined for 3.75 minutes by each of two examiners, or seven and half minutes as a total, as compared with the twenty minutes of examination as carried out by the normally constituted board. I

  1321
  suggest to the Committee that we need not look very much further than that for an explanation of the breakdown which has taken place and of the men who have been improperly passed into the Army. I would remind the Committee that these boards were reduced under that order at a time when, I think, it will be generally conceded the type of recruit that was coming forward was far more deserving of, and in fact necessitated, far more careful examination than when recruits were coming forward of a younger age. The right hon. Gentleman informed the House that this order was cancelled within a week of its issue. Might I ask him what part of it was cancelled? Certainly that part of it relating to the reduction of the boards was not cancelled. That portion of it relating to the number of recruits to be examined was not cancelled, because only on the 10th May, which was, I think, directly after the Commissioner of Medical Services had had a conference with the chairmen of the boards in London, the Commissioner for the London region issued a letter in which the following paragraph occurred:
  "I have had minimum boards working as an experimental measure, and it is found that an outturn of eighty recruits a day per board of two examiners and a chairman can be easily obtained."
  Can be easily obtained! Although in the original instructions the words used were "an experienced board should be able to deal with twelve recruits an hour"—which is sixty a day—now, only a few months later, the Commissioner for the London region says eighty recruits a day can be easily obtained by two examiners and a chairman—
  "This plan practically doubles the output as compared with the ninety examined by the board with three or four members and a chairman."
  I think ninety is a mistake, because sixty was the figure—
  "There is, of course, no lowering of the standard of the examination."
  I call attention to that. This board of a chairman and two examiners are to examine eighty a day, compared with sixty with a chairman and four examiners, and there is to be no lowering of the standard of examination—
  "The boards in question have worked to the satisfaction, not only of myself, but of the examiners and examinees."
  I had the privilege early in this month of witnessing the work of one of these
  1322
  boards so constituted, and I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he had been there, invisible, he would have heard very different opinions expressed by the examiners, if not by the examinees. I can only say that, from what I was told on that occasion, and from my own personal observation, I came to the conclusion that it was an absolute impossibility for two examiners carefully and conscientiously to examine the number of recruits that they have been called upon to examine in that period. What is the explanation that the right hon. Gentleman gives of the number of unfit men who have been passed into the Army? He says on page 631 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 20th June:
  "It is an unconscious reaction of the pressure of the German offensive that is making these boards pass men who, under less pressure, they would not pass."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1918, Vol. 633.]
  I am going to take the liberty of suggesting another explanation which does not seem to me to be quite so far-fetched, if I may say so with all respect. I am going to suggest this as a possible explanation: On the 25th March last there was a telegram sent out from the Ministry of National Service, the first sentence of which read as follows:
  "The output of National Service medical boards must be increased forthwith."
  On the 22nd April there was a letter sent out—the reference is M2/182—in which chairmen were reminded that
  "In case of emergency boards might be reduced to a chairman and one member. Thus existing boards may be duplicated, or even triplicated."
  Mr. FRANCE: No reduction in quality!
  Mr. COCHRANE: At first when I had this matter brought to my attention I thought that the Commissioner of Medical Services of the London region was really to be very much blamed for the circular, which has been so often referred to in the course of this Debate, of the 3rd May, but really in face of these Instructions which were sent out by the Minister I think we must respond to the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman and put the blame upon himself.
  Sir A. GEDDES: What date is this?
  Mr. COCHRANE: The 22nd April—M2/182—no, Ml82.
  Sir A. GEDDES: Is it a circular?
  Mr. COCHRANE: A letter.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Signed by "A. Wallis, Deputy-Commissioner."
  Mr. COCHRANE: There is one other thing I must call attention to, and I do it with very great regret. Before doing so I would associate myself very fully with the observations of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Albion Richardson). I feel myself that the National Service Ministry has been spurring on these medical boards. I do not think you can use a better term than that, and I am obliged to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this fact, which was brought to my notice, that an inspector from the Chief Commissioner's office went round, certainly to one board in the London region, and stood, with watch in hand, checking the number of recruits who were being passed within a given time, and because this reduced board was not getting through them as fast as he thought they should he called their attention to the fact and, to put it mildly, told them they must hurry up. I want the Committee to try and see what is the effect of these reduced boards. What is the examination that is laid down in the National Service instructions? It is as follows:
  "When the board consists of four examiners and a chairman, examiner No. 1 will take the weight, height, and chest measurement, will note the colour of the hair and eyes, complexion, external marks, such as scars, vaccination marks, tattooing, and any indication of venereal disease or enlargement of lymphatic glands.
  No. 2 will pay attention to the physical development, will test the movement of the joints, will investigate deformities, e.g., knockknee, flat foot, hammer toes, etc., and will inquire into the history of injuries and operations, if any. He will examine the scrotum, testes, abdominal rings, and perineum.
  Examiner No. 3 will test the vision and hearing and nerve reflexes, especially the reaction of the pupils and the knee jerks, and will examine the eyes, ears, teeth, throat, and thyroid gland.
  Examiner No. 4 will examine the chest and abdomen, will make inquiries regarding previous illnesses, such as rheumatic fever, tuberculosis, etc., and the mental condition and any circumstances bearing on this, such as a history of fits, or of having been under treatment in an asylum for the insane. The urine, if necessary, will be tested at this stage.…
  The Board will always consider any documents bearing on his case that a man may bring. Medical certificates from general practitioners or consultants will receive full consideration."
  I put it to the Committee, is it possible to do that in seven and a half minutes, conscientiously? I take it that all these things ought to be done, or they would not be put down in the Instructions. Is it possible, does any member of the Committee believe, that that can be con-
  1324
  scientiously done by two examiners in seven and a half minutes? Of course we are taking average times. I know that the right hon. Gentleman called attention the other day to the fact that some men would take less and some more. I should very much like to know what the views of the General Medical Council are on the work that their members are being called upon to undertake under such conditions as these. I do not find the same condition of affairs existing down in the country. I have made investigations in my own district, and I find there that the boards have been reduced from a chairman and four to a chairman and three examiners; but boards consisting of a chairman and three examiners are to-day doing less work than boards in the London area with a chairman and two examiners.
  The answer, I know, which will be given, if the right hon. Gentleman does me the honour of replying to any of the points that I have raised, is that we are in a national emergency. My view of the situation is this: that no national emergency justifies passing unfit men into the Army, and if the emergency does become so pressing that we have to do that, then let us do away with the pretence of medical examinations, and let us say that every man who can shoulder a rifle must shoulder it and go into the trenches. It is neither fair to the medical profession nor to the men that such a system should be continued. I would like to point out that this is a two-edged sword. It is not only a question of passing unfit men into the Army, but it is also a question of keeping some fit men out of the Army, because if you have conscientious boards of medical men working under pressure and examining men in the way that I have ventured to describe, at the end of a long, tiring day they are so exhausted that they cannot trust themselves to determine very fine points in connection with the examination of the heart and lungs, and they favour men who possibly earlier in the day, when they could give a more thorough examination, they would pass into the Army. I have one more point to mention. The right hon. Gentleman, when speaking on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill last Thursday, complained to the House of the treatment that his Department received, and he said:
  "I would appeal to the House at this time when we have the greatest possible difficulty in maintaining the supply of men for the forces

  1325
  that we should receive all the help of private criticism sent to us, and we will always pay attention to it, before the questions are put down in the House and before statements are made in public, which will be recorded and published throughout the whole country as statements of policy when the statements are in fact based, as we now know for certain, upon a misunderstanding."
  As far as I myself and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) are concerned, we have absolutely clear consciences in this matter, because when the facts to which I have ventured to draw attention came to our knowledge we addressed a letter to the right hon. Gentleman, which was courteously acknowledged by his secretary, who stated that the right hon. Gentleman had been on tour and had just come back again and was unable to fix an appointment, but would communicate with us in a few days. We waited for a week, and then wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and informed ham that if he could not see his way to give us an opportunity of bringing the information which had come to our knowledge before him we should put down questions on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman was unable to give us that appointment, and I do not at all take exception to that, because I am sure he will have been snowed under with work, but at all events we tried to do the courteous thing, and we specifically said in our letter that it was not our desire to have to ventilate this subject on the floor of the House. No Member who sat on the Select Committee appointed by this House twelve months ago to investigate the question of the recruiting medical boards could fail to have been struck and almost horrified by some of the evidence that was placed before us. We did hope that the recommendations that we made, and which were so promptly and so earnestly taken up by the Government, and, may I say, by no one more earnestly than by the right hon. Gentleman himself, would have once and for all put this question of the recruiting medical boards outside of any possible controversy, and it is only because one views with absolute dismay the possibility of the same condition of affairs arising again that I have ventured to intrude myself upon the notice of the Committee.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think all who have listened to the discussion this afternoon will agree that the action of Members in raising this question has been amply justified by the results. My hon. Friend
  1326
  who has just sat down was one of the first to draw attention to the actions of the Department, which were likely to produce serious results in respect of medical examination, and I well remember some weeks ago that he called together some of his former colleagues on the Select Committee on Medical Examinations, with a view of making joint representation to the Minister for National Service. At that time I was less sanguine than my hon. Friend, and I told him he need not hope that anything would come from private representation. I said the only course to pursue was to raise the subject on the floor of the House. It has been raised on the floor of the House to-day, and for the third time in one week the Prime Minister has favoured us with his presence. You may be always sure when the Prime Minister is here that the storm signal is out. He came down on Monday. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood) on Monday suggested a Committee to assist the Government in regard to Russian affairs.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. Wilson): I do not think, on the discussion of a particular Vote in Committee, that the hon. Gentleman should review the week.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I was not going to review the week, but to quote a statement of the Prime Minister, which illustrates what has happened to-day. His answer to my hon. and gallant Friend was that the Government only set up a Committee when it was in a difficulty. Well, he has set up a Committee to-day, and it is obvious that it was to relieve himself from a very serious difficulty. But what we want to know is, what exactly is this Committee going to do? Before we leave this subject, it is essential that the Committee should be told something clear and definite. To my mind there is no need of a Committee at all, and if I had not perfect confidence in the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman, the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, I should have been inclined to think it was a put-up job. The issue is a perfectly clear one. It relates to the method of grading the older men. Is Grade 1 for the older men to be the same as Grade 1 for the other men, or is Grade 1 for the older men to be equivalent to Grade 2 for the other men? That was the only question of substance in the issue to-day. That did not need a Committee

  1327
  at all, and it is simply throwing dust in the eyes of the House to suggest that any Committee is required to decide that. The right hon. Gentleman could tell us now. He could simply say that the old standard of ability for general service was to apply as represented by Grade 1 for the older men as well as for the younger men. If that had been stated, there need have been no further Debate, so far as that question is concerned, and I think if the night hon. Gentleman, before this Debate comes to an end, makes that statement he will be saved the humiliation of having to meet all these hon. Members who preside over tribunals.
  There is this further question. The Prime Minister to-day, by admitting the necessity of a Committee, has confessed that there has been a misunderstanding in respect of the administration of medical examination of the older men. But what is to happen to the several thousand older men who have already been posted into the Army under this misunderstanding? That is a very serious matter. Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell us what is to happen in respect of those men? Will this Committee of the House, consisting of the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, the hon. and learned Member for Ealing, and several other hon. Members, have the right to see what has happened to these men and to see that they are being rightly used in the Army? I do not believe in all these professions about what will be done in the Army with these men. At the present time there are men being used in the Army for purposes for which their physical condition does not fit them at all. Everybody knows that. In one of the most widely circulated papers of the country there was a statement about a draft going to France which had to be supported by sticks and to have their kits carried by other men. If that was a false statement, the paper ought to be prosecuted. [An HON. MEMBER: "What paper?"] "John Bull." There could be no statement more likely to affect recruiting for the Army and cause unrest in the country than a statement like that. But there was no prosecution. We must assume these things are going on when a statement of that kind is not followed by prosecution. Have we any right to accept any assurances, even from the Prime Minister himself, when we hear of such things going on? We must insist that the position of
  1328
  the men who are actually passed into the Army should be completely safeguarded. I am not going to continue the point raised by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I think he has made a complete case with regard to the action of certain medical boards. There is not the slightest doubt in the mind of any hon. Member who listened to him that the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have been at least disingenuous in their Parliamentary answers relating to the medical service. That circular was not simply the work of Sir Charles—He did not spin it out of his inner consciousness. A letter of the 22nd April is really the inspiration of that circular, and justifies every word in it, and I think it would have been only fair and candid to the House for the Parliamentary representatives of the Department to make the statement and not turn the blame on someone else. It was because of that that I put down a, Motion reducing the salary of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not intend to make any general attack on medical boards. I believe, on the whole, they carry out their instructions as conscientiously as men can, considering the instructions that are given to them. There have been cases where there has been a rushing examination, and wherever you have that you are bound to have many mistakes; but I think in the period from October up to the present rushing, the system of medical examination has been fairly administered by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. At the same time now, when there has been a rush, when we think there has been totally unjustifiable instructions given to these boards, it is our duty to bring the Department to book. It has been brought to book this afternoon, and, having been brought to book, we have reason to think there will be an end to the system.
  There is only one other observation I desire to make, and that is in relation to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester. I, of course, accept the revised stop-press edition of that speech which has been given here this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be unfortunate both in his speeches and in his instructions. He need not, however, concern himself very much in defending the tribunals. There is, undoubtedly, all over the country, a good deal of social pull and favouritism not only in respect of the tribunals, but in respect of securing protection in other ways.

  1329
  These things do exist. I would ask him to look at his own Department. A good deal of the pull comes through the National Service representatives. If the local tribunal gives exemption, it depends upon the National Service representative whether an appeal is taken or no. If an appeal is taken, and the decision of the local tribunal has been given by favouritism, it is possible for the Appeal Tribunal to put it right; but if the National Service representative is not anxious to have an appeal, no appeal is taken. I believe that in a very large number of cases the fact that men are free owing to tribunal action is due to the National Service representative. I know cases where men have been prejudiced because they did not happen to enjoy the favour of the National Service representative. I put a question in this House about a certain case which went even to the Appeal Tribunal of London. That case would never have been appealed against if the National Service representative in that locality had not been anxious to safeguard one man and to press into the Army another. There were cases in the same town where the claims for exemption were not half so strong and no appeal was taken by the National Service representative.
  There was a case where local feeling was very intense. Even the town council passed a resolution as to the injustice which was being done. I believe that was entirely due to the National Service representatives. Indeed, in some of these places it is said that it depends a good deal upon the firm of solicitors that you consult when your case is pleaded before the tribunal as to whether or not you are successful. If you are lucky and wise enough to consult one firm of solicitors they are almost sure to succeed with your application; or if you do succeed with your application the National Service representative will not appeal against the decision—that is if you have the right solicitor. Then I have another case which has just come into my possession to-day in which a saddler, who is in an old-established business in an Ayrshire town, has had his case taken before the Appeal Tribunal and has had his exemption withdrawn. There are others over a very large area. One, a naturalised German, has got exemption. Another, a single man, who is younger than my correspondent, has also got exemption, both from the local tribunal, and there has been no appeal from the local tribunals in these cases. The appeal
  1330
  was taken in the case of my correspondent and the man has been turned down. It is in that form that things are going. It is the right of the National Service representative to decide whether or not an appeal is taken. That is where the pull comes in. It is that I would invite my right hon. Friend to investigate, and when he investigates it and puts it right, it will not be necessary to make any speeches that can possibly be misinterpreted as to the social pull.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: This Debate has been characteristic in this respect, that it is one of the first Debates upon an important subject where the whole stream of criticism has come, not from those whose habitual occupation in the House is to take every opportunity of criticising the Government, but almost exclusively from those who have been practically engaged in the administration of the Military Service Acts, and certainly some of whom would have been the last to say anything in this House damaging to this Government if they could possibly have helped it. I am glad that the Prime Minister, with that characteristic and keen perception of the tone and temper of the House, and of the country as represented in this House, has come down—
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is the "Daily Mail"!
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I am making my own speech. May I be allowed to do so in my own way?
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is an improvement on it!
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: The Prime Minister has come down to this House and has announced that there has been a misunderstanding, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Director of National Service will see these very practical and loyal critics of the Government, the chairmen of tribunals, in order to see whether that misunderstanding can be removed. As a Member of the House who has not had the privilege of being the chairman of a tribunal, but on this matter feels very keenly, and whose amount of responsibility, if not quite equal to that of a tribunal, still is sufficient to justify him in claiming the right in the House here and now to point out certain things, I would direct the attention of the Director of National Service to what I believe to

  1331
  be a vital flaw in the existing system of grading men. The tribunals have been set up for the purpose of weighing the relative claims of the Army and of civil life. The Army has not been allowed to take any man. The tribunals were set up to judge upon these two things. I suppose they must expect that the applicant is not always candid, and perhaps sometimes may deceive them. Surely, though, they have the right to expect that the Director of National Service and his servants should put before them all material facts to enable them to come to a decision! It is an unpleasant task, that possibly carries with it issues far greater than the issues which come before, say, a London stipendiary magistrate. What I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman is that the tribunal, in grading a man, should know what are the possible uses the Army will make of the man when they get him. Is it, therefore, right in the national interest that we should take him out of civil life and give him to the Army for these purposes? That is the issue we have to try. They used to have certificates of grading. On Thursday last, it will be remembered, the Director of National Service told us that Grade A meant one thing, B meant another, and C meant something else. He has got rid of that system, and he has explained why. He said:
  "I would like to explain to the House what, at all events, would have been one of the reasons for the great doubt which undoubtedly occurred in that old system. It was this: there was linked with the estimation of every man's physical fitness a strategic conception as to how he ought to be employed. That would have been all right with Royal Army Medical Corps officers, with real knowledge of the various classes of work required on service—I mean, if the Regular Army were doing the grading. That categorisation might have been all right under those circumstances. It certainly was not all right when it became necessary to employ large numbers of medical men who knew nothing of the Army or of the type of work that various Army Departments were called upon to perform."
  What is the use of a certificate given by-doctors whom the right hon. Gentleman says have not the knowledge, and cannot be trusted to say what service that man can render in the Army because they are not Army doctors. What is the use of a certificate by such doctors given to a tribunal to decide what service a man can render to the Army and to decide whether he ought to be allowed to go into
  1332
  the Army. This seems to me to be a fatal flaw in the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. He may say that the old system was not scientific, but I would like to remind him that the common sense of the country is revolting against the present method. What they say is that if the right hon. Gentleman was recruiting horses for the Army and offered £80 for Grade 1 horses and somebody brought in a twenty-five-year old nag and said, "This is Grade 1," he would probably refuse it, and the reply he would receive would be, "You find a better horse at that age." That is exactly what he is doing. He says "the Army requires Grade 1 men and never mind their age." The result has been that a certain amount of injustice has been done, but a very little seed of injustice in this matter grows into a big tree of public discontent very quickly, and I for one will not be satisfied, whatever arrangements are made, when these right hon. Gentlemen meet the Minister of National Service, unless they come out with a scheme which gives the tribunal the same information as to what the man is to be used for in the Army as is given to the Army authorities.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that there is a man to post these men to their duties, and all he wants is the man's grade and age, and when he knows that he knows by a chart how he is to be posted to the Army. Why cannot the tribunal have that chart and these instructions, and then when they know the man's grade and age they are back in the position they were before and they can decide the real use to which they can put a man. If the posting officer by grade and age can tell whether a man is fit for general service or not, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House at what age a Grade 1 man ceases to be fit for general service. Is a Grade 1 man at forty-seven fit for general service, and is the posting officer going to put him into general service? Why cannot you tell the tribunals, who is responsible for deciding this question? The reason is that the Army does not trust the tribunals, and let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that this distrust is reciprocated very largely, and there is a feeling growing in this country of discontent, and this will go on unless they are shown in some way that they are not to be wasted in the Army. It is all very well to throw the responsibility on the tribunals. You write a letter to the Minister of National Service saying that a man of such a physical condition and

  1333
  under certain circumstances has been passed by the tribunal into the Army. The right hon. Gentleman answers, "I am very sorry, but we cannot interfere with the discretion of the tribunals." I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in future will see that they do get this data.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The Prime Minister made an appeal to us this afternoon not to raise questions relating to various industries which were being hardly dealt with in the combing out process. What has been said in this Debate this afternoon rather encourages me to disregard the Prime Minister's appeal. We all know what happened this day week when this question of the grading of men was first brought before the House. Then the Minister of National Service was not only vehement, but a little truculent towards hon. Members who had been raising these questions, and he turned upon the hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) in a most savage manner, and if my hon. and learned Friend had not been a practised advocate and used to the abuse of his opponents I do not expect he would have been able to stand up in his place this afternoon to make the speech he has done after the references which the right hon. Gentleman made about him. The right hon. Gentleman described him as a person who was guilty of discussing on the floor of the House and before the whole country matters which ought to be private with the right hon. Gentleman and his officials. I felt as if a curtain had fallen and there was no more chance of a remedy being forthcoming for the grievances which my hon. and learned Friend had made public. But, lo and behold! what has happened to-day? During the week which has elapsed a great deal must have happened behind the scenes, for this afternoon the Prime Minister made one of his infrequent appearances in this House, and, as one hon. Member said, the Prime Minister never comes down to the House unless there is a time of storm and stress for the Government. The defence which has been put up is quite an adequate one, and the Prime Minister came down in his most suave and charming manner to throw his right hon. Colleague over, not for the first time.
  I am encouraged, in spite of the appeal of the Prime Minister not to make any reference to these various classes of industry that have been hardly dealt with
  1334
  by the comb-out by the fact that I know we have a Prime Minister who, when he is driven into a corner, will give away anything to his opponents and will throw over any colleague, and I am encouraged by that fact and the experience of this afternoon to urge upon the Minister of National Service the necessity of reconsidering the ease of the poor oppressed farmer and especially as I am a Welshman, the case of the farmer in Wales. I do not profess to know anything about the conditions of farming in England, but I do know a great deal about the conditions of farming in Wales. The conditions of the agricultural population in Wales is peculiar and different from that of Scotland or of England. I remember, eleven years ago, when the Small Holdings Bill was before this House, going into the figures of the agricultural population in Wales. I may summarise, in one or two sentences, the conclusions to which I arrived, after very elaborate calculations and a comparison with the various censuses of 1841 to 1901. In 1841 there were 66,000 agricultural labourers in Wales; in 1901 that number had been reduced to exactly half, 33,000. I took, for the purpose of comparison, a certain rural district with which I was acquainted, and I found that the whole of the population in that district was 14,000 in 1841 and only 7,000 in 1901. In my own native parish in 1841 the population was between 1,600 and 1,700, and in 1901 it had been reduced to something like 700, or less than half. To show that the reduction in the agricultural population was permanent and not merely a phase in the development of the country, I may say that I found that the number of inhabited houses in that district, Montgomery, had been reduced by 40 per cent., and in my own native parish I remember counting sixty cottages that had gone down to ruin during the time that I had been a Member.
  If you look at the industrial map of Wales you will see that large aggregations of population are to be found in the extreme north and south and that between the extreme north and south there is a large tract of purely agricultural country. The agricultural labourers were attracted from these rural parishes into the industrial districts where the social amenities are greater, where, even if they live in small houses in mean streets, the houses, at all events, afford them shelter from the storms, and where,

  1335
  instead of earning the small pittance of 13s., 14s., or 15s. per week they earn as colliers, tinplaters, or steelworkers £2, £3, £4, and £5 per week. The result was that long before the War, twenty years ago, the agricultural labourer had disappeared practically entirely from this vast tract of agricultural land between what may be called the extreme north and the extreme south of Wales. As the labour disappeared, naturally the character of the farming changed. In the old days of the Corn Laws, I suppose, a great deal of grain was grown in Wales, but after the Corn Laws had been abolished and after the development of these industrial districts at the very door of the agricultural labourer and the farmer, when the labourer disappeared, naturally the farmer had to change his style of farming, and, instead of arable land, Wales almost generally became a pastoral country. As everybody knows, during the last twenty years the Welsh farmers of Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire, and Glamorganshire in the south, and of Anglesey and Carnarvonshire in the north, have subsisted mainly by selling their milk and their dairy produce and cattle to the industrial districts. That was the condition of things when the War broke out. Agricultural labour was not only scarce, but it was almost non-existent. Then came the call for volunteers, and I venture to say with regard to the part of Wales that I know, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire, and Cardiganshire—I do not know about the Prime Minister's part of the country—there was no body of men that responded as readily to the call for volunteers as the agricultural labourers and farmers. Therefore, before you introduced Conscription, this land that was suffering from the dearth of agricultural labourers had been further denuded by the patriotism of the people who live there.
  Then came Conscription, and, of course, it meant taking away still more of the young men from these sparsely populated districts. Immediately you introduce Conscription into those districts you reduce the agricultural population below the minimum which is required for the production of food. We are told that the production of food is an essential part of the War industry of this country. Farmers were enjoined two years ago to lay more land under cultivation and to grow more bread, because of the menace of the German submarines. We were told
  1336
  that if the small farmers did their duty in producing more food they would undo the work of the German submarines, and before there was any compulsion put upon the farmers, when there was simply an appeal to their patriotism, those men who were understaffed and had been suffering from the lack of agricultural labourers for years, and who knew that if they ploughed up more land it meant personal exertion on their own part, on the part of men sometimes of fifty and sixty, who would have to go into the fields to work just at the time when they were looting forward to ease and leisure, ploughed up more land, sowed more corn, and did everything they could in their little way to help on this country in her dire need. As I know from my own knowledge, because I know hundreds of the men personally.
  Before any compulsion was put upon them, they increased the number of acres under cultivation. Then last year the Government came to them and said: "You must increase the number of acres you cultivate for corn and other crops." Willy-nilly they had to do it. Agricultural committees were set up, and one farmer after another was told—generally, they are small farms; I think the acreage of a Welsh farm is only about 50 acres—"Last year you sowed 20 acres of corn; you must sow 25 or 50 this year." They did it without grumbling. Some of them, it is true, felt that they were asked to do more than they could afford, but once the committee's decision was made, it was loyally abided by, and, so far as I know, there has not been a single prosecution in the whole of Wales from first to last for disobedience to the orders of the agricultural committee.
  What do we find? I have a bundle of letters in my pocket. I am inundated with letters every day. I am sure that my hon. Friends who represent other Welsh constituencies are in a like ease. Everyone of us is inundated with letters complaining of a breach of faith on the part of the Government. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman one case. I will hand him, if he likes, the full details at the conclusion of this Debate. This was sent to me by one of the leading farmers in Carmarthenshire. It is not his own case, but that of a neighbour. It is the case of a farm situated a few miles from Carmarthen, of 120 or 130 acres. Before the War, there were four men working on this farm, besides the housewife and the maid servant. To-day the two sons have

  1337
  gone away, the husband is dead, and the farm is being run by the widow, who is sixty-one years of age, her daughter, who is thirty years of age, a servant girl of fifteen and a Middlesex industrial school boy, who does not know how to handle horses. There are 30 acres under corn, yet there is not a single man on that farm able to gather in the harvest, while agricultural labour is so scarce in the neighbourhood as to be unprocurable. They have spent £70 on seeds this year. All that is going to waste. You do not offer them a substitute. You took away the only young man of twenty-five years of age left on that farm. He is now in the Army. This poor widow is practically ruined by the action of—I suppose my right hon. Friend will say of the tribunal, but I prefer to say of the system which has been set up during the last two or three months. I will not confine myself to a single instance like that. I can give the right hon. Gentleman a great number of similar cases. I will confine myself to two: The case of the county of Cardigan and the case of the county of Denbigh. Take the case of the county of Denbigh. The right hon. Gentleman, or somebody on his behalf—I do not know who it was; I do not pretend to understand the minutiae of the elaborate system he has set up—but somebody or other sent down to the agricultural committee which was set up in the county of Denbigh, to say that the quota which was expected from that county was 450 men. I may say that I got the particulars of this case from a paper called "Y Genedl Gymraig"—the "Welsh Nation"—a paper with which the Prime Minister used to be associated, of which he was once a director, which is still published in his constituency, although whether he has any connection with it now I do not know. If my right hon. Friend would like to see it—it is in Welsh, it is true—I should be very glad to hand it over to him.
  Sir M. BARLOW: Read it.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: No, I am afraid the denunciation both of the Government and of the Prime Minister is so eloquent and is couched in such unparliamentary terms that the Chairman would rule me out of order if I attempted to read it. It is from a report of a meeting held last week at Llanrwst, of the Agricultural Society for North Wales, that I derive the facts—if they be facts—which I com-
  1338
  mend to the attention of the right hon Gentleman. It is said there that 450 men were required as the quota from the agricultural districts of Denbighshire. It was stated also that before that communication was received the agricultural committee had gone into the case in Denbighshire and found, not that 450 men could be spared, but that they wanted 200 men back from the Army in order to garrison the farms with the proper amount of labour. As one speaker said:
  "If 450 were to be sent according to the dictates of the Ministry of National Service, we shall be 650 short of oar proportion of agricultural labour."
  So much for Denbigh. By the way. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend how he fixes the quota at 450? Has he gone into the figures of the number of people who have already gone to the War from the county? Does he know how many at first volunteered and went into the Army?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will permit me to tell him that the Ministry of National Service does not fix the quota.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Who does?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Nor has it anything to do with the fixing of the quota. I thought I would point that out as we are on the Vote for the Ministry of National Service.
  Mr. ROCH: This is the only Vote on which we can raise the matter.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend. I thought he was far too intelligent a man to have adopted such an unintelligent system as that. But who is it that fixes the quota?
  Mr. KING: The right hon. Gentleman does not know.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: That really goes to the root of the whole matter. I could quite understand it if a Government Department, whatever the Department may be, goes into the circumstances of a county and finds out, first of all, the number of men who have already gone into the Army from that county, the number of men required for agricultural purposes in that county, and, then, having all these considerations before them, make a demand upon that county to find 400 or 450 men for the Army. I could quite understand that that

  1339
  would be a proper proceeding to adopt, and nobody would cavil at it. But that is not the way this thing is done. Here is a demand for 450 men on the county, and men who know the county best from an agricultural point of view say that so far from being able to find 450 additional men they ought to get 200 men back from the Army. Take the case of Cardiganshire. This is a most mysterious business. I have no doubt my right hon. Friend knows nothing about it. But what has happened in Cardiganshire? I found a deputation waiting for me outside this Chamber this afternoon, and even with their help it was difficult to follow what really has happened. But if it is anything like what they tell me, it is something in the nature of a real scandal. The quota demanded from Cardiganshire was 400. According to the Proclamation which was issued, every man between the ages of eighteen and twenty-three who was requisitioned could demand to have his case investigated and decided by the County Appeal Tribunal if he could get the consent of the agricultural committee. In order to obtain the consent of the agricultural committee certain prescribed forms were distributed, and all the men between eighteen and twenty-three filled in the form and sent it to the agricultural committee. That body went through them all, and consented to the appeals going forward to the County Appeal Tribunal in every one of the cases, with the exception of either thirteen or nineteen, I am not sure which. At any rate, it was an infinitesimal number who were excluded from the consent. When the cases came before the County Appeal Tribunal that body replied that another body had been set up, called the Agricultural Appeal Tribunal, to deal with these matters, and they therefore prepared to hand the cases over to that tribunal. When the cases came before the Agricultural Appeal Tribunal, the personnel of which is exactly the same as that of the agricultural committee, the members decided that they would not go into the matter any further, as they had already investigated it, and found that only about nineteen men should not have exemption. They refused to go into the matter any more, although my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiganshire, who was present, begged of them not to proceed in that way. They disregarded his advice, and said they would not go further into the matter, because they were
  1340
  sure the men could not be spared from agriculture. Now every one of these young fellows, without a single exception, has been called up to the Army, and they are to report on Saturday.
  I suggest that that is a crying scandal. Here you have a county agricultural committee declaring that only nineteen men can be spared. It may be that they were technically at fault in not going into the cases a second time. Yet for that technical fault these 400 young fellows are to report to the military authorities next Saturday. I noticed in the "Times" this morning a paragraph to the effect that my right hon. Friend is going to exempt, until after the harvest, all young men who have not already been called up. Ought he to confine this concession to the men who have not been called up? Should he not include the cases which have occurred since the present Military Service Act came into force? Why should Cardiganshire be penalised because the Agricultural Appeal Tribunal has made a mistake? Why should 400 men be sent from a purely agricultural county, a very sparsely populated county, a county from which the agricultural population was denuded long before the War by industrial and economic pressure; why should 400 men be taken from that county simply because a technical mistake was made by the Agricultural Appeal Tribunal?
  I am sorry I have taken up so much of the time of the Committee, but I thought my right hon. Friends would like to know the facts, or some of them, at any rate. I have a great many more which I could put before him, but I will take pity on the patience of the Committee. May I finish my appeal by making a practical suggestion to my right hon. Friend? I know perfectly well how hard-worked he is, how overwhelmed he must be by the multiplicity of detail. I do not hold him responsible in the slightest degree, except so far as he is head of the Department, for what has occurred. I do not at any rate hold him personally responsible for this insensate arrangement. But there has been appointed a Regional Director for Wales. Let the right hon. Gentleman delegate this regional director to go into this matter. The regional director has been for many years a Member of this House. He is universally respected, and his decision would be accepted by every grade of Welshman with absolute confidence. He speaks their own language, he is, too, a

  1341
  soldier. I differed from him as to the methods of carrying on this War. He is an ardent Conscriptionist. I am not, but there is no man in this House or in the other House who has done more to assist voluntary recruiting. Therefore, he is a man who can be trusted by the Government; indeed, they have shown that by appointing him regional director. He is equally trusted by his own countrymen, and if I may, with great humility, give any advice to my right hon. Friend, it is that he should shift this burden from his own shoulders to those of the regional director. Let the right hon. Gentleman relegate the investigation and the decision of the matter to his regional inspector, and I, for one, shall be perfectly satisfied with the result.
  Mr. SOMERVELL: I would ask the indulgence of the Committee, which is always extended to those who intervene in Debates for the first time. For the last two years or more I have spent a very large amount of time in working on an advisory committee, and I am associated with a trade which, I think, along with some others, is subject to rather a particular menace under the terms of Order No. 53 of the Ministry of National Service under the Military Service Act, 1918. Under this Order from a large number of trades exemptions have been withdrawn. Those exemptions took effect on the 22nd of the present month. In the list of trades there are three which are specially indicated as subject to further dealing—the building trade, the printing trade, and the boot and shoe trade, and the note with regard to these that is appended to the Order is as follows:
  "It is intended that another Withdrawal Order should be made shortly which, as regards these industries, will have the effect of decertifying men of higher ages and lower grades and categories than those specified in this Order. It is not, however, intended that this further decertification should affect those who, when the proposed Order is made, are principally and usually engaged in these industries on contracts for Government Departments."
  My point is that that threat is really another step in the direction of the militarisation of labour, and also of capital. There is a proposal to differentiate between those in these trades who are engaged on Government work and those who are not. I am afraid I must illustrate this from the trade with which I am connected. I believe it is an axiom in this House that it is better to talk about things that you know than about things
  1342
  that you do not know. The shoe trade is very closely controlled. It is not technically a controlled industry, but almost the whole of its raw material is controlled, and a very large part of its output. Of the output every manufacturer is under requisition to produce a large proportion of what are called war-time boots for civilian purposes, but there are in addition to these manufacturers others who are under requisition from the War Office for the production of boots for the Army. Recently more than 120 of those firms which are producing Army boots have had their requisition withdrawn and been thrown back upon work for civilians. The proposal is that only those workers should be protected in the forthcoming threatened comb-out who are producing Army boots, and that all others shall be subject to the comb; in other words, there is to be differentiation between one and the other. The record of the trade is that they have maintained their output against extraordinary difficulties and there has been a tremendous amount of dilution, both in unskilled labour and in women. The National Union of Shoe Operatives claim that 50 per cent. of their male members have been called up. The output of the whole trade has been to a very great extent requisitioned by the Government for public purposes.
  The contention of the workers is that it is not fair to set up a discrimination between those firms which are fortunate enough to be making for the Army, if it is fortunate, and those which are not. The young and strong men have gone from the industry almost without exception. It is only those of low categories and men of higher age who are left. My point with regard to the militarisation of labour is that that discrimination takes away the right of the Ministry of National Service, and of the tribunals, to judge as to the destination of labour and puts it at the mercy of a War Office Department. The Director of Army Contracts, by shutting off his requisition from any firm, can throw its employés into the Army—a step in the direction of the militarisation of labour. Again, if any manufacturer should have the misfortune to come across one of the War Office Departments they have a scourge with which they can, if they wish, scourge him, because there is nothing to prevent their withdrawing the requisition from him and he loses his men at once. It puts both capital and labour practically at the mercy of the military. Again, on

  1343
  economic grounds I suggest that this proposal is not wise. The Minister of National Service said last week:
  "Where is your money going to come from if you take all the young men engaged in production?"
  From this trade all the young men have already gone. It is only the fitter men of older years that it is now proposed to take. The commercial community are as anxious as anyone in this country to win the War. It is as essential to the commercial community, in some respects more essential, that this War should be won than to any other, and by the commercial community I mean the whole of that part of the community which is directly interested in commerce. I mean not only the employer, but the employed—not only the manufacturer but the worker. We all read with satisfaction the words of the chairman of the Labour Conference yesterday that all our plans for reconstruction, all hope of rebuilding a better social and industrial life after the War depend on one cardinal fact—that is the winning of the War. We should all put our approval on that. I have done my best in and out of season, from the beginning of the War, first in recruiting and then in advisory work, to get men for the Army; but there are limits, economic and social, and limits which are dictated by what I might call Labour policy. I should like to beg the right hon. Gentleman that he will consider, before this suggestion is carried out, before this menace falls on these three trades, whether that proposal might not be withdrawn. If he cannot withdraw it altogether could he not see his way to a conference of the trades concerned, along with himself and the Ministry of Labour, in order that some more satisfactory arrangement might be made and that the menace to labour and industry might be removed?
  Mr. MOUNT: I want to raise a point rather different from that raised by the hon. Member who has just done, and that is the question of the quota which has been asked from the agricultural districts and also the method by which that quota was arrived at. I am not at all sure that the young Scottish intellect of the Minister of National Service did not carry the day against the President of the Board of Agriculture in a way of which agriculturists do not quite approve. I should like to point out that the number
  1344
  of 30,000, so far as one can gather from what has been said in answers to questions in this House, was arrived at by consideration of the agricultural conditions prevailing in each county. I should like to know whether, in taking into consideration the agricultural conditions prevailing in each county, which is a fairly wide term, the number of Grade 1 men left in agriculture was taken into account. It seems to me that that is an extremely important point which should have been taken into account, but so far as I can gather from my experience in the county where I have had the privilege of serving on the war executive agricultural committee, was not taken into consideration in arriving at the quota which we were asked to furnish. I am not sure that criticism of the past is always useful in this House, and I would not have ventured to intervene if I did not feel that I might be able to offer some suggestion of help in the future calling up of agriculturists which might be of some use, apart from the destructive criticism as to how the quota was arrived at.
  I would like to make two suggestions to the Minister of National Service. An announcement appeared in the Press today that the issue of calling-up notices was to be postponed until after harvest. That is, to some extent perhaps, a little concession, but, when you come to look at it, it is an illusory concession. You have, in the majority of counties, war agricultural executive committees who have endeavoured loyally to do their duty in the performance of a most unpleasant and difficult task, namely, to go through the lists of men whose exemptions have been cancelled, and to consider once again whether they can be released for military service, and when you consider that the war agricultural executive committees have, in almost every case, loyally endeavoured to carry out their duties, that they were required to find these men by the 30th June, and that in almost every case the calling-up notices have already been issued, the concession which has been granted is absolutely illusory. Speaking for my own county, where I was to-day, I am told that practically all the calling-up notices have already gone out. We have been sitting, at great inconvenience to ourselves, almost continuously day by day in order to get this work done in time and we are to be penalised because we have done it. I would urge the Minister of

  1345
  National Service to see whether some concession could not be made to those counties which have done their best to do what they were asked to do and to get these men by the 30th June.
  There is another point which I desire to raise. Each county, as the Committee knows, was given a certain quota of men to find. As I have said, I believe that the majority of the counties have done their best loyally to find that quota. Speaking for my own county, I can say that we have gone to the very utmost limit in calling on men whose being taken for military service is bound to prejudice the production of food and the carrying on of agriculture on the farms from which they have been taken. We have been able to find the exact quota asked for, but we have been only able to find that quota for calling up. Many of the men on examination will be found not to be Grade 1 men, and will have to be graded down. The result will be that so far as the number of men posted is concerned we shall not get the actual quota which has been asked for. Under these circumstances I ask the Minister of National Service whether he will not be satisfied with what has been done by the counties who have loyally endeavoured to carry out his request, and if we have been able to get posted to the Colours within 10 or 15 per cent. of the quota, will he not be satisfied to allow that number to stand? It is a very small thing that we ask. I am quite certain that if the actual quota is demanded, great damage will be done to the production of food in this country by the calling up of these men. I do not blame the authorities, because you have to choose between men and food, and I suppose you have chosen to put your money upon the men and let the food go. I ask you to go no further, and to avoid making it impossible to carry on many a farm which is struggling under great difficulties at the present time.
  Sir WATSON CHEYNE: I desire to say a few words in regard to the medical profession. I know that the answer to any appeal one makes will be that you must not single out one profession or business for special treatment. But there are two points which, I think, establish the claim on behalf of the medical profession. In the first place, a doctor seldom begins to earn a living until he is getting on in years. Until he reaches the age of twenty-six or twenty-eight it is very seldom that a medical man
  1346
  has begun to attempt to earn a living. The result is that when he comes to the age of over forty, or getting on to fifty, he is only beginning for the first time to attempt to make some little provision for his family and dependants. Therefore he is really in a worse position than most persons engaged in professions or trades—with the exception, perhaps, of lawyers. There is the great expense of his education before he commences to earn money. A second point is that the doctors require special consideration because, as regards them alone, you have raised the age from fifty to fifty-five. That is a matter which requires further consideration. Since the passing of the Act I have had a great many letters on this subject. I get them every day, giving all sorts of opinions, some of them abusing me, and many of them giving advice. The reason I was abused was because I was foolish enough to attempt to make a joke in this House. I said that it was very interesting to notice that the Government in raising the age of the medical men to fifty-five, seemed to think that they were the only people with brains and physique sufficient to be of use to the nation after the age of fifty, and that, perhaps, they thought they were doing the doctors an honour in selecting them for this exceptional treatment. I should have known that one should never make a joke in an assembly which was not an assembly of Scotsmen, and I must try never to make a joke again in this House, as I have suffered very severely for this.
  10.0 P.M.
  I have received a number of letters asking that I should represent various points to be right hon. Gentleman. The point everyone makes is: "Is it really necessary that I should be Conscripted? The Army has Conscripted the greater part of the medical profession, and the great majority of the younger men. Is it really necessary that I should leave my practice, where I am doing a very large amount of work and go abroad or elsewhere to meet the needs of the Army? Because reports come from the Army that many men are abroad who are idle or very nearly idle, men who have volunteered and have left very busy practices in which they were of great use to the nation, and they are now eating their hearts out because they have thrown away these practices and are doing no good to the nation." I would ask the Minister of National Service, has he made himself certain that there is not this waste of

  1347
  medical man-power which there is said to be? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some simple definite reply and not the mere reply of a statesman. He can ascertain what the facts are, because only about a year ago there was a great agitation on this subject, and in Parliament, and a Commission was appointed to go to France and investigate this very matter. That Coin-mission reported in December. It was appointed at the instigation of the House of Commons but its Report has never been presented to the House of Commons. The delay in the publication of that Report is giving rise to a great deal of trouble among the doctors. They say that either the Report contains something which it is bad for the public to know, or something which reflects on the Army. I do not think that it is either of those. I cannot tell what is in the Report, but I would suggest that possibly the reason why the Report has not been published is that those who made it think that it is so very feeble that they are ashamed that it should be published. Whatever the explanation, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has satisfied himself by a consideration of that Report that it is necessary to call on those gentlemen to leave their practices. Has he seen that Report and considered it? If not, will he do so, and will he get it published so that the doctors and people interested in it may know what it contains. Another statement made to me is that doctors, certainly over fifty years of age, object very strongly to anything like industrial Conscription. They point out that other businesses, trades and professions have successfully resisted anything of the kind, and they are filled with anxiety lest they should be asked to leave their practices, which would mean absolute ruin to them, and go away and take up other practices, such as, for instance, a practice in a mining district. At that age they are not, in many cases, physically strong enough to carry on a practice of that kind. On the other hand, they profess their readiness to take a commission in the Army and do work in base hospitals, and in other ways, so as to allow the younger men to be sent abroad. One suggestion, which has been already made elsewhere, and is made by some correspondents, is that they are strongly impressed with the severe strain imposed upon medical men at home in the winter months during the
  1348
  War, and in view of the further call made on medical officers, they suggest that temporary employment in the Royal Army Medical Corps should be offered for temporary periods to enable them to take heavy work abroad during the summer months and return to work in the winter, when there is less demand at the front and they are more urgently required at home. That is a most excellent suggestion. It has already been made, and the Army authorities in France seem to think that it ought to be acceded to to a certain extent.
  There is one other suggestion which I make with a certain amount of diffidence, seeing the Prime Minister whom we have. Still, there is a certain number of men who object very strongly to panel work. One of the statements is that they absolutely decline to be conscripted to take the place of panel doctors. There is a certain number of them who feel extremely strongly on this point, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind. My own solution is that at that age a man should not be asked to leave his practice, that as far as possible he should be given part-time work in the immediate neighbourhood, so that he could give a few hours a day to national work, and may be allowed to carry on his own practice, which, after all, is a national work, that of attending to the needs of the civilian population, and considering that so many doctors are away just now everyone who remains in practice is doing more work than formerly. I might mention the statistics regarding a particular neighbourhood, in which, before the War, there were 156 medical men. Of these eighty-four are now in camp, and of these eighty-four no less than eighty-two volunteered before Conscription came into operation. That is a high average. The remaining seventy odd members of the medical profession in that neighbourhood—I need not give its name—have been looking after the practices of their professional brethren under a voluntary self-denying ordinance, by which they are to hand the practice back to the medical man on his return, or his successor, and also to hand over to him or his representatives half the fees received from the patients. No members of the community have made greater sacrifices for the nation than have the doctors, and I think it is asking a great deal of a medical practitioner, at the age of fifty-five, to give up his practice at the very

  1349
  time when he hopes to make some little preparation for his old age, and to take the risk of losing everything, and having the chance of being compelled to begin life again. An ordinary shopkeeper who is called up may have his business carried on by his wife, but in the case of a doctor, unless he marries a lady doctor, he has not that advantage, for his is a purely personal association and he must himself make and attend to his practice. This is a very serious problem. I cannot help thinking that the authorities have been a little rash in raising the age in this way, and I hope that means will be taken to mitigate the hardships involved, so far as possible.
  Sir C. HENRY: I think members of the Committee will agree with the remarks of the hon. Baronet who has just sat down in regard to what the doctor has done in this War. Those remarks, I think, are thoroughly justified, for the medical profession have played a noble part from the beginning of the War. I hope that the suggestions and recommendations which the hon. Baronet has made will receive the consideration and careful attention of the Ministry of National Service. I think Members in all quarters of the House will be relieved at the statement made by the Prime Minister. I do not disguise the fact that I was very much afraid of the attitude which was adopted in regard to the grading of the men, but I believe, now that the Minister of National Service has agreed to consult with the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, and the chairmen of tribunals, that a satisfactory solution will be arrived at. The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means: also suggested that the Conference should include the hon. Baronet who has just spoken, and the hon. Member for Derby. I understand that is agreeable to my right hop. Friend the Minister of National Service, and that he will be glad to have the cooperation of these gentlemen. My right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service said that the men over forty-three would be in the second fighting line.
  Sir A. GEDDES: The second Infantry line.
  Sir C. HENRY: I beg pardon, the second Infantry line. As I understand a certain number of men in Grade 1 will be passed into the Army for service in India, but I am very doubtful whether that principle ought to be adopted, and I think it would be far
  1350
  better that these men should be retained for other services. Another point has reference to the masters of private schools, and I should like to know what is being done in their case. There is considerable uneasiness about these schools, and it is hoped that they will not be denuded of teachers to a greater extent than they are at present. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of National Service will do what he can in that direction. I believe it is the fact that unless these schools are provided with adequate staffs it will be impossible to carry on many of them.
  The main object of my rising was to draw the attention of the Committee to the career of the Ministry of National Service. The object for which it was formed has never been fulfilled. The Prime Minister when he announced his intention to establish a Ministry of National Service, stated that there was no intention of making any change in recruiting for military service, but that the Department was to deal mainly with essential industries, and to enrol volunteers for industrial work in the national service. Mr. Neville Chamberlain directed his best efforts to carry out what the Prime Minister stated, but it was an impossible task, and in the results it could not be continued. The expenditure on that phase of national service was £223,000, and 19,950 men volunteered for industrial purposes. I feel very strongly that there has been up to the present time overlapping between the Ministry of National Service and other Departments. I had the privilege of sitting on a Committee with the Paymaster-General and Lord Middleton, and it was recommended that the Ministry of National Service should be merged in the Ministry of Labour. I believe if that recommendation had been adopted we would have had far more satisfactory results than we have had under the Ministry of National Service. That Department has now undertaken recruiting, which I submit should have been left in the hands of the War Office. The medical examination of recruits should be left to the War Office, and should not have been put under the Ministry of National Service. In my view that is not a satisfactory arrangement, and I think the military authority is the best able to gauge the condition of men fit for military service. I believe it was a mistake to transfer recruiting from the War Office to the Ministry of National

  1351
  Service, tout I am quite certain that any Department other than the Labour Department dealing with questions of labour must be prejudicial and lead to unhappy results. In fact, I go so far to say that it involves unnecessary expenditure, as well as the employment of an additional staff. The National Service Department, after Mr. Neville Chamberlain had resigned, went into liquidation. It left its premises and went to other premises. It was reconstructed with a new Director and a new staff. What has been the result of that reconstruction? I have here a return which was issued on the 17th June in answer to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel), giving the staff of the Ministry for National Service in February last. That staff consisted of 14,510, at an annual expenditure of close on £1,600,000. That is not all, because it is stated that
  "The statement of cost is incomplete, as a considerable proportion of the clerical staff of the recruiting offices were still paid for from Army funds at the date of the Return, and their cost is not shown fully in the Return."
  My right hon. Friend, at the opening of his speech to-day, dealt with the subject of the staff. I think the Committee is entitled to know whether since February that staff has been expanded; if so, to what extent, and whether any of the staff is now being paid by Army funds? This question of cost is one of considerable importance, and again, I say, it could be considerably reduced if there were greater co-ordination and the work done by the National Service Department were undertaken by the Ministry of Labour and the War Office. I will not detain the Committee longer, because I know there are other Members who wish to speak, but I thought I was justified in bringing these conditions to the attention of the Committee. I would like to say, in conclusion, that the general result of the Military Service Act of this year has been disappointing. In fact, I might say on the whole the Act has failed to fulfil its purpose, and I think that at this juncture the right hon. Gentleman might consider whether, now that Ireland is allowed to conscript voluntarily, there could not be some voluntary system adopted for men beyond the age of forty-three. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to adopt that suggestion, but I do say that under the conditions now existing it should not be forgotten that
  1352
  it was one of the reasons urged that if we allowed the men over forty-three to be enlisted Ireland would be compelled to have Conscription.
  Colonel ASHLEY: The only reason!
  Sir C. HENRY: It was one of the reasons, and, in these circumstances, the greatest degree of leniency with regard to medical examinations and other conditions should be applied to these older men.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I have no intention of following the hon. Member (Sir C. Henry) into the history of the National Service Department, though, if there were time, it would be exceedingly interesting to do so. I do, however, wish to remind the Committee that when the last Military Service Act was passed it was pointed out that that Act conferred the widest possible powers upon the Minister for National Service and practically made him a kind of dictator with regard to recruiting. Some of us, at any rate, very vigorously protested that we were giving away far too much of the power of Parliament to control these proceedings, and that protest was made again and again on the floor of this House. I would only say this now to the Minister of National Service, that it is just in proportion as he himself has got away from the control of the House of Commons that he gets himself into difficulties, and that more and more, in so far as he removes himself from the House of Commons, and attempts to carry out policies apart from the House of Commons, he will continue to get into difficulties. I am very sorry that the Minister of National Service never seems at home in this House, never seems as if he cared to be here, but I am bound to say this to him, that dictators in these days will not do. We have got popular government in this country, and it is only by acting in the spirit of popular government that we shall get rid of the difficulties that confront us and get on with the work in hand.
  I wish to ask the representative of the Ministry of National Service if there is now any policy at all with regard to the only sons or the last sons of widows. Promises have been made from time to time in this House, and I have myself been asking questions recently. I see constantly decisions of tribunals that are conflicting in regard to this matter. One

  1353
  of the last decisions of all is this, apparently, that the son of the widow who has been so often referred to in this House must be the last surviving son, and that all the other sons must have been killed off before anything can be done in respect to that son. It was always the view hitherto that if the other sons were in the Army special consideration ought to be shown to the last one remaining in civilian life. I would like to ask whether there is even now any policy in regard to that matter, and, if so, what is the policy? If I had time, I would have gone into the question of the different decisions given by the tribunals. The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means to-day pointed out that his own tribunal was taking a certain line, that it was assumed that Grade 1 men under the new conditions were really Grade 2 men, and that other tribunals were following his lead; but other tribunals still are not following his lead, and all over the country to-day one tribunal is taking one line of policy and another is taking an entirely different line of policy. That is absolutely unfair to the applicant, because it depends upon the tribunal before which he goes as to the result of his case, and I say it is essential that the Ministry of National Service should give us a uniform policy, and that that policy should be fair to all and equally fair to all.
  The only point which I wish specially to press home is the question of the policy of the Department in regard to what has often been called industrial compulsion. That was a matter that was raised again and again during the Debates. The hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool (Colonel Ashley) took part in several of those Debates, and I think his argument was that though he did not object necessarily to industrial compulsion, yet he did at least think that the matter ought to be honestly brought on the floor of this House and settled by this House, and not brought in by a side door. I am going to argue that this question of industrial compulsion is more and more being brought in by a side door, and Labour at this moment is exceedingly suspicious of what is going on. It is assumed, first of all, that men are being graded Grade 1 who ought not to be in Grade 1. That has been the argument brought forward again and again in these discussions, that these men, although they are put in Grade 1, are not intended for the front trenches at all, and the Prime Minister told us to-day that
  1354
  there was no intention of putting these Grade 1 men into the front firing line. When did we know that before? When were these men told that before, in regard to where they were going to go?
  Sir M. BARLOW: The Army does not know it now!
  Mr. ANDERSON: But these Grade 1 men believe that, although they are old and unfit in many cases, they are going to be sent into the firing line, and that, side by side with that, an announcement is made to them that if they will at once place themselves in the Government's hands in regard to industrial employment before their calling-up notice comes they will be exempted from the Army if they are ready to go where the Government send them, and to do exactly what the Government want them to do. I say that it is playing a trick with these men to make an arrangement of that kind; that you are really persuading them that you are going to send them somewhere where you do not mean apparently to send them, and, on the strength of that, you are getting these men to place themselves absolutely in the hands of the Ministry of National Service to be sent anywhere to do anything. I could read again and again declarations made by the Minister himself when we brought this matter forward when the last Bill was going through. I think I must read two quotations from the Minister of National Service himself. Speaking in this House on 13th April in these Debates, he said
  "Others who are not there (he was referring to men in munition work) but in other walks of civil life, will be taken for the Army or the Air Force; but there is no power under this Act to take a man out of one position in civil life and put him into another similar position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1918, col. 2054, Vol. 104.]
  Again and again he laid down exactly the same thing. Speaking later on, he said:
  "There is no trick or catch in this measure, and there is no trying to get a large number of men for civil work. It is a direct, honest, open measure to get the men by raising the age who will be useful for military purposes, and who are required. I want to assure the hon. Member for Attercliffe, and those for whom he speaks, that there is no hidden trick, no catch."
  I contend there is a catch in regard to what he is doing as to these older men. It would not be so bad if we knew that the men were going to be used like pawns in a game for some higher purpose, but

  1355
  this will happen, as the Committee will discover sooner or later; any number of these men, believing they are going to be sent into the firing line, though old, and in some cases obviously unfit, will enrol themselves, will be taken away from work they can do, and where they are producing money and adding to the taxes and economic power of the country, and will be sent to some jobs where they art; absolutely useless.
  Colonel ASHLEY: And do in many cases work which discharged men could do.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Yes, that is what is actually taking place. It justifies up to the hilt what we urged during the Committee stage of the last Military Service Act. I do, therefore, urge strongly that the matter should be gone into, and do ask under what conditions these men are going into industry? I will read a quotation from a newspaper that is very friendly to the Government and the Prime Minister, the "Daily Chronicle." This is what was said in a short leading article in that paper on 22nd June:
  "While we are glad to see that opportunities are to be given to men over forty-five to enrol themselves for other forms of national service than that of the Army, we must say the eon-cession gives colour to the charge that the last Military Service Act was an expedient for introducing industrial conscription."
  That is the charge made by a newspaper like the "Daily Chronicle." Some will not take that view, but, at any rate, that is a view, and it is a matter about which we ought to have a far clearer explanation than we have yet had as to what the intention and what the policy of the Ministry is in this matter, because there are undoubtedly deep-rooted suspicions that there is a policy of industrial conscription being brought in, not openly on the floor of this House, to be debated in this House, but by a side-wind involved in the policy of the Ministry itself.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): The hon. Member for Attercliffe has made one of his usual speeches—
  Mr. KING: What?
  Mr. BECK:—brilliant in argument but not very useful in the crisis in which we find ourselves. It is really difficult to meet the sort of argument he uses.
  1356
  Every effort is made by this House to save the older men in civil life from the Army, but when the Ministry of National Service brings in a perfectly bonâ fide scheme by which these older men, and the men in the lower medical categories, can be fitted into civil jobs "urgently needed to be filled," the only encouragement we get from the hon. Member is a statement that this is industrial conscription.
  Mr. WATT: What else is it if it is a civil job?
  Mr. BECK: I maintain that it is a pleasant method of conditional exemption from military service. This House of Commons has passed an Act which places on the shoulders of men up to the age of fifty-one the duty of military service. There is urgent work of great national importance to be done. There is a shortage of men to do this work. I shall say a few words presently about that, but we have had the agricultural position explained to-us the labour deficiency, the difficulties under which the farmers are labouring at the present moment, and their anxieties about the harvest. We bring forward a policy which enables men to enrol themselves as war agricultural volunteers, and the only thanks we get from the hon. Member for Attercliffe is to be told that these men are being industrially conscripted, and that there is some great attack being made upon their individual liberties.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Are they not to be put under the scheme?
  Mr. BECK: The older men will not, I think, thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I am not so sure of that!
  Mr. BECK: We shall see.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Yes, we shall see.
  Mr. BECK: We have had along Debate, in which a great number of points have been raised. Working a little backwards brings me to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellington. I think his main point was that we have too large a staff, and that we had to do work which others could very well do. He, of course, I quite agree, was logically justified, because he went contrary to the opinions of almost the entire House in saying that he believed that it was a great

  1357
  mistake to transfer recruiting from the Army to a civilian Department. If that be granted there may be a good deal to be said for what my hon. Friend contends, but, as he knows, there was the most intense criticism of the fact that almost alone amongst the nations of Europe, in Britain the War Office was allowed to recruit men for the Army without any particular regard to civilian needs. Granted, however, that a civilian Department should recruit for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, is it really contended that that can be done without a substantial and widely diversified staff? Why to-day in this very Debate the subjects raised have gone to Wales, Scotland, London, to county after county. Individual names have been brought forward in which hardship has been alleged as every hon. Member knows, and I hope they will allow me, in justice to the staff, to say that I hope that they will admit what I am going to say that every one of these cases has to be carefully investigated by men on the spot. We are often dealing with people who are illiterate, who cannot read long forms or fill them in, who have to be seen personally by responsible officials who are capable of pointing out to them what their position is under the various Acts which they administer. I am not asking for any praise for my right hon. Friend or myself, but I do think, in justice to the staff of the Ministry of National Service, that many hon. Members in this House will admit that of the thousands of cases which they bring to us the great majority are dealt with promptly, and that although they may not often agree with our decisions, they do get a reasoned answer showing that we have most carefully investigated the facts brought to our notice.
  I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wellington was talking of a day before the present Ministry of National Service was constituted, a day when I had the honour for a few short weeks to serve under Mr. Neville Chamberlain. No one denies that that experiment was not entirely successful, but I do not believe there is any hon. Member who to-day will come and investigate what we do, who will ask the traders of this country or the men called to the Colours, or any body of substantial men they like to choose, but who will admit that the machine which my right hon. Friend has created is working marvellously considering that it was started in the midst of a
  1358
  great War, and that we are trying to do at high pressure what countries like Germany have been doing for the last thirty years. We are really not afraid of any criticism, but we welcome it, because we realise to the full, and it rests upon our shoulders day and night, that it is our difficult duty to deal with the lives of men and women. On our carefulness, and on our sense of justice, depends the future of thousands of homes in this country, and I can only say that we may make mistakes; we must make mistakes; we do-not deny that we make mistakes, but I do say that my right hon. Friend has driven into every member of his staff that he can reach—of course he cannot reach every one of them—that their duty is to spare themselves not at all, but to do their utmost to see that every case which is brought before them is investigated and dealt with as promptly as possible, and that we must try and hold the balance fairly as this great crisis allows between our recruiting side and the great commercial life of this country, which is also entrusted in part to our charge. I will not try to deal with the question of the doctors raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities (Sir W. Cheyne), because I really have very litle knowledge on the subject, and I am sure that a conversation between the hon. Member and my right hon. Friend was an interchange of those Scotch jokes, which both I and the Reporters' Gallery fail to understand, will do more than anything I can say, but of course the suggestions that he makes will be most carefully considered. The position with regard to the agricultural quota, to which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Mount) and others-referred, is this. The gross figure of 30,000 Grade 1 men under thirty-one was fixed after consultation between the various Government Departments concerned. No one, of course, would think that the President of the Board of Agriculture was pleased to spare 30,000 men from the land at the present moment, but it was agreed that agriculture ought to be able to spare that number of young fighting men, so urgently wanted, because, as I have said before, these are the very type of young men that are so urgently wanted in the Army, and for the lack of which that pressure upon the older men, which this House so regrets, has become necessary. This quota was fixed by agreement between the Board of Agricul-

  1359
  ture, ourselves, the War Office, and the other Departments concerned, but the individual county quotas were arranged by the Board of Agriculture. The position taken up, and I think logically taken up, was this: "If we have to find 30,000, at any rate, do not you come butting in, to use a classic expression. Leave it to us and to our advisers who are responsible for the food production of the country to raise the quota in the way that seems best."
  Mr. ROCH: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us—it is a matter of great interest to agricultural people—on what basis the county quota was fixed? Was it fixed on acreage or population? We say that it was not fixed on any intelligent basis that we can understand. I may point out that we can only raise this matter on this Vote.
  Captain Sir B. STANIER: Is the percentage which was taken before also taken into account?
  Mr. BECK: As regards the second point, the percentage taken was four. Certainly the gross quota would be arrived at on the basis of the number of men still employed in agriculture and on the land. As regards the county quotas, I wish I could inform my hon. Friend, but, to tell the truth, I do not know how they were arrived at. It has not been the duty of the Ministry of National Service to know this. It may be that some of our officials know, but I do not personally know in the least how the quota was arrived at. I am perfectly certain that the Board of Agriculture would be able to inform my hon. Friend.
  Mr. ROCH: I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman, but the whole basis of our contention and criticism of the disastrous policy you are following is that this quota was not fixed on a proper basis. You have taken population, or acreage, or something which is an arbitrary rule, but which cannot work fairly. I really think that on this Vote, which is the only Vote on which we can raise the question, we are entitled to know. You are calling the men up.
  Mr. BECK: My hon. Friend knows that we may be actually calling the men up, but the men are being found by the war agricultural committees.
  Mr. ROCH: No. Will the hon. Gentleman contend for a moment that the war agricultural committees have consented to the release of these men? As a matter of fact, they have recommended most strongly that they should not be released.
  Mr. MOUNT: May I point out that what the war agricultural committees do is not to recommend for release, but to recommend those who shall not be released?
  Mr. BECK: I am a little surprised to hear that, because I thought it was the other way round. Certainly the people who are consulted, the people who actually lay their hands upon the men, are the war agricultural committees—
  Mr. ROCH: No!
  Mr. BECK: acting under the Food Production Department.
  Mr. ROCH: It is really not so.
  Mr. MOUNT: May I point out that what has happened is that the vouchers which were granted before the National Service Act have all been withdrawn?
  Mr. BECK: That is so.
  Mr. MOUNT: And the power of the war agricultural committees is to renew the vouchers of those men whom they think should be kept on the farms. The rest of them are called up under the National Service Act.
  Mr. BECK: I dare say that is so, but the result is that there is a column of names left on one side of those who go into the Army, and a column of names left on the other side of those who are to stay upon the land. All I am trying to show is that the Ministry of National Service does not decide into which of these columns a particular agricultural labourer goes.
  Sir B. STANIER: Yes; but the number of people who go into the column on the other side is settled by your Department.
  Mr. BECK: No. If it is Yorkshire or if it is a county in Wales, the number is settled by the Board of Agriculture.
  Mr. ROCH: They do not decide.
  Mr. BECK: Yes; they do. There is really no doubt about this point. There may have been local negotiations; but there is no doubt about the broad policy as regards England and Wales being that the quota of 30,000 was decided upon, and

  1361
  the Board of Agriculture allocated that quota among the counties of England and Wales according to what it considered the capacity of those counties to find the men. It is now admitted that some counties cannot at the moment find their quotas. Therefore it has been decided that no more calling-up notices shall be issued until the harvest is completed.
  Sir J. SPEAR: Does that apply to notices that were issued before yesterday? A good many notices are running, the persons being called on to present themselves next Saturday or next Monday. I should like to know whether the calling-up of these individuals will also be postponed until after harvest? That would mean a very important addition to the little concession that has been made to-day, and it is only just.
  Mr. BECK: I think it is a great concession. But still, as a matter of fact, I may tell my hon. Friend that this concession is confined exclusively to men not yet called up. Those who are called up must join up. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Sir B. Stanier) that this policy will undoubtedly work hardly in the case of certain counties which have made great exertions to find their quota. Now I come to the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Somervell), to whom I am sure we all listened with great interest, as he was dealing with a subject with which he was extremely familiar. I will only say that, as a matter of fact, a conference was held at the Ministry of National Service with employers and operatives in the boot trade, and an agreement satisfactory to all was reached. I imagine that the House does not wish me to say anything as to the medical boards. That matter has been so fully debated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service, by the Prime Minister, and others that it would be rather absurd for me to enter into it. That brings me finally to the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool (Colonel Ashley). Indeed, he raised three points, and very kindly gave me notice of his intention to do so. As regards the first point, the concession to men discharged time-expired, I understand that his contention is that all these men are not covered by the present Schedule of the Military Service Act, 1898. It will be remembered, of course, that that Schedule was one which was accepted by
  1362
  the Government and was a concession 10 the hon. Member for Lanarkshire and other hon. Members.
  Colonel ASHLEY: This concession in October last was long before the Act of 1918 was thought of.
  Mr. BECK: I understand that my hon. Friend's point is that the concession of October is whittled away in the Military Service Act of last spring.
  Colonel ASHLEY: No. My contention is that that concession is whittled away by the pronouncement made by the Minister of National Service, and I want to know on what ground it is done.
  Mr. BECK: On the ground of the legal position. May I just say this, as regards those men who were examined before the 5th April, 1917, there can be but a very small number of them. Whatever the legal position may be, the actual position must be that but a handful of men can be affected, and if any hon. Member will let me have any such cases as do arise I can assure them that by administrative action we will treat them with the greatest possible sympathy.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Thank you.
  Mr. BECK: As regards the second point, I had better say plainly that it has been definitely decided that discharged men shall have a full twelve months in which to find work of national importance, and I am disappointed to hear that there are some cases in which these men are being worried by being called up. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let me have them I will see that the matter is put right. We have endeavoured to adopt a policy of the utmost liberality in regard to discharged and disabled men, especially in regard to work of national importance. Not only do we interpret in the most liberal way what is or is not work of national importance, but we have recently decided that any man, whatever his occupation, who has been paid allowances during his service in the Army shall be allowed to return to his position with his former employer, and that position shall be looked upon as equivalent to work of national importance. The same thing has been applied to the one-man business man who is returning to the Army. I will take a careful note of the suggestions about using discharged men on work of national importance, but the concession which is made leaves a certain gap during which those men should not be worried.

  1363
  We who are concerned with National Service realise that our task is impossible without the co-operation of Members of this House. We are well aware that we must fall short of the standard that is necessary to work a really satisfactory Ministry of National Service. I do not think anybody is more aware of the shortcomings in that respect than my right hon. Friend, because I can assure hon. Members that, though they may be unsparing critics of the Department, my right hon. Friend's ideals are so high that the rest of us have the greatest difficulty in living up to them. I would appeal to every member of the Committee to realise that, however mistaken they may think us, we will do our utmost to investigate every case of hardship that is brought to us, and we are doing our very best to hold that most difficult balance made more difficult than ever by these grim days, between the demands of the fighting Services and those of the great trades of this country.
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir D. Maclean), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  "THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS."

    VISCOUNT GREY'S PAMPHLET.
    Mr. KING: The subject I have to bring before the House is one of great simplicity, and can be very quickly stated. Probably the Government was not aware until yesterday that the ex-Foreign Secretary, Viscount Grey, has written a pamphlet, called "The League of Nations." Whether they had heard of it or not, nobody seems to have read it, for when I asked why this pamphlet had not been submitted to the Censor, in accordance with the well-known Regula-
    1364
    tion 27c, or whether an inquiry had been made of the author and publisher, and what action it was proposed to take, I received this afternoon the extraordinary reply that "This pamphlet has not to do"—I am not responsible for the grammar—"with the present War or the making of peace." I cannot imagine how anybody who has read this pamphlet and who is in a state of mental capacity—sometimes I am rather doubtful whether that is possessed by every member of the Government, though I will admit that the representative of the Home Office, whom I am glad to see in his place, has as much qualification in that respect as any other Member—could say that this pamphlet has "not to do with this War or the making of peace." It is a most astounding assertion. The whole argument of this pamphlet is that this War is a unique War, more terrible, more devastating, than any other previous war, and that we must have a particular kind of peace or civilisation as a whole will go under. That, in brief, is the argument of the pamphlet. To tell us it has nothing to do with war or the making of peace makes one wonder whether there is any sense or any sincerity in, I will not say the Minister who makes the answer, but in the official who has been asked to draft the reply. The real fact is that it is not a question whether this pamphlet has to do with the War and the making of peace, but whether, according to the Regulation, the terms of which are very clear, it is intended or likely to be used for propaganda purposes in relation to the present War or the making of peace, and whether it is intended or likely to be used for propagandist purposes. We have had it on record that a text taken from the Bible—which certainly was not written or even inspired for the use of war—if it happened to be printed in a leaflet and circulated in the street, such a text, for instance, as "Blessed are the Peacemakers," would come under this Regulation. That has been announced to us. The Government to-day, in answer to Question 45, said that they would circulate widely this pamphlet in neutral and enemy countries. Therefore, a pamphlet which has nothing to do with the War or the making of peace, which is outside this Regulation, is to be circulated in neutral and enemy countries by this wonderful Government. Plainly, the Government are in a quandary, first, because they do not understand their own

    1365
    Regulations; secondly, because they have not got an official who can draft a sensible and logical answer; and, thirdly, because they dare not say anything against Viscount Grey, who, in my opinion, would make a very good Prime Minister, instead of the present Prime Minister. Surely this matter needs some explanation? I do not want to do anything but give a good advertisement to this pamphlet, which is an excellent one, but I do want to see some consistency, intelligence, and common sense in Government policy—qualities for which we
    1366
    look in vain. I invite my right hon. Friend to give me such reply as I may fairly expect he will give. I have already had the opportunity of conversing with him on this subject, and think be understands my point of view.
    Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present—
    The House was adjourned at Ten minutes after Eleven o'clock till Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the of the 13th February.

WAR.
  RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS (PENSIONS).
  RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS (PENSIONS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  CIVILIAN DOCTORS' RATIONS.
  CIVILIAN DOCTORS' RATIONS.
  WHORTLEBERRIES.
  WHORTLEBERRIES.
  CITY OF DUBLIN STEAMSHIP COMPANY (MAIL CONTRACT).
  CITY OF DUBLIN STEAMSHIP COMPANY (MAIL CONTRACT).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  WITHDRAWN FROM FIRING LINE.
  WITHDRAWN FROM FIRING LINE.
  TRANSFERS (ANNULMENT).
  TRANSFERS (ANNULMENT).
  AGRICULTURISTS.
  AGRICULTURISTS.
  MEDICAL GRADING.
  MEDICAL GRADING.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  INTERPRETER CORPS.
  INTERPRETER CORPS.
  HAY (SALES BY AUCTION).
  HAY (SALES BY AUCTION).
  BALLINCOLLIG BARRACKS.
  BALLINCOLLIG BARRACKS.
  ARMY OFFICERS DEMOBILISED.
  ARMY OFFICERS DEMOBILISED.
  WOUNDED OFFICERS (PAY).
  WOUNDED OFFICERS (PAY).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  MACHINE TYPES.
  MACHINE TYPES.
  CASUALTIES.
  CASUALTIES.
  AEROPLANES IN STORE.
  AEROPLANES IN STORE.
  TIMBER.
  TIMBER.
  BOMBAY (KALRA).
  BOMBAY (KALRA).
  MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICE, CLYDEBANK.
  MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICE, CLYDEBANK.
  COMMERCIAL INFORMATION (CIRCULATION).
  COMMERCIAL INFORMATION (CIRCULATION).
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  M. NABOKOFF (GRANTS).
  M. NABOKOFF (GRANTS).
  YANGTSE AREA (MINING CONCESSION).
  YANGTSE AREA (MINING CONCESSION).
  Regent's Canal.
  Regent's Canal.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (BEANS, PEAS, AND PULSE ORDERS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of this Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

IRELAND.
Debate on the policy of His Majesty's Government in Ireland resumed (according to Order).
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, in rising to resume this debate I venture to express the hope that any criticisms which are made in the South and West of Ireland, whether in the Press or elsewhere, will not be considered to have arisen from a caviling spirit. We Unionists in the South and West of Ireland have always realised the immensity of the difficulties which present themselves to an English Government in dealing with Ireland, difficulties which have increased a hundredfold since the war, while the facilities and opportunities for dealing with them have decreased in a similar ratio. Therefore, my Lords, any criticisms which may arise are made with one object and one object only—that is, the furtherance of the welfare of Ireland not only for the Irish but also from the Imperial point of view. We welcomed a remark made by the Chief
432
Secretary in another place to the effect that one of the first steps which are to be taken is to rescue the liberties of the great majority of moderate Irishmen from the licence and terrorism of the extremists. If His Majesty's Government succeed in enforcing this, they will have gone three-quarters of the way towards quietening Ireland; and I congratulate the C ief Secretary on having realised this vital fact so early in his Irish career.
I have often wondered why the opinions of that section of the Irish people whose loyalty has never been questioned—I mean the Unionists in the South and West of Ireland—should hardly ever have been consulted, but should almost invariably have been neglected. The opinions of the Nationalists have been considered, and very properly. Their knowledge of Ireland is second to none, and he would be a poor Irishman who would fail to recognise their ability and the depth and sincerity of the opinions of such men as Redmond and those who thought, and still think, with him. The opinions of the Ulstermen have always been consulted, in spite perhaps of the rather non possumus attitude on Irish politics and the rather unhelpful attitude which is, perhaps, included in their party motto, "We will not have Home Rule." But the opinions of the Southern Unionists are always ignored, in spite of their knowledge of Ireland, and more particularly their knowledge of those parts of Ireland which have always caused, and are now causing, such infinite anxiety to His Majesty's Government. It is, I think, an error of judgment on the part of His Majesty's Government not to have consulted them. Owing to their peculiar knowledge of the affected parts of Ireland, the Southern Unionists could have told His Majesty's Government when it was possible to bring in Conscription. The opportunity is gone; I doubt whether it will ever recur. The Southern Unionists could have told His Majesty's Government when it was that Irish Conscription had become at least more than difficult. It might have saved His Majesty's Government that rather mortifying confession of failure which was wrapped up, in my judgment at least, in the Proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant, and further endorsed by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, the other night, in your Lordships' House.
Now I understand that Conscription is not dead but sleepeth. If your Lordships

433
will allow me, since it is only dormant, I would like to say a few words upon what I believe to be an impracticable policy. The object of Conscription is obviously to obtain as many men as possible, directly or indirectly, for the Army in France. For reasons which I will presently give your Lordships, I believe that on the profit and loss account of this policy it will be a failure. The first of those reasons is that I believe it will take more willing English soldiers to enforce Conscription than you will get unwilling Irish soldiers by its enforcement. Every time I have been in Ireland lately I have made it my business to try and find out by personal observation and inquiry what the chances are of the success of Conscription. I have been in correspondence with men in various affected parts of Ireland of nearly all political complexions, and I regret to say that their conclusions agree entirely with those that I have formed from my own inquiries.
I will read a few lines of a letter from a man who is resident in one of the affected parts of Ireland and whose opinion is of value, all the more because he is a man who is himself serving and has had both his sons fighting in the war, one of whom has been killed, and who is also one of the most successful recruiters in the whole of the affected parts of Ireland. He says—
"I think that when they come actually to take the men in Ireland under Conscription hell will be let loose. You have no idea of the strength and tactics of the opposing forces. All factions—Sinn Feiners, Redmondites, and Roman Catholic clerics—are united to resist Conscription, and I believe it is too late to enforce it now. It will mean loss of life, and the men you will take by force, so far from being of any use, will only be enemies in your camp."
That is only one of many letters which I have received from the affected parts of Ireland. I have not received from those parts of Ireland one single letter holding a different opinion.
You have three great factors against the success of Conscription in Ireland. First of all you have the Nationalist Party. Then you have the Roman Catholic Church, and all your Lordships who come from Ireland will, I think, endorse my view when I say that not only is there no more deeply religious people than the Roman Catholic Irish but also no people who follow more directly and more absolutely the dicta of their clergy. And since the Roman Catholic clergy have decided that Conscription is in itself an evil thing, these people
434
will oppose it absolutely and by all the means in their power, and far more deeply and conscientiously than most of the conscientious objectors whom your Lordships encounter in England. We do not know yet how they will oppose it—whether it will be only passive resistance, or active resistance; but, even if it is only passive resistance, how many English soldiers will it take to obtain your conscripts?
We do not know the numbers yet which His Majesty's Government really hope to get from Ireland, either by voluntary methods or by the method of Conscription. We know by the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation that they hope to get by voluntary methods 50,000 men, and 3,000 a month afterwards, which makes between 80,000 and 90,000 together in a year. Speaking as an Irishman, knowing the present conditions of Ireland, and judging by the experience of the Recruiting Committee of the noble Viscount, Lord Wimborne, I do not think there is much chance of getting by voluntary methods anything like that number. How are you going to obtain the remainder if you obtain them by Conscription? You will have to do it by the aid of willing English soldiers. How many willing English soldiers will it take, and, having obtained them, how many willing English soldiers will it take—I do not know how to express it—to guard them, to keep them, because if they are objectors, they will not be willing Irish soldiers, and just at the time when willing English soldiers are so urgently needed in France.
There is a third factor, and that is the most serious factor of all, because it interferes not only with Conscription but with voluntary methods; and not only will it interfere with voluntary methods, but it is a danger to the allied cause—I mean Sinn Fein. During the last fifty years scarcely any supervision has been exercised over the teaching of history in Irish schools, and the only teaching, or almost the only teaching, that has been given has been of that period of English history which embraces the Cromwellian period in Ireland, when there were many episodes which, I think, even according to Lecky's account, Englishmen would be glad to see wiped out of their annals. The consequence of these lessons is that there exists in Ireland a sector of men who have been deeply influenced. That which is implanted in the infant breast often remains in that of the adult and forms the opinions of

435
lifetime. The consequence of these lessons is that there exists this sector of Irishmen who look upon England as a cruel oppressor and a brutal tyrant, and who regard her in the same light as a German is regarded by the people of Alsace and Lorraine. We must recognise things as they are, and not as we would wish them to be. We admire the impulse that often drives the Alsatian to forsake his home rather that to fight for the German; and it is the same impulse—although in the case of the Irishman wrong-headed, mistaken, absolutely foolish—which chives this section of Irishmen, or, rather, impels this section of Irishmen, to oppose Conscription by every means in their power, because they think, very wrongly, that they are being made to fight the battles of a country which they regard in the same light as the Alsatians regard Germany. I regret to criticise in the absence of other people, but owing, unfortunately, to the very weak policy of two recent Chief Secretaries—
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: This section of Irishmen has been allowed to get the upper hand, and to influence public opinion in Ireland—a public opinion which is always only too easily influenced. This section of Irishmen hates England. Those people look upon any country who opposes her as their ally, and they will support any country who opposes her. They do not realise or recognise that this is a war against oppression. They look upon it as England's war; and, deeply as I regret to say so of any section of my countrymen, they hope to see England beaten. Not only will this be an opposing and a dangerous factor to Conscription as long as this sector is allowed to hold the field, but it will also be a dangerous factor to voluntary methods; and owing to this section of Irish opinion, and as long as it is allowed to hold the field, England has on her flank a dangerous enemy, a vindictive enemy, an enemy at the present moment who is not extremely powerful, but who, by a sudden turn in the wheel of fortune, might become a very important factor in the present circumstances during this struggle. It is a danger not only to England and to the Allied cause, but a danger which England can never for a moment afford to forget.
The noble Earl, Lord Curzon, in his speech the other night—if your Lordships will
436
allow me to quote it—asked us to disregard this disloyal element, although it was a right thing to scotch their power for mischief, and he rather claimed that it was being done by the arrest of eighty or ninety of their leaders. Since the noble Earl's speech, and, more than that, since the arrest of these eighty or ninety leaders five weeks ago, we have read in the Press of the discovery and capture of 40,000 rounds of ammunition, which are said to be only a part of the amount of ammunition that has been brought into Dublin. It would appear that the places of these eighty or ninety incarcerated leaders have been taken by others possessing equal powers for mischief, and the steps which his Majesty's Government apparently consider sufficient to scotch this movement have not as yet been entirely successful. I hope that His Majesty's Government both in England and in Ireland realise to what extent, to what depth, and how generally, this disloyal element has permeated the Irish country.
I should have liked to have said a word upon land, but other noble Lords who are better acquainted with that subject are going to speak upon it. As regards Home Rule I have practically nothing to say. It appears to be dormant; and I think in the present circumstances that many sections of Irishmen who at other times would take a different view have considered it a wiser thing to let sleeping dogs lie. I do not believe that the labour of the Convention has been useless, although for practical purposes it has been, perhaps, less strong. The difficulty of its being of any great practical use is that I do not think the delegates represented any great section of the Irish people. The constitutents of the Nationalists appear in great part to have become Sinn Feiners; therefore they do not represent the opinion of at least one-half of Ireland. The Southern Unionists appear in part to have disagreed with the opinions and the proceedings of their delegates. I speak as regards Ulster entirely under the correction of noble Lords from that province, but from all I can hear it appears to me that the attitude taken by Ulster towards her delegates was rather that of the mother who, during a hot afternoon, said to her children's nurse, "Go and see what the children are doing, and, whatever it is, tell them they must not do it."

437
But the conclusions at which I arrive on all this are conclusions which I deeply regret. I consider that it is better to face things as they are rather than to try and imagine that they exist on the basis on which one would wish them to be; and I believe that, as long as Sinn Fein is allowed to hold the field and to hold the power that it undoubtedly holds at present, in the stock-taking of our man-power England may write Ireland off the slate. You may get some thousands of men by voluntary methods; but if Conscription is threatened—as it is threatened—I think that you will lose even them. I am of opinion that the future policy of His Majesty's Government should be no longer to hope for any great military assistance from Ireland towards our winning the war, but rather to take such steps as are necessary to prevent this disloyal element to which I have referred being an active factor towards our losing it.
I believe that the present attitude of Irishmen will be deeply deplored by the generations to come. But the sentiments of the future are not our affair; the present is our affair; therefore I earnestly urge His Majesty's Government to realise not only the gravity of the situation in Ireland, but how serious it is to Ireland and, perhaps, to the Allied cause as a whole. I urge also, as far as Ireland is concerned, that His Majesty's Government may realise that we who live in Ireland hope that the kinema film which the noble Earl described in his speech the other day as continually unrolling itself before our eyes, may not for the second time end in a tragedy tinged with red. Lastly I urge upon His Majesty's Government that in future their policy in Ireland, whatever it may be, should be a continuous policy; that it should be well and carefully considered before they declare it; and that, having once declared it, they will adhere to it as closely as it is possible for men to adhere.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I will not address myself, in the few words which I have to say to your Lordships, to the question of Conscription, which has been dealt with by my noble friend who has just sat down, but I should like to express my complete concurrence not only with the conclusion he has stated but with the argument which he has developed with so much lucidity and force in favour of this conclusion. I do not think that I could add anything useful to what he has said,
438
and on the subject of Home Rule I have only a very few words to say, for I wish chiefly to call attention to another point which arises out of Home Rule but is not directly connected with the arguments laid before you by my noble friend. Is it not extraordinary how often during the last seventy or eighty years, to go no further back than the recollections of this generation, British Governments seem by some malign fate to take the wrong turning in Ireland. It is not often, though it sometimes happens, that we do see afterwards that we have taken the wrong turning in English or Imperial Policy; but if you look at Irish policy you will find that during the last seventy or eighty years we have taken the wrong turning three times out of four, and it has been seen within a few weeks, or a few months, or perhaps a few years, what fatal mistakes we have made.
This consideration is what suggested to some of us thirty-two years ago that the time had come for trying to make an entirely new departure as regards the government of Ireland. I will not pursue this subject, or enter into criticisms of the zigzag action which His Majesty's Government has taken within the last few months. Above everything, you want to have in Ireland, as was said by my noble friend with perfect truth, a consistent policy. But I would like to say one word about the Convention. The Government did take the right turning a year ago when they set up the Irish Convention, and their action then was approved by most of the highest authorities upon the subject of Irish policy. If they had followed that up I believe we should have a very different state of things to-day. When the Convention came to an end, with a very considerable measure of assent—larger than at one time was expected—which had been attained by the union of all the more moderate and wiser Nationalists with so very large a body of Irish Southern Unionists who sacrificed some of their former convictions and views for the sake of endeavouring to obtain unity—after that had been achieved, was it not very unfortunate that the Government did not seize the opportunity and did not try to launch their ship upon the rising tide and float her into the open sea before there was time for a receding tide to discover and unveil those shoals in which she appears to be now entangled? That I cannot help thinking was very unfortunate.

439
Now, as things have turned out, when these two policies have been successively both launched and both abandoned you have the Southern Unionists, as my noble friend has told you, disheartened and perplexed; you have the constitutional element among the Nationalists, which had been working for a settlement by constitutional methods, discredited and injured and its prestige lowered in the eyes of the masses of the Irish people. The result has been to strengthen the reckless and pernicious elements which go by the common name of Sinn Fein. To me this is one of the most lamentable aspects of the present situation. The constitutional party has lost and the extremist party of Sinn Fein has gained. I ought to add that I think there is good reason to believe that if the Government had taken its courage in both hands and launched a Bill upon the general lines recommended by the Convention immediately after the Convention had reported, they would have met with general approval and would have found means of satisfying all the reasonable demands of Ulster. Of course, we shall be told that Ulster was obstinate, but I believe it is possible to put forward plans which Ulster could not have rejected, which would have met all her claims, and brought about the passage of the Bill with comparatively little difficulty. That opportunity has gone by. I will not say more about Home Rule, except this—that the statement made by the Chief Secretary in another place has at any rate given ground for hope that the Government have only postponed the subject and feel that there is an obligation resting upon them to deal with the matter, created by previous promises and above all created by the presence on the Statute Book of the Act of 1914. That Act may be imperfect. It is imperfect. Circumstances have arisen which make it inapplicable as it stands. But at any rate there it is, and it cannot be simply repealed. Something must be done. Ireland cannot be allowed to drift.
The question of when Home Rule is to be dealt with brings me to the principal topic to which I want to address a few remarks to your Lordships. A new idea, a new scheme, has lately been started which would tend to defer the settlement of the Irish question for a considerable period, and it is of that I wish to speak. It is now suggested that the settlement of the Irish question ought to be a part of
440
what is called Home Rule All Round—a part of the federalisation of the United Kingdom—the splitting up of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom Parliament into four or five different Assemblies, each with special functions. It is suggested that the fairest way of dealing with the Irish question is to treat Ireland as one member of the Federation and to mete out to her the same treatment as to England, Scotland, and Wales. I wonder how much consideration those who in this light and airy way talk about federalising the United Kingdom, and think nothing is simpler than Home Rule All Round, have given to the matter and how far they have examined all its legal, practical, and political aspects in order to see what is involved.
Let me say that I am not going to discuss the merits of Home Rule All Round. It is an enormous question, and I will not venture to enter upon it. I wish to say nothing at all either for or against the principle of turning the United Kingdom from a United Kingdom into a Federation of four, and I frankly admit that a prima facie case in favour of some change in that direction may be made on the basis of the failure of our legislative machinery. There can be no doubt that Parliament is hopelessly overloaded. No doubt during the last fifteen, twenty, or thirty years—I think ever since Parnell began the policy of obstruction in Parliament—the wheels of Parliament have driven very slowly and heavily, and the difficulty of getting on with business is shown by those baleful expedients to which it has been driven—namely, the closure, the guillotine, and the kangaroo. I will not stop to consider whether it is necessary to pull down the whole house because you want to alter the arrangements of one room. I would call your Lordships' attention to this, that no case has been made for this tremendous change except the failure of our legislative machinery. That case was put the other day in a letter to the Press by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, and I do not think anything could be said more effectively than was said by him, to show that it is the failure of the legislative machinery and not discontent with the existing system as a whole which has been the cause of this idea of Home Rule All Round.
Now what is involved in the proposal to federalise the United Kingdom? To begin with, it is to undo the work of ten centuries.

441
It is just about ten centuries since a United Kingdom of England began to arise in the days of Alfred, and Athelstan. From that time we have continually gone on drawing in, and incorporating with the English nucleus, the outlying parts of what is now the United Kingdom—Ireland, Wales, Scotland—and in that way our present United Kingdom has been built up by a natural process, by a historical process which lies in the nature of things, and which was calculated to bring about, and which has brought about, a strength and a power for England which, as England alone, without those other countries, she would probably not have achieved. That is what we are asked now to undo. It may be right or it may be wrong, but it is "a very large order." It is a tremendous task to undertake to cut away the very foundations of the system built up in ten centuries and erect something new in its place.
What then, in particular, is it that we shall have to do? We shall have to create five new Parliaments—air Imperial Parliament, restricted to foreign affairs and the conduct of such matters as the Army and Navy and other things which are clearly common to the whole United Kingdom; and, in addition to that, we are to set up four subordinate Parliaments, one for each of the four divisions of the United Kingdom, wide one of these very much larger, very much more important, than the other three put together. We have got to set up new Ministries—five Ministries, I presume—an Imperial Ministry for the whole affairs of the United Kingdom, and four Ministries for the four divisions of the United Kingdom. I am only following the outlines of those who advocate this scheme. I do not suggest this; I take what I believe is their programme; and I suppose they contemplate that a system of having an Executive responsible to Parliament will be adopted in each of these cases, so that in each of these five Legislatures you will have five Executives holding power at the will of the majority of the Parliament. The party game will be played in those five Legislatures as it is played in our Parliament now, and the Executive will be turned out, or will come in, according to the passing majorities that may be obtained in those Parliaments. We shall have a great deal of politics to the square mile when we come to that.
442
It is possible, of course, to imagine some other plan. There are other plans which have been adopted in other countries for regulating tire relations of the Legislature and the Executive in a different way. If there were time, and if this were the occasion, I could state some of those plans to your Lordships, but they are new plans, they are plans we have never tried, and I think we must assume, as the matter stands at present, that the scheme of having Ministries responsible to Parliament is the one which would probably be adopted, as it has been adopted in all the Legislatures of the self-governing Dominions. Then another question arises. In these five new Parliaments, are we going to have two Chambers or only one; and, if so, how is each of them to be composed? How are you going to readjust the Civil Service? Parts of our Civil Service do work which is common to England, Scotland, and Wales, and to some extent Ireland also. Are you going to change the Civil Service arrangements and enter upon all the adjustments which a change of that kind would involve?
Then, further, you will have to delimit, and that very exactly by specific and precise legal enactment, the powers and the functions of those several Legislatures. Each of the five Legislatures will have its own special functions, and these will have to be carefully legally distinguished from one another. Under this system you cannot make what we will call the Highest or Imperial Legislature and give it sovereign powers to over-rule the other Legislatures, because if you did so you would very largely destroy the value of those Legislatures. If you gave what we will call the Highest Parliament—the one which will deal with foreign affairs, the Army and the Navy, and the Imperial Budget—power to over-rule the English Parliament or the Scottish Parliament, then clearly a decision of the English Parliament or of the Scottish Parliament would not be final, and everything would have to be fought out again in the Highest Parliament with a waste of time and trouble comparable to that which exists now. Therefore, you will have to specify the legal rights and powers of each of these Parliaments, and in order to do that (since no Parliament will be capable of interpreting its own powers) you will have to call in the Courts, and the Courts will be occupied—as they have been occupied in Australia lately, and as they were

443
occupied and have been occupied in the United States ever since the foundations of their Constitution—in determining the respective spheres of action of the Imperial Parliament and of the four Parliaments that lie beneath it; and our legislation, instead of having that freedom and elasticity which it now enjoys, will be subject to those rigid decisions which we shall have to accept from our Courts.
I am again proceeding—may I remind the House?—upon the hypothesis that what is desired is a Federation similar to the Federations which already exist. I am arguing on the basis, which is the basis adopted by the advocates of this plan, that we desire to have something like the Federation of the United States or the Commonwealth of Australia. You may, of course, devise some other plan. If you do that you will have to give it a great deal of thinking. It would be a new plan just as the conditions would be new, and what I want to suggest is that the gravity of the matter has not been apprehended. It has not been felt by those who are proposing this what an enormous task they are asking us to undertake. Another point was raised by the Prime Minister yesterday. In receiving a deputation upon this subject he asked very pertinently, "What are the wishes of England in the matter? Has England shown any desire to part with her present Parliament and have a Parliament of her own instead, plus the Imperial Parliament?" The same question may be asked as regards Scotland and Wales. Although I know there has been a certain amount of talk upon the subject in Scotland and Wales, I doubt if any evidence has been produced going to show that the people of Scotland or Wales as a whole desire a change in the arrangements under which they have lived happily so far in concord with England.
I pass that by, however. But I must ask, Will this system to make Ireland a member of a Federation—all of whose members are to enjoy the same powers and the same rights and be governed in the same way, subject to the same limitations—meet the wishes of the Irish? We know, those of us who have followed the debates of the Convention, that it will not. We know perfectly well that what the majority of the Convention asked for was something which would not by any means fit in with what would suit by England, Scotland, and Wales. England, Scotland and Wales
444
would not desire to have for their Parliaments, if they are created, by any means such large powers as the majority of the Convention appear to desire for Ireland; therefore, prima facie, that which will suit England, Scotland, and Wales will not suit Ireland, and that which will suit Ireland will be too much for England, Scotland, and Wales. I fear, therefore we are only embarking on a fresh set of difficulties if we think that by Federalism and giving exactly the same rights and powers to each of the component parts of the United Kingdom, we are meeting the Irish claims. Further, I fail to see how it will make the position any easier for Ulster if Ireland, according to this scheme, will become what may be called a State in the British Federation just in the same way as Pennsylvania or Illinois is a State in the American Federation; for in any such State, governed by its own Legislature and Ministers, the majority will prevail. Will the people of Ulster, or of North-East Ulster, be any better off, as such, in a British Federation, governed by a majority of their State legislators, than they would be under the system proposed in any one of the three Home Rule Bills? How will Federation help the Ulster Protestants? Of course, you can make special provisions for them, providing that, in the case of Ireland, Ulster is to have certain rights, certain special rights and privileges, and certain safeguards conceded to her, which will not, be necessary in England or Scotland. In that case, why not do it at once in a Bill for Ireland only? I thought uniformity was your object. If uniformity is not your object, why not at once frankly admit that these four cases are too different to admit of uniformity, and give Ulster what she wants in whatever Home Rule Bill you may pass?
These are very large problems. They are the largest that this country has ever undertaken to solve. At no period of our history have we ever entered upon any process like that which we are now asked to undertake. It will not only tax the very highest powers of constructive state-manship in this country, and the powers of statesmen comparable to those who framed the American Constitution, to devise such a system, and break up the United Kingdom into these four parts, but it must necessarily take a considerable period of time. I cannot imagine such a work being done offhand and in a casual way in the manner in which the work of the Speaker's Conference was done; I am

445
afraid before many months, or years, we shall regret the haste with which the Speaker's Conference acted. Can any one propose that we should attempt to deal with a problem like this in that way?
When are you going to give time to this task? You clearly cannot do it in the present Parliament. No one would suggest that the present Parliament should undertake a work of this magnitude. Can you do it in the next Parliament? The next Parliament will have many new and heavy dunes and obligations devolving upon it, and I greatly doubt whether it will be possible in the first, or second, or even the third, session of the next Parliament to find time for so great an undertaking as this. Are you going to ask Ireland to wait until Parliament has time to take up, work out, and pass into law a new Federal scheme. Are we content to go into the Congress to be held at the end of the war and have all these questions raised of discontented nationalities, and be obliged to confess that we have a nationality which is still discontented, and which says it has a right to be discontented because the promises that have been made have not been fulfilled? Would it not be a great deal better to set our house in order at home before coming to a Peace Conference where all these questions will emerge.
I must add that it is not only our enemy that inevitably thinks of the difficulties we have in Ireland. It is some of our best friends, our very best friends in our own Dominions and elsewhere, who think it is rather a reproach to British states-menship that it is not able to settle and get rid of the Irish question in some reasonable way before we come to that Peace Congress in which all these questions about nationalities will be raised. I was glad to see that the Prime Minister, with proper caution, did not commit himself in his answer to the deputation yesterday, and I hope your Lordships will not lightly, if I may presume to say so, commit yourselves to a declared adherence to this scheme until you have reflected upon what it means and the length of time it must needs occupy.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, when the Military Service Bill was before your Lordships I dill not hesitate to express my regret that Ireland was included in its provisions. I am as anxious as any one that Ireland should take her share of the suffering and sacrifice
446
cheerfully borne by this country in the war, but it did seem to me to be the most inauspicious moment which could have been selected to include her in the provisions of the National Service Act. I wish I had been strengthened on that occasion by the speech delivered by the noble Earl the Leader of the House last week, because in that speech he seemed to me to put forward every reason which could be urged in favour of trying every voluntary means to secure recruits before resorting to compulsion. In fact, in doing so he went even further than I should have thought myself justified in doing two months ago in view of the supreme necessity we were told then existed to obtain men for the Front.
Though the noble Earl's speech was entirely satisfactory from that point of view, I doubt whether it was equally successful as an apologia for the action of the Government in abandoning a policy they had undertaken after mature consideration, and after full warning from men of every shade of politics as to the danger and difficulties that attended it. The noble Earl told us that 50,000 men obtained voluntarily—think of it ! as Ireland's contribution, and not available for the Front until next year—would be more valuable than a far larger number obtained under compulsion. I wonder the Government, if that was all they required, did not accept the offer which Mr. Devlin made at the time the Military Service Bill was before the House of Commons, to lead a recruiting campaign and even enlist in the ranks of the British Army himself. The noble Earl also told us that the Derby scheme had been a great success in this country, but he did not remind the House that it had been tried before Conscription was on the Statute Book, and on the willing people of this country, instead of which it was now to be tried on people who are equally opposed to Conscription which is already on the Statute Book. There are one or two other points to which I should like to refer in the noble Earl's speech, but before doing so I wish to address myself to the main proposition before the House.
There have always been two schools of thought with regard to what ought to be the proper government of Ireland. These are, first, those who hold that she is an integral portion of the United Kingdom; that law and order should be enforced there as it is here, and that she should have the full benefit of British credit and gold

447
in order to create and develop her industries and agriculture. There are others who hold that she is a totally different people in religion and tradition, in custom and culture; that it is impossible for this country to govern her, and that the only chance of reconciliation between the two peoples is to allow her to govern herself. Neither of these schools of thought have ever been able to prove whether their theory is right or wrong, because the first school of thought—which may be said to be associated with the dictum of the late Lord Salisbury regarding twenty years of resolute government and the killing of Home Rule by kindness—has never had more than five years in which to carry their principles into effect. At the end of that time Party exigencies have made it desirable to obtain the Irish vote, and good government has gone by the board. The other school of thought, I suppose, may be identified with the word to which a great deal of lip service is paid at the present time—namely, self-determination, a word which appears to me to be little understood, but affords as much comfort to those who use it as did the word "Mesopotamia" to the old lady in the sermon. That cannot be carried to its logical conclusion, because if it were it would satisfy, as far as I can make out, the aspirations even of Sinn Feiners, and would enable Ireland, if she wished, at the end of the war to declare her separate nationality or even to say that she wished to become a component part of the German Empire; and I do not think that there is any advocate of self-determination, however advanced, who will be prepared to go that length.
Last year His Majesty's Government, consisting of members of both the great political Parties, determined to adopt the views of the latter school to a modified extent. They determined to summon a Convention of Irishmen to frame a form a Government within the Empire, and they asked the Unionists in Ireland who are strongly opposed to this to waive all the objections of a lifetime for high political reasons so as to assist the Government in carrying out that policy. The Government, in fact, wished to create a moderate party in Ireland, and that is not a very easy thing to do. It is said that a woman of moderate virtue is not a very satisfactory production, and I think that the same may be said with regard to a moderate Irishman. We are people of very strong views, both political and religious. We have
448
not that genius for compromise which is so peculiar a gift of the Anglo-Saxon race, and if an example were wanted of that it would be found in the case of the late Mr. Redmond who, directly he became moderate, was deserted by many of those who had been his supporters. In order to make the creation of a moderate party in Ireland more easy the Government, having secured the presence in the Convention of Irish Unionists by a promise that no Sinn Feiner would be released, immediately proceeded to set free every extremist who had been under lock and key—men who were responsible for having reduced a great part of Dublin to ashes, and for having sprinkled its streets with the blood of British soldiers and of innocent civilians.
The Convention took place. I am not going to criticise the action of the Ulster Unionist delegates, but so far as the Southern Unionists were concerned we did the very utmost we could to carry out the wishes of the Government; in fact, we did so to such an extent that we went somewhat beyond what seemed to our own friends in the country desirable. The noble Earl the Leader of the House said the other day that he believed my noble friend Lord Midleton had been thrown over by the Southern Unionists. I do not think that he was quite accurate in that statement, but it must not be forgotten that the Government made our position in the Convention extremely difficult by the release of the Sinn Fein prisoners. This, which was supposed to create an atmosphere of conciliation, really created an atmosphere of anarchy in Ireland, and led many of our supporters in that country to think that even if we could come to an agreement in the Convention it would mean the handing over of the government of Ireland to these extremists. It would be very ungenerous on my part if I did not acknowledge the help which we received from the moderate Nationalists in the Convention—men who showed their independence, and who gave up many ideals that were very dear to them in order to meet our views—and the result of this was that the Convention presented a Report which set forth a scheme of government for Ireland which I believe safeguarded the interests of Unionists and at the same time maintained the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament.
One of the recommendations of the Convention was the approval of a special

449
sub-Committee of Defence which set forth that in the event of a Home Rule Government being established it would be impossible to enforce Conscription in Ireland without the consent and co-operation of the Irish Government. Hardly was the ink on that writing dry before His Majesty's Government threw a bombshell among us which scattered to the extreme limits those who had tried to get together for the purpose of effecting a settlement. The Government announced their intention at once of bringing forward and passing into law a Home Rule Bill based on the recommendations of the Convention. At the same time, as a last exercise of Imperial power, they announced their intention of enforcing Conscription in Ireland. This was based on the ground of supreme military necessity. What did Mr. Bonar Law say in the House of Commons—
"We are proposing, and we intend to carry out, this legislation for one reason only, because in no other way that we can see can we get the men who are vital if this nation is to do everything it can to face the most deadly peril that has ever confronted it."
In view of that declaration there was but one course for Unionists to follow. We knew perfectly well that this killed all hope of an Irish settlement for the present. But if England requires men, Irish Unionists could give but one answer. They must be found. But on the other side we found the moderate Nationalists thrown into the arms of their more extreme colleagues. These men joined forces with the Sinn Feiners, and the whole received the blessing and the approval of the Roman Catholic Church. This then was the position at the end of April.
The Government announced their intention of trying to raise to manhood the Siamese twins of Home Rule and Conscription knowing full well that they had against them, as far as the latter policy was concerned, Nationalists of every shade of political opinion in Ireland, backed, controlled, and financed by the Roman Catholic Church. Only last week—seven weeks afterwards—the noble Earl the Leader of the House comes down and tells us that the Government had decided to kill both their bantlings, and he gave us two reasons why this policy was decided upon. The first one is that a German plot had been discovered in, which the Sinn Feiners were implicated. I should like to hear a little more about this plot. The noble Earl told us that it burst with
450
suddenness upon the Cabinet at the beginning of May. I had the pleasure of listening to the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons the day before yesterday, and he traced its progress all through the month of April. Again, we have my noble friend the late Viceroy, who assures us that not only he but none of the Irish Executive at that time—up to May 6, I think, the date of his resignation—had any knowledge of the plot. I think that we should like to be acquainted with a few more particulars regarding it. Of course, we know perfectly that Sinn Fein has always been implicated with Germany. That came out quite clearly in the evidence which was given before Lord Hardinge's Commission. It was there stated that the Sinn Fein executive, after hearing that Sir Roger Casement had been taken prisoner and that the ship from Germany containing the munitions and the guns which they expected had been sunk, sent orders to stop the Rebellion.
The noble Earl made a great point of the difference between what I suppose he would call sedition and treason. In a very eloquent passage of his speech in this House he said—
"Agitation in Ireland is one thing; crime in Ireland is one thing; lawlessness in Ireland is one thing; the attempt to set up an independent Republic in Ireland is one thing—but treason is absolutely another."
I fail to see the subtle difference.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: It seems to me that an attempt to overthrow the government of the King and to set up an independent Republic in Ireland is a most reprehensible proceeding, and one which deserves condign punishment. I cannot help thinking that the Government have made a mistake from a practical point of view in introducing this question of a German plot. We all know that the same men who were implicated in connection with Germany two years ago have been pursuing the same course in Ireland. We all know that they have been making seditious speeches and threatening to raise an army. Surely it would have been quite possible to have arrested them under the Defence of the Realm Act and to have interned them on those grounds. Everybody in Ireland was delighted that they were arrested, with the exception of the men who were themselves arrested and a

451
few who believed that they might share the same fate. But the fact that they were being accused of being implicated in a German plot, and that so far the Government have not been able to produce any evidence which implicates any individual Sinn Feiner with that plot has made ill-disposed people in Ireland say that these persons are being charged with a crime and are not being given an opportunity to defend themselves. The Government have done an absolutely right thing in arresting these men, and I heartily congratulate them upon it, but I think from a tactical point of view they made a mistake in saying anything about a German plot when they were not able to bring forward fully the evidence to convince everybody that these special men were implicated in it.
With regard to the second matter, the noble Earl said that that had been dropped owing to the action of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. I was shocked to hear that admission from a member of the British Government. The Government knew perfectly well that the Roman Catholic Church were opposed to Conscription. The Report of the more extreme Nationalist members of the Convention, which comprised the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, and the very eminent Prelate the Bishop of Raphoe, who is the leader of the Party, besides the Bishop of Down, made the following statement—
"As regards the question of Conscription, we are ready to take it for granted that no attempt would be made to apply it to Ireland without the consent of the Irish Parliament. Any attempt to impose Conscription upon a nation without its sanction is utterly impolitic and unjust, and is bound to end in disaster."
But that is not all, because Mr. Devlin, when the matter was before the House of Commons, also alluded to the subject. He said—
"You paid no attention to the solemn declaration made the other day by the Bishops of Ireland, in which they declared that it would be a fatal mistake, surpassing the worst blunders of the past four years, to furnish a telling plea for desperate courses by attempting to enforce Conscription, and which concluded:
"With all the responsibility which attaches to our pastoral office we feel bound to warn the Government against entering upon a policy so disastrous to the public interests and to all order, public and private.'"
The Government knew perfectly well that they were going to cross swords with the Roman Catholic Church; they have done so, and they come and confess to us that they have been utterly defeated. I look upon this as a disastrous confession for a
452
British Government to make, and one which will be remembered in Ireland long after the present Government has passed away.
If I am not wearying your Lordships, before I sit down I should like to say one word with regard to the Proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant offering land to soldiers who enlist. I am very glad to see that this is not to be confined to those men who have now come in at the eleventh hour—that it is not only to be a bribe to them, but also a reward to those gallant Irishmen who have fought so well for us in Flanders and Gallipoli, and have done so much to redeem the name of Ireland from the discredit into which it has of late fallen. The noble Earl the Leader of the House dealt with this question, and attempted to whittle down the number of soldiers who will probably acquire land, but I think I may appeal to any noble Lord who comes from Ireland and he will affirm that I am right when I say that any Irishman, from priest to ploughboy, from retail trader to mechanic, who is offered land in Ireland will not hesitate to accept it.
I have taken some trouble to obtain the numbers of soldiers who are likely to come within the purview of this offer. In the first place, there are the 50,000 men whom Lord French hopes to get before October 1, and from inquiries I have made I gather that there are not less than 300,000 Irish soldiers in the British Army; this makes 350,000 men altogether. The Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners have determined that the smallest holding which is an economic one is 20 acres. Therefore for the supply of those men not less than 7,000,000 acres will be required. I am afraid I must trouble the House with a few more figures; otherwise I cannot make my point clear. The total acreage of Ireland is 20,253,000 acres. From that you must deduct 2,900,000 for woods and plantations, turf bog, marsh, barren mountain, and roads and fences. That leaves roughly 17,000,000 acres. Out of that the Estates Commissioners have already sold over 10,000,000 acres and have made agreements for the sale of a further 3,500,000 acres. That disposes of 13,500,000 acres. Deducting this from the 17,000,000 which remain after the barren land has been taken off, you have 3,500,000 acres. But we must not forget that there are still 50,000 tenants

453
in Ireland who have not bought their holdings, and even if you were to turn every landowner out of whatever land remains to them, if you were to raze every town to the ground in Ireland you would still be very short of the amount necessary to supply even ten acres apiece to the soldiers. We are all anxious that our soldiers should be rewarded, but I think that before a Proclamation of this kind is issued care ought to be taken to see that expectations are not raised which it is impossible to gratify.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, Hear.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: What, then, do His Majesty's Government intend to do? How much longer do they intend to continue this policy of vacillation? First of all, Home Rule is put forward; then it is dropped. Then Conscription comes to the fore; then it is put into the background. It is impossible to govern any country in this way. I foresee grave difficulties in the future in regard to the government of Ireland. But I congratulate the Government at any rate on having made up their mind to repress crime and to enforce law and order. I am very sorry that the voluntary effort was not tried before Conscription was put on the Statute Book; but now that it is being tried it is the duty of every Irishman to do what he can to assist it. As to Home Rule, I do not suppose that even Mr. Dillon would accept it at the present moment if it were offered to him. I shall not go back personally to the position which I took up at the Convention, and I hope that the time may come—it may be sooner or it may be later—when moderate men in Ireland will be able to meet together and may at last be able to solve the eternal Irish question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Marquess who initiated this debate last week has, I think, no reason to complain of the interesting discussion to which his Motion has given rise. May I parenthetically say that he has asked me on his behalf to apologise to your Lordships for his not being present in the House this afternoon, but he had a long-standing engagement to support in a public function the new Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and he did not think it was becoming in him to fall short of fulfilling that engagement in all the circumstances of the case. He made a very interesting speech which, if
454
he had been here, I should have liked to congratulate him upon. We have heard in the discussion which has followed more than one member of the Convention which recently sat in Ireland breaking the long silence and explaining to your Lordships and to the country the view which they take of the situation as it has been modified by the extraordinary policy of His Majesty's Government. They have told your Lordships that as far as they are concerned—I know that my noble friend Lord Midleton said so, and I think Lord Oranmore said so just now—no policy of Home Rule for Ireland is possible at this moment.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Besides that, we have heard other interesting speeches, notably a speech from my noble friend Lord Bryce this afternoon dealing with a subject of wide importance on which he is a great authority. But perhaps the most interesting speech was delivered by the Leader of the House. I an sorry that Lord Curzon is not in his place, but I am well aware of the reason. I shall allow myself at any rate to congratulate him upon the energy which he has displayed, not only in the speech to which we listened last Thursday, but on several recent occasions. It is nothing short of amazing that my noble friend is enabled by his great capacity to deliver speech after speech of the most eloquent kind on every conceivable topic, almost on succeeding nights, without showing the least sign of fatigue or of loss of that grasp of the subject and grip of your Lordships' House which he always displays. I think also that in many respects my noble friend Lord Curzon took a sounder view of the situation than his colleague the Prime Minister took in the other House; because the noble Earl, according to his own phrase, "adjusted his policy according to the facts." He realised what the facts are, and consequently he left upon your Lordships the impression which I will say is almost universally held—namely, that the policy of His Majesty's Government, the dual policy, had been postponed sine die. That was not the view expressed by the Prime Minister. Mr. Lloyd George seemed to think that it was postponed for only a very short time. But I will say that almost any impartial observer will believe that Lord Curzon was right and that the Prime Minister was wrong.

455
The recent policy of His Majesty's Government in Ireland is, indeed, a lamentable spectacle. How comes it that a Government composed of men who are individually strong men should be the parents of such a very feeble policy? How can it be that Lord Curzon, who governed India for many years with a strong hand, and Lord Milner, who was one of the greatest Pro-Consuls in South Africa that the British Empire has ever seen, and other noble Lords and right hon. gentlemen who compose the present Government, with all their talents, with all their experience, and with all their strength, have only been able to produce the extraordinary muddle of which your Lordships have been the witnesses.
I am bound to draw the conclusion that these noble Lords and right hon. gentlemen are governed by a stronger will than their own—that is, the one mind and the one mind alone which I expect is responsible for this vacillation of my noble friends here and my right hon. friends in the other House. Having made up their minds (for which I do not criticise then) that the maintenance of this Government in power is absolutely essential, they are not willing to risk its life by differing, in the only way in which a Minister can effectually differ, from the Prime Minister in respect of his Irish policy. Well, it has been a lamentable failure. Disorder has grown as we have watched Ireland, and disorder has been followed by disloyalty. I do not think that all your Lordships were in the House when, in a very thoughtful speech, my noble friend Lord Arran opened the discussion this afternoon. The picture which he drew of Ireland, which he knows personally, would have given your Lordships a very depressing idea of the state of things and the condition to which Ireland has been reduced. The responsibility rests upon His Majesty's Government.
When Mr. Birrell was in power no one had seen such a Chief Secretary before. Mr. Birrell retired under strong public pressure; and then you would have thought that the lesson had been learnt. Not at all. Another Mr. Birrell was appointed in his place; and the Government, with the experience which they had had through all these years, allowed Mr. Duke, I may say, to improve upon Mr. Birrell. What has been the result? They have not settled the Irish question. They
456
have obtained hardly a single recruit lately in Ireland. In fact, so far from getting recruits, they are obliged to keep, as we were told last Thursday, 80,000 British troops in Ireland, of which the Western Front is deprived, because of the disorder and the disloyalty existing in Ireland. So that we have not only obtained no recruits but we have lost 80,000 British soldiers in addition.
Now, as I have said, though I must perforce hold the Government responsible for this, I do not hold my noble friend Lord Curzon and his Unionist colleagues responsible in the first degree. But there was a passage in my noble friend's speech which I am bound to say I profoundly regretted. Lord Curzon said that it was the common experience of all British Governments to mismanage Ireland; and it was only in answer to an involuntary dissent from myself that my noble friend remembered the great Unionist Administration which held office for, I think, practically fifteen years. When he did remember it, my noble friend confessed that it was an exception. But, my Lords, the Government which succeeded in administering Ireland without mismanaging it was a Unionist Government, was the Government at the feet of whose leaders my noble friend had sat, from whom he had learnt all the great statesmanship which he now displays. This Government, these leaders, this great tradition, had all vanished from his mind; and, in order to defend the mess into which his present colleagues have placed him, he treated that great Unionist Government as if it had never existed. I confess that I regretted it profoundly. What will people outside think of that? After all, the great thing in these days is to impress upon the people a feeling of confidence in the Government, and if they find great Unionist statesmen like my noble friend and his colleagues abandoning for the purpose of debate the beliefs in which they have been brought up, and which I know in their hearts they really hold, and ready to commit themselves to the proposition that it is impossible for a really strong Government to govern Ireland well, then I say the people of this country will increase rather than diminish the contempt in which they have begun to hold our politicians and statesmen.
I turn for a moment to the question of Conscription in Ireland. Now, my Lords, there is no question about the strength of

457
the case in favour of Conscription in Ireland. No one in your Lordships' House doubts that Ireland ought to contribute its quota of men for the common defence. I am not going to say that it is possible to enforce Conscription in Ireland at this moment, bat I earnestly hope that that part of the policy of His Majesty's Government will not be abandoned. Of course, they must restore order. They are doing something to restore order, but I confess I am astonished, like my noble friend Lord Midleton last week, that they have not taken a step which is so obviously dictated by the necessity of the situation. Why have they not proclaimed Sinn Fein as an illegal association? What is there to prevent their doing that? Why are they going to allow apparently every part of Ireland to be gradually seduced from its allegiance by the pressure of the Sinn Fein organisation, and every local body to be gradually dominated by Sinn Fein? Why do not they grapple with it, and why do not they treat Sinn Fein as in my younger political days Mr. Balfour treated the National League and the Land League, and as, although he was not a statesman whom I followed, the great Mr. Gladstone himself treated the Land League. Surely, my Lords, it would be an earnest to the people of this country and a means of carrying conviction to the people of Ireland that the Government were really in earnest, if they proclaimed Sinn Fein. But undoubtedly to restore order is a necessary preliminary to enforcing Conscription. Then I hope and believe that something might be done to convince the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland that to oppose Conscription as if it were a breach of the law of God is so outrageous and so utterly indefensible and out of keeping with the policy of the Roman Catholic Church in every other part of Europe that they might be willing to take their stand, as they ought to do, on the side of law and order and in defence of the sovereign powers, whatever they may be, in this country.
My Lords, I turn to the other branch of the policy of His Majesty's Government. I have said that I hope that they will not abandon Conscription, but I confess that I do hope they will abandon Home Rule. I will recall to your Lordships the language which my noble friend the Leader of the House used of the dominant power in Ireland at this moment. As Lord Oranmore has just now reminded your
458
Lordships, Lord Curzon definitely charged them with treason. He spoke of them as the party in Ireland which, if a Home Rule Parliament were set up, would be likely to exercise preponderating influence in it. In other words, he not only accused Sinn Fein of being a treasonable organisation, but he definitely stated, on his responsibility as a Minister, that they were likely to be the preponderating force in Ireland if a Home Rule Parliament were set up—that is to say, not merely that there is an organisation in Ireland which is treasonable, but that it commands the majority of the Irish people. I am not saying that the Irish people if left to themselves would necessarily take that view. I hope to God it may not be so, but as things stand every one will agree with the Leader of the House that the majority of the Irish people, if a Home Rule Parliament were to be established, would be rebels. Can it be a matter for surprise, then, that we do not want to see a Home Rule Parliament set up in Ireland? How long is this state of things likely to continue? That is what is so vitally important.
My noble friend the Leader of the House seemed to think, as Lord Oranmore has just said, that the Government had no reason to suppose that this state of things existed until the evidence of the plot came before them. I have no doubt there is some special evidence of a plot. There must be, because the Government have told us so; but the state of things in Ireland was quite apparent without that evidence. It was apparent and it was of long standing; but if there had not been evidence, if it is true that not until quite recently was there evidence, the only conclusion to be drawn from this is that we should have established Home Rule and placed it in the hands of traitors and only found out afterwards what we had done. It is not important to us what evidence convinced His Majesty's Government. What is important to us is the fact which I think they ought to have known, but which now is established. The truth is that we have had a very narrow escape. But for the conviction which has gradually been forced upon the Government we might have had a Home Rule Parliament established.
What would have been our position then, supposing Home Rule had been established? Let us go back to 1914. Supposing there had been no resistance to Home

459
Rule, supposing that your Lordships' House had not existed, supposing that Home Rule had been carried and that when the war broke out Home Rule had been an established fact in Ireland—do you think that would have been a pleasant thing for this country? I want the House to realise what the real state of things was. Lord Arran, speaking just now as an Irishman who knows Ireland, bore witness to the fact that these things in Ireland are of longstanding. I am not in a position to confirm what he said—I am not an Irishman—but I take his word for it, that the whole course of the education of the young in Ireland and the state of feeling which has prevailed there for a long time, has made the people profoundly unfriendly to this country. Supposing we had had Home Rule under those circumstances, supposing we had had upon our Western flank a Government in being which was not friendly to this country, see what a difference that would have made in this campaign. If I may say so respectfully, will your Lordships try to realise what an escape we have had—how we might have been far worse off than we are, but for the resistance of public opinion and your Lordships' House to the imposition of Home Rule?
Then I am told that under all these circumstances, and with all this experience and this history behind us, we ought to establish Home Rule in Ireland—I think the Prime Minister said in October. It is almost incredible that a British statesman can have committed himself to anything so outrageously foolish as that. That reflection must convince all impartial men that the state of things which we see in Ireland, although it has been exaggerated by Sinn Fein and although it has been allowed to get its head by the weakness of the Government, is really of long standing. What bearing has that upon the future? Are we going to establish Home Rule in October, or next year, or the year after? Are we really going to do such a thing? My noble friend Lord Bryce made a most interesting speech just now, with the greater part of which, as he knows, I most cordially agree. He said that he hoped we would establish Home Rule. I cannot understand him. I cannot understand how we should establish Home Rule under these circumstances. I cannot even understand how we should establish Federation. I am not going to discuss Federation now. It would be, perhaps, presuming on your Lordships' patience; moreover, I have had
460
an opportunity of discussing it elsewhere. But although the argument is not so strong against Federation as it is against naked Home Rule, a large part of the argument applies. How can it be wise in such circumstances as I have described to establish in Ireland a semi-autonomous Parliament, which is enabled by its position and by its control of all the engines of administration throughout the country, if it is unfriendly, to strike a fatal blow at the safety of this country?
And what of the future? What ought to be done? In the first place, in spite of the momentary forgetfulness of my noble friend the Leader of the House, we must not be afraid of the phrase "resolute government." We must go back to a policy of resolute government. An appeal is made to the opinion of the Dominions and of America. I believe that the British Government in Ireland, by its weakness, has become a by-word in Dominion and in American public opinion. Do you believe for a moment that any of them would have stood the kind of disorder we have seen in Ireland? Not for an instant. I was talking not long ago to a great Dominion statesman. He said to me, "You talk about Home Rule in Ireland. The first thing you have got to do is to govern Ireland." That is the beginning and end of wisdom so far as Ireland is concerned; and, after that, you must go on with your policy of Conscription—not now, but as soon as you can. As to Home Rule, you must realise that recent events have thrown a searchlight upon all the evil features of this bastard cry of nationality in Ireland. I do not despite Irish feeling. I am closely connected with Irish people. Every one loves their character; every one respects their great affection for their own traditions and their own history; but the nationality in Ireland which rebels against the far greater nationalities of the British Crown and the British Empire is a bastard nationality which ought not to be encouraged. Above all, we must see that the bonds which unite us with the Loyalists in Ireland, and especially with Ulster, are not weakened. If the Government will now, at the eleventh hour, follow a policy on these lines, believe me the future history of Ireland may be far better, far wiser, far happier than it has been in the past.
LORD MACDONNELL: My Lords, I will not endeavour to follow the noble Marquess through an oration which reminds

461
one of the old, bad days of Irish difficulties. I have recently come from being a member of a Convention in which such sentiments as the noble Marquess has uttered found no echo. I came from a body which assembled with the object of exploring the difficulties of Irish Government, examining how far the difficulties might be removed and safeguards supplied, and I have been astonished that the measure of success which was attained has had no influence on the noble Marquess or gentlemen who similarly think with him. I believe that the cause of Irish nationality has greatly suffered from the fate which has befallen the Report of the Convention. It has been taken for granted that the Convention was a failure because the members did not arrive at a unanimous conclusion upon all points. If you will allow me the opportunity now of explaining in a very few words what a surprising measure of success was attained in the Convention, how all expressions of hostility between party and party were carefully excluded, and how the endeavours of most parties there were directed towards constructing a Constitution for Ireland within the Empire I think perhaps I shall render the greatest assistance and help I can to the cause of Irish nationality, so much decried by the noble Marquess.
Your Lordships are probably broadly aware of the origin of the Convention. They- are stated in the first page of the Convention's Report in the following words—
"Would it be too much to hope that Irishmen of all creeds and parties might meet together in a Convention for the purpose of drafting a Constitution for their country, which shall secure a just balance of all the opposing interests, and finally compose the unhappy discords which have so long distracted Ireland and impeded its harmonious development? … The Government therefore propose to summon immediately, on behalf of the Crown, a Convention of representative Irishmen in Ireland to submit to the British Government a Constitution for the future government of Ireland within the Empire."
You will observe that in the terms of reference no limitation whatever was put on the discretion of the Convention. All they were called upon to do was to provide that the results of their labour should be "within the Empire." I call particular attention to that point, because in the note appended by the Ulster Unionist delegates fault was found with the Convention for having gone over such a large number of subjects. Bat in a matter concerned
462
with the construction of a Constitution for Ireland it was obviously necessary that the fullest range should be given for all discussion. The Convention was formed not of one class of Irishmen. The object directly was the representation of all classes. Consequently not only were Unionists and Nationalists represented, but every section of Nationalists, and therefore you may find in the proposals of some of the Nationalists extreme proposals, and extreme proposals put forward by the Ulster Unionists in condemnation of the Nationalist case. I would remind your Lordships that the thing to be considered is not the opinions of individual men but the opinions of the Convention as a whole, or the opinions of its Committees. You have to form your judgment upon the results of the Convention and its Committees' deliberations, and not on the proposals brought forward by any particular man.
May I say a few words in regard to the procedure which the Convention adopted? The procedure of the Convention was divided into four stages. The first stage was called the "Presentation stage," during which each member of the Convention, or any outsider, submitted a scheme for a reform of the Irish system of government. That scheme was explained by its author or representative, and was fully discussed in the Convention. The discussions lasted over many days. Finally the schemes were referred to the second stage, which was the "Grand Committee stage," for more particular examination and the construction of schemes which should be submitted to the Convention. The third stage was the "Sub-Committee" stage. The Grand Committee divided themselves, and drew members from the general body of the Convention into sub-Committees which dealt with particular sections of the subject, took evidence that was necessary upon these points, and reported their conclusions to the Grand Committee. The Grand Committee, in turn, considered all these conclusions and framed their recommendations for the consideration of the Convention. All these matters were then submitted to the Convention and fully discussed. You will see that the work was done with extreme care, that all points were carefully considered, and that whatever matters did not permit of an easy solution at first, they were left over. Other matters were taken up, and subsequently the points of difficulty

463
were again considered and conclusions come to. The conclusions which were come to in the Grand Committee were fully discussed by the Convention, and upon them votes were taken.
The conclusions and questions dealt with come under seven groups. The first was the "Status and Constitution of the Irish Parliament." You will find in the statement of the Ulster Unionists it is said that a particular member claimed that the Parliament should be "a sovereign independent Parliament for Ireland coequal in power and authority with the Imperial Parliament." So far from that being correct, the Irish Parliament is deliberately stated to be a subordinate Parliament. It is doubtful whether any statement on that point was necessary, seeing that it is not in the power of the Imperial Parliament to create a sovereign independent Parliament within the King's realm. At all events, the section of the Act of 1914 which places beyond doubt that the Irish Parliament was to be a subordinate Parliament has been embodied in the front of the Convention's proposals. On that point, therefore, there can be no doubt whatever. The Convention did not proceed in the direction in which they are stated to have proceeded.
The next point is the "Constitution of the Irish Parliament." The Nationalists of Ireland clearly saw from the commencement that the Unionists of Ireland could not be properly represented in an Irish Parliament under existing conditions. They therefore proposed to secure to the Unionists representation in the Irish House of Commons to the extent of 40 per cent. of that House. In the case of the Unionists of the South and West it was found to be impossible to secure that additional representation by any other means than by nomination by the Crown, but the Ulster Unionists, while admitting the generosity of the offer, said they could not accept it, because nomination was an undemocratic procedure. Then it was arranged that additional constituencies should be formed by grouping together the industrial towns in the North of Ireland, the additional constituencies enabling Ulster to elect their own representatives. When that was offered the Convention was no longer faced with any objection on the part of the Ulster constituencies.
Futhermore, the Senate which the Irish Convention determined to create was so
464
manned as to consist in the greater portion of its members of men having substantial interests in the country. We nominated four Roman Catholic Bishops, two Bishops of the Established Church, and the Moderator of the General Assembly. We enabled the Irish Party to select fifteen of their number to sit in the Senate. I think the Senate of sixty-four seemed to draw its members from a different social class to the House of Commons, selected by the general electors of the country. The principle was also adopted that if the Senate and the House of Commons differed, both Houses should sit together. It was thought that the deficiency of Unionists in the House of Commons would be made up in the Senate, and in that way adventurous legislation of any description would be avoided. Not satisfied with providing a Parliament so constituted, we proposed to give a safeguard to any province in Ireland which thought its interests injuriously affected. We enabled the representatives in the House of Commons and in the Senate of each Province to form themselves into a Grand Committee for the Province, which would have the power of imposing a veto upon any legislation or upon any administrative action which seemed to them to threaten the interests of their Province. It was hoped that this Provincial Grand Committee would only be assembled ad hoc, because it was hoped that all provincial interests would find adequate representation in the Parliament, and that no injury would be done to them; but for greater surety this provision was made which enabled any Province—the Province of Ulster, for example—if dissatisfied with any project of legislation, or with any administrative action, to record a resolution by majority to that effect, and thereby to stop all further proceedings. In regard to administrative acts, the veto would be to call upon the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to institute a special inquiry into the facts, and to base Orders upon them. If the Orders which the Lord Lieutenant passed were unsatisfactory to the Province of Ulster, they would have an appeal from the Lord Lieutenant to the King in Privy Council. It seemed to us that every attempt was made by that device to secure to every Province in Ireland the means of preserving its own interests.
I next come to the legislative, administrative and financial powers which were conferred upon the Parliament. The

465
legislative powers conferred were exactly those which existed in the Act of 1914. They are powers to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the country, except in regard to certain matters which were excluded. The excluded matters practically agreed with those which we excluded under the Act of 1914. The question of the power of the Irish Parliament to maintain a Territorial Force was submitted to a Committee which was composed of the Earl of Desart as chairman, the Duke of Abercorn, Captain Doran, Captain Gwynn, and Mr. Powell, one of the Irish law officers. Their conclusions were that the control of an Irish military force was not in present circumstance to be thought of, that everything depended upon the conclusion of the war, and that then the whole of the military forces in Ireland for the defence of the Realm—the Army and the Navy—should be in the hands of the Imperial authorities. That afforded no room for discussion. The administrative functions of the Parliament remain as under the Act of 1914 also, except in regard to the police, to which matter I will presently refer.
In regard to the financial powers of the Irish Government, the Nationalist Party wished to introduce a radical change. The question of Customs was stated by the Ulster Unionists to have been introduced with a view to establishing a claim to independence. I desire to say in the most emphatic manner that this was not the reason. The reason was that the Irish Parliament could not be financed by any other means than by the introduction of Customs. The Irish Revenue as it existed at the time of the Convention amounted to £24,040,000. During the Home Rule debate in 1912 the Irish revenue was £10,500,000. Under the war taxation it rose in four years to £24,040,000. The Irish expenditure at the time of the Convention amounted to £12,686,000. There were many claims, especially claims in regard to increases of salary to schoolmasters, which were unsatisfied, and it is very probably that during the current year Irish expenditure will not fall far short of £13,000,000. The Irish Party, looking forward to the future, thought it was quite unwise to consider their finance on the basis of war taxation. Those who looked into the matter were of opinion that a £24,040,000 income would diminish by
466
several millions. In the first place, the Excess Profits Duty, which was £5,000,000, would cease on the conclusion of peace. There would be some reduction also in Income Tax and such things, and it was the opinion of the Irish party in the Convention that we could not count upon an income for Ireland of more than £15,000,000 to £16,000,000 in normal times.
Then we had to consider what would be the increase in Irish expenditure during the coming year, and we thought that the principal increase was the contribution which would have to be made by Ireland towards the common expenses of the Empire. It is stated in the Note of the Ulster Unionists that the Irish representatives were always unwilling to give a grant to the Crown for the common expenses of the Empire. My Lords, if you throw your minds back to the days of Gratton's Parliament you will remember that this was a question which was greatly debated, and that the position of Gratton was that Ireland should contribute to the defence of the Empire when it was in funds, but not when it was in deficit. The fact that Great Britain could count upon an income from Ireland was one of the reasons which predisposed it towards the Union of 1800. That consideration weighed a great deal with some of us in the Convention, and we both in Committee and in general Convention agreed that a compulsory contribution should be made to the Government of the United Kingdom for common expenditure. But on the motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, it was agreed that the amount of the contribution and the method of its payment should be reserved for future consideration. If it was thought that Ireland should take over, as they have proposed to take over, the whole burden of land purchase in Ireland, it would have to pay something over £1,500,000, the obligation for paying which now rests upon the British Treasury. It was thought that if Ireland paid that £1,500,000 it should go towards whatever sum would be fixed for the contribution. In that way the method and the amount was left over, but the obligation was recognised both in the Report of the Committee of the Convention and in the Report of the Convention itself.
So far the action of the Nationalists was rather misinterpreted by the Ulster Unionists. The Nationalists on the Convention have been found fault with for bring that question under consideration at the

467
present moment. But their answer is this. Your Lordships will remember that in the Act of 1914 it is provided that when the growth of the finances of Ireland is such as to extinguish the debt which Ireland was held to owe at that time, a debt of £1,500,000, the question of Irish finance would be fully considered. The words of the Act are these—
"The presentation of such a report—"
that is, the presentation of a report that Irish indebtedness has been liquidated—
"shall be taken to be a ground for the revision by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of the financial provisions of this Act, with a view to securing a proper contribution from Irish revenues, towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom and—"
I beg your Lordships' attention to these words—
"extending the powers of the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government with respect to the imposition and the collection of taxes."
The very condition had arisen under which it was imposed as an obligation upon the British Government to reconsider the Irish financial settlement with those two objects in view—the objects of extending the powers of the Irish Government and of the Irish Parliament, with regard to taxation and with regard to the collection of taxes.
Therefore I think that the claim of the Irish Government, in view of the insufficiency of the internal taxation to supply the funds necessary for Irish administration, was a sufficient justification for claiming the Customs. It was said that Customs were claimed by the Nationalist Party in the Convention for other reasons. No, this was the substantial reason. Some did say, and I agreed with them, that seeing that the control of Customs and Excise is exercised by our Dominions it was only reasonable that in a settlement of the Irish question similar powers should be conferred on Ireland. But at the time we claimed Customs we also claimed that the same document which gave us control of Customs should create a free trade arrangement between Great Britain and Ireland, and we also expressly repudiated any desire to claim the power of negotiating commercial treaties which the Dominions did not also exercise.
When these proposals were before the Convention the Southern Unionists came forward with a compromise—and perhaps
468
I may be allowed to say how greatly Nationalist Irishmen respect the attitude of Lord Midleton in the Convention. His proposal was this, that all powers of internal taxation in Ireland should be conferred upon the Irish Parliament, but that the one head of Customs should be reserved to the Parliament at Westminster. That proposal was very attractive to the Irish Nationalists. Their only objection to accepting it was that when the time came when it would be possible to reduce taxation after the war had been cleared up, Ireland would have the power of reducing the tax on the rich, but would have no power of reducing the tax on the poor, which consists principally of Customs duties upon tea, sugar, and so forth. Lord Midleton endeavoured to meet that claim of the Irish, and he undertook that when certain conditions existed in Ireland in excess of certain conditions in England it would then be possible to reduce the Irish Customs. Upon that it was said that if the Irish Parliament could not reduce Customs duties on the poor it would stand before them in a very invidious position.
A counter proposal was made, inasmuch as Customs was manifestly a rock upon which the Convention would probably split, to postpone the question of Customs until after the war, and then to allow it to be considered by a special Commission here in England, the result of its findings being submitted to the Imperial Parliament, to which it would have to be submitted in any case. When things had reached that point the Prime Minister wrote to us saying that he understood matters were in a difficult position; and he invited the Convention to send a delegation to him in London. That was done; and three weeks were spent here in conference with the Prime Minister. The results of these conferences and interviews are recorded in the letter of February 25 which is published in the Report. The Prime Minister agreed to the postponement of the question regarding Customs, and he indicated in his letter other points. Having heard the full account of the Convention, he enumerated all the points in the letter of February 25, and in that document he made suggestions for the removal of such remaining difficulties as emerged from his conversations with the members of the Convention in London. All these recommendations were accepted; and I am now justified in saying that upon all points of the Convention which I have enumerated

469
there was agreement between the Southern Unionists and the Nationalists, although it is to be said that the Ulster members did not come in.
A principle was laid down before we went into committee. That principle was that all agreements come to should be contingent upon a general agreement. If an agreement were not come to on all points, then the points on which agreement had been reached were to be null and void. But because we could not come to an agreement upon the Customs question; because then and there we could not repudiate the claim of Ireland to have the Customs; because we agreed to this postponement until the war was over and the thing could be thoroughly threshed out in London, the Ulster Unionists disagreed with the proposals to which they had agreed in Committee. They were within their rights in doing so, but still it justifies me in saying that there was a substantial agreement come to in the Convention upon all points discussed, with the exception of Customs.
I submit to your Lordships, such being the fact, that degree of assent in the Convention had been reached upon which it was incumbent upon the Prime Minister to place legislation before Parliament, unless some great event, some all-dominant event of State, had in the meantime occurred which prevented the fulfilment of the Prime Minister's promise. And what are those great dominant events which have occurred to prevent the fulfilment of his promise? The discovery of the "plot," and the resistance to Conscription. It is a tragic thing that the cup which was close to Ireland's lips should be dashed away because of such things as that. The "plot"! I have examined as carefully as I could all the information contained in the documents which have been published. In the documents published by Mr. Lloyd George after his Edinburgh speech two points, and two points alone, emerged. One was that when the Rebellion occurred in Easter week all connection between Ireland and America was interrupted, and pending the resumption, a man—I think he was called the Director of Revolutions—was appointed in America to draw up a scheme for the invasion of Ireland. The English Government obtained a copy of that scheme. That is one fact. The other fact was that at Cuxhaven in the beginning of May certain arms were laden on submarines. I heard the Chief
470
Secretary's speech the other night in the House of Commons, and he referred to a certain document which was found on the person of De Valera, and which in a cryptic manner alluded to some future event which might happen. Is it on these grounds that a nation's hopes are to be disappointed?
I listened to Lord Salisbury to-night saying that it is not possible to grant Home Rule to Ireland because of some action that might be taken by the Irish. The resolute government to which he referred ended, after a certain time, in the grant that was being withheld in those days. Mr. Wyndham, one of the best Chief Secretaries who was ever in Ireland, gave his answer in the Land Act of 1913, which is now the Charter of Irish tenants. What will come from this? The noble Marquess says that in no circumstances can Home Rule now be given. Very probably not. But if I were Prime Minister of England—and I am a loyal subject—I would do what Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman did in regard to South Africa—I would grant Home Rule to Ireland according to the recommendations of the Convention, and you would then have rallied to yourselves in Ireland an enormous mass of honest men.
I heard Lord Arran say that he was not sure whether the Convention was representative of Irishmen. My Lords, I managed on the Convention to get into close touch with, you might say, every man in the Convention from the North to the South—the Ulstermen, the men of Cork, the men of Connaught, and the men of Munster. I would be perfectly willing to entrust the destinies of Ireland to that body. They were a body of level-headed business men; not men who would be led away by any high falutin' arguments or speeches. But if you always refuse to trust, and fall back on the days of resolute government, will you ever have peace in Ireland? On my conscience I believe that the only way to peace in Ireland is the way pointed out by Convention; and the day will come when you will regret having rejected the advice of the Convention and gone back to your old discredited policy.
LORD SYDENHAMMy Lords, there is only one point in the excellent speech of the noble Marquess who introduced this debate with which I cannot agree. Lord Londonderry said that the Irish question is certainly domestic in its character and ought to be so considered at this moment,

471
though I think in the later parts of his speech he distinctly swerved away from that doctrine. I believe that the Irish question is essentially Imperial, if, indeed, it is not international; and I believe also that the non-recognition of this fact has been one of the great reasons why it has been from first to last deplorably handled.
I wish to say a few words upon the Irish question from the Imperial point of view. The war has drawn all the scattered members of the Empire into very close union, and united them as they could not have been united in any other way for a common cause. They have all borne their share most nobly, and they have sent their best manhood across the seas without stint to help in the great contest in which we are engaged. But Ireland, alone of all the parts of the Empire, has failed the Empire at the crisis of its fate; and Ireland has declined to fill the ranks of her own historic regiments, leaving it to Frenchmen, to Americans, and to Italians to make good her deficiency. At a time when every man who could bear arms was required, when middle-aged men with families have been freely called up in England, Scotland, and Wales, young men in Ireland are walking about and amusing themselves. It was stated last week before the War Losses Commission that "the people in Ireland do not recognise that the country is at war"; and yet Irishmen have fought and died gallantly upon every field of battle.
No part of the Empire has felt the strain of this war less than Ireland, and Ireland alone of all the members of the Empire is showing at the present time widespread lawlessness. Now what reason will the philosophic historian of the future assign for the amazing facts that no one can for a moment dispute? It has often been said that when Mr. Birrell went to Ireland he was able to announce that Ireland had never been so tranquil or so prosperous during 600 years of her history. Ireland is, perhaps, now even more prosperous than when that was said, because she has profited out of the exigencies of this war. How, then, are we to account for the tremendous and sinister change which has come over Ireland during the last twelve years? There can be only one explanation for that change, and if we do not recognise it and take its lesson to heart we shall be faced in the future with worse troubles than those which now confront us. Since Mr.
472
Birrell was appointed Chief Secretary, we have until very recently ceased to attempt to govern in Ireland. We permitted a most dangerous illegal conspiracy to grow up under our eyes, and we not only did not suppress it but we encouraged its development by concessions to the forces of disorder. We forgot that it is the business of Governments to govern, and that the great majority of civilised people like and expect to be governed. We paraded the shibboleths democracy; but we failed to understand that there is no liberty where law is set at defiance; and there is no liberty in Ireland at present. In the last debate on Ireland it was urged that at the eleventh hour the Government should enforce the law. I noted that a newspaper which represents democratic ideals at once said that we were pressing for "coercion." Has it come to this, that democratic principles require us to regard the maintenance of law as the same thing as coercion? If we were really coming to that we should soon be on the high road to Bolshevism, because Bolshevism starts by abolishing the law courts and then goes on to do away with patriotism and to proclaim that no man should ever fight except against his own fellow-countrymen.
We exempted Ireland from Conscription, which was accepted by England, Scotland, and Wales, as well as by Canada and New Zealand. Ireland was thus placed in a privileged position, which she had occupied for some years in other respects, and the manhood of the rest of the United Kingdom was impressed on her behalf. Voluntary recruitment having totally failed, we suddenly changed our minds and announced that Ireland must henceforth be conscripted. The noble Earl the Leader of the House said at the beginning of this debate that the reason of this sudden change of attitude was the great military emergency which, as we all know, arose on March 21 last. He added—
"We have since been told that that is a wrong decision. I do not agree with that criticism myself."
Nor do I think that any of your Lordships will say it was a wrong decision. But that decision should never have been taken unless it was determined to carry it out. It is an axiom of government that you should never announce what you are not able and ready to make effective. There is a closely parallel case. The Province of Quebec is much more homogeneous in population and more distinctively national

473
than is Ireland. The people speak the French language. Their forefathers were conquered not so very long ago. They objected to Conscription and there were riots and loss of life, but Sir Robert Borden's Government did not waver. The result was, as he told us the other evening, that before Conscription was applied many thousands of French Canadians voluntarily came to join the Colours. We cannot say whether that would have been the case in Ireland, but I should like to tell your Lordships a little story which was told to me. The narrator said a friend of his went into a Sinn Fein meeting and told all the men there he was sent to conscript them. He said they all followed him out into the road like lambs, and he had to explain after they had gone a little way that it was only a joke.
Now, having changed our minds—unfortunately, but perhaps inevitably—we appointed as Chief Secretary an English barrister who had always opposed Conscription. A life spent in the Law Courts does not impart the least training in administration, and it is not fair to Ireland to provide a succession of barrister Chief Secretaries who had no experience qualifying them for their difficult task. Nor is it possible to understand why for thirty years no Irishman has been found fit to hold this high office. Among people so gifted as the Irish surely it must be possible to find a qualified man. With Mr. Shortt's arrival came the Proclamation which has been so severely criticised by many of your. Lordships. It has had the effect of making Conscription impossible in Ireland, and that was an effect which the Chief Secretary cannot have disliked. If the offer of land is not to be called a bribe, at least it bore that appearance in the Proclamation, just as the unfortunate conjunction of Conscription with the promise of a new Home Rule Bill must have had the appearance of a bargain. From the purely military point of view, I do not understand why the figure of 50,000 men was selected. It is almost a negligible number compared with the number which Ireland owes to the Empire and to the Allies. Australia with 5,000,000 population has contributed 426,000 recruits. Ireland with a population of 4,500,000 has contributed only 170,000. But I do agree, and I think we shall all agree, that 50,000 volunteers would be far more valuable than four times that number including men who might be disaffected or sullen. I hope that the
474
powerful appeal which has now been made to Irishmen by Irishmen will go straight home to what is the best feeling in Ireland.
The whole story of our proceedings in regard to Home Rule and the bitter controversy which has raged round it since the 'eighties is most melancholy reading. This was, I submit, from the first an Imperial question of great importance, but we made it the shuttlecock of Party politics, which by reason of the grossly unjust over-representation of Ireland in the House of Commons caused it to become from the first a confusing and a corrupting influence in our whole, political life. Yet there was a clear policy in the 'eighties which we might have adopted. We could have approached Home Rule from the Federal side, as Lord Bryce said, and we might have defined precisely the limits beyond which we would never go. Why should Ireland have more rights than are accorded to Quebec, Tasmania, or the State of New Jersey in the American Union? Such a policy as that would have been perfectly intelligible in our Dominions and also in America, and it must have tended to alienate the sympathy which has been shown to organisations which, as we know, have been seeking to undermine the solidarity of the United Kingdom and thus to weaken the very citadel of the Empire.
Americans would not have listened for a moment to such claims as have been made for Ireland, if advanced by California. Nor would Canada listen for a moment to such claims in the case of British Columbia, nor Australia in the case of Tasmania. But we forgot all this, and we put a Home Rule Bill on the Statute Book which was passed, as you will remember, on condition that another Bill, which changed it in the most essential particulars, would shortly be forthcoming. That second Bill has never yet made its appearance, and we are now at work, or supposed to be at work, on a fourth Home Rule Bill. One result of all this playing with the Home Rule question was a dangerous Rebellion in Ireland that has been so often referred to in the speeches which have gone before—a Rebellion, as we all now know, financed and planned and assisted by Germany.
Then came the greatest of our opportunities, and it was lost. I am quite convinced that, most Irishmen were thoroughly ashamed of the murder of British soldiers

475
in the streets of Dublin. They were also ashamed of the German plot which lay behind it. I believe most of them expected that at length the Government would suppress the Sinn Fein conspiracy and would enforce Conscription. Instead, we encouraged the conspirators and we let them out of prison even when the Convention was sitting, and enabled them to extend their treasonable organisation far and wide throughout Ireland. Then again we changed our mind, and arrested some leaders for the second time; and Nationalists can now say, and are now saying, that the Government invented this German plot, as if the existence of a plot was not perfectly well know when Casement landed from a submarine.
From the Imperial point of view a change has come over the Irish question. The Dominions, after what they have heard and seen, will not easily forget that when they were fighting for their existence some Irishmen, under German inspiration, not only refused to bear their share but added immensely to the difficulties of the Empire by detaining troops sorely needed at the seat of war and also by feeding German submarines. The Dominions now understand, as they certainly never did before, the attitude of Ulster and of the Southern Irish Unionists in declining to trust their fate to the Nationalist Party. Americans have had personal experience of Irish lawlessness and disloyalty to the Allied cause. They, too, are attaining a new understanding of the Irish question, and they realise that American sympathies with Home Rule were largely engineered by German propaganda. Surely, that is a gain to set against the grave injury which some Irishmen have inflicted, and are still inflicting, on the greatest of causes.
I venture to think that our path is quite clear before us, even though we cannot say exactly where it will lead. We must, at any cost, restore order in Ireland and break up the Sinn Fein conspiracy. By so doing we shall rally to ourselves all that is best in Ireland, and there must be a vast amount of moderate opinion now being suppressed by the intimidation which is being resorted to. At the same time, I think we should declare plainly and frankly that there is no longer any question of Home Rule till the war is ended, and that then it can only be considered with the limitations which a Federal system demands. People do not keep up violent agitations for what
476
they can be led to believe is quite unattainable, and when the time comes to reconsider Home Rule, when the war is ended, I hope the wise advice of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, will not be forgotten. He said—
"Let us be extremely careful not to give Ireland in advance anything which we are not prepared to extend to other parts of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland, and Wales."
I gather from the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House that Home Rule is to be dropped, and Conscription seems to me to be absolutely impossible. I think if there were any doubts in our minds they would be dispelled by the excellent speech of the noble Earl, Lord Arran. The Government has certainly and distinctly undertaken to restore order in Ireland, and that is a great point gained. The Government has not apparently made up its mind yet whether Sinn Fein is a treasonable conspiracy or not. The moral and warning of all this remain, and they must not be forgotten. Our system of Party Government has not proved adapted to the wise handling of Imperial questions or to the framing and maintenance of a consistent or reasoned policy. In India, as in Ireland, we have shown inability to govern in recent years; and in India, as in Ireland, we may find that the Pax Britannica has been gravely shaken. No Government can neglect its essential functions without incurring the nemesis which inexorably dogs weak and wavering footsteps.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I am very glad the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, has called attention to the policy of His Majesty's Government in Ireland, and before I proceed further I should like to say that I quite agree with Lord Sydenham with regard to the knowledge which the Government had of a plot. That I will deal with later. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, said he would like to see the question of Ireland put entirely on one side. When I look round the House now and at the Front Benches I think a great many noble Lords have put the question on one side, at all events for this evening, because there are few members of the Government present and few occupants of the other Front Bench either. I agree with that in another sense. That in these times of stress and struggle, with the work that is placed on Ministers, the question of Ireland should be brought

477
up makes me, as an Irishman, feel a sense of shame. The policy of His Majesty's Government of late years has been sketchy, I would even use the stronger word, slipshod; and this is the reason for this debate and the reason for the very forcible speech which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has delivered.
What is more to the purpose with regard to what I have to say is the admission of the noble Earl who leads the House, who said—
"Broadly speaking, the British Government have not understood and have not been able successfully to handle Ireland, and if in any respect we share that misfortune we share it with the largo majority of our predecessors."
That is an admission of weakness to a certain extent, and the Government cannot complain in any way about all that has been said. The noble Earl went on to say—
"The worst of Irish politics is that Ireland herself always insists upon living in the past."
I quite agree. But I am not going to allude to the distant past in any way. Memories are short, and political memories are excessively short. I am not going to allude to any time other than that just before the Rebellion of 1916, when Mr. Birrell was Chief Secretary. Every warning was given to the Government. Lord Midleton gave them warning. Letters were written warning the Government of what was going to take place, and I believe—I have every reason for saying so—Lord Wimborne was prepared to act but was not allowed to do so. The warnings were not heeded. The Rebellion broke out. There was not a battery of artillery in Dublin at the time; if there had been, the Rebellion could not have lasted forty-eight hours. It was suppressed, and those who did not suffer the extreme penalty were imprisoned in England. Before they left the Prime Minister visited them. There have been all sorts of stories with regard to that visit. Some say the Prime Minister shook hands with them. I do not believe that for one instant, but it would have been much better had he stopped at home and attended to the business of the war, as his visit gave rise to all sorts of stories and wicked gossip.
Time went on, and the Coalition Government came in. Mr. Lloyd George wrote a letter to Mr. Redmond offering a plan of Home Rule or a Convention for Leland. Mr. Redmond accepted the Convention,
478
and it began its sittings in July last. My noble friend Lord Midleton made the point that if the Southern Unionists were to join the Convention there should be no further release of Sinn Fein prisoners. Mr. Duke gave the assurance that there would be no question of such a release; yet a short time afterwards they were released. I notice that the noble Earl the Leader of the House took Lord Midleton to task as to his strictures on Mr. Duke's elevation to the Bench, but he carefully avoided saying anything about his assurance as to not releasing Sinn Fein prisoners. I should like to hear something about this assurance, this pledge, and I hope my noble friend Lord Crawford, who I believe is going to answer for the Government, will have something to say on that point. Why was it broken? It has a direful effect in Ireland. The Sinn Feiners, when they came back, drilled men, broke into houses for arms, made seditious speeches, drove cattle—I had cattle driven from my farm—and organised the country in order to defeat British rule and ordinary law and order. These men you let out had declared for a Republic and total separation from England.
I am going to ask the Government another question, and if the answer is unsatisfactory this debate will be adjourned. The question is this: Are the Government, under the Defence of the Realm Act or under any other powers, going to declare Sinn Fein a dangerous association? The effect of letting out these men was most marked on the Convention. The Ulster delegates, at no time anxious for a settlement, wrapped the mantle, or rather the toga, of Unionism round them, with some of the Orange fringe peeping out, and sat still—to use a common expression they "sat tight," and the Convention could not come to substantial agreement. And no wonder. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, speaking of the Report of the Irish Convention, said—
"I think this Blue Book affords some of the most tragic and disappointing reading I have ever encountered in any document of the kind."
For myself I feel disappointed. The tragedy is what His Majesty's Government did when they let lo se the Sinn Fein prisoners, and played havoc with the Convention. We were told that this was "creating an atmosphere." An atmosphere of what? It did not create an atmosphere; it created a poisonous fog.

479
A change has come at last, and that gallant soldier and Irishman, Lord French, has been appointed Lord Lieutenant. I do not think enough credit has been given to Lord French for the way he bore the burden and heat of the days at the beginning of the war, and I am proud to think he is our Lord Lieutenant. Mr. Shortt, the Chief Secretary, I know nothing of. I read his speech in the House of Commons the other day, and I only wish, with a great many others, that he was an Irishman.
Several NOBLE LORDS: He is.
THE EARL OF MAYO: The arrest of the Sinn Feiners, and their imprisonment in England, has had a good effect towards establishing law and order. It is welcomed by all respectable citizens who live in the country. A Proclamation had been issued asking for 50,000 voluntary recruits before October 1, and promising these men land when they return from the war. I should like to say something about that. It has been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Oranmore and Brown, and I want to know where the land is coming from. My noble friend put it pretty clearly that there was no possibility of giving them sufficient land. I understood from the Leader of the House that land is also to be given to those Irishmen who had already joined, as well as to those now recruited. That is quite right; it is a sound policy; but it is very difficult to carry out. There is not only the difficulty which Lord Oranmore and Brown pointed out, but when this land is up for sale to certain "eligible classes" preference is to be given to soldiers and sailors. I am afraid I must confess that in many parts of Ireland the soldier is not persona grata with the population, and the people who will consider themselves "eligible" will be those who have not gone to the war, and do not intend to go. Therefore there is that other difficulty, besides the shortage of land.
I come now to the last phase, and that is the pronouncements of the Government's policy with regard to Ireland. I am glad that the noble Earl the Leader of the House gave the Convention some credit when he said that for the first time in history a Constitution for the future government of Ireland had been worked out by a considerable majority of Irishmen. I formed one of that majority, and I intend to stick to my opinions expressed at the Convention. But it was not a substantial agreement. The noble Earl intimated to the House that
480
Home Rule had been dropped. He said that it would not be statesmanship, it would almost amount to a crime, to introduce it now, and he gave as one of the reasons that a plot had been discovered in the month of May last. Surely there has been a plot all along. I do not understand this sudden discovery of a plot by the Government. What about the landing of Casement from a submarine? His arrest and subsequent ending was proof enough of what was going on. The noble Earl said that the information was absolutely new. I suppose there is new information, but there has been a plot all along. We who lived in Ireland knew this. We knew there was a certain amount of German money, or money coming through America from Germany, being sent to Ireland. I had much rather the noble Earl had said, "This is not a time for the introduction of contentious legislation for Ireland, and we must wait until after the war." I think myself, that this would have been much more statesmanlike, with all due respect to the noble Earl. And it would have been a strong and unanswerable declaration.
As regards Conscription, I agree with the noble Earl the Leader of the House that it is much better to get voluntary soldiers than to have strife and bloodshed and perhaps civil war. I say frankly—and I move about in Ireland a great deal during the year—that you might get a certain number of soldiers by Conscription, but you will have serious resistance from the population, and it is no use shutting one's eyes to that fact. You would have fighting and shooting, and surely you do not want English soldiers to be chasing about looking for recruits in the Wicklow mountains, or in the mountains in Connemara and in Mayo. Reviewing what has taken place, I say plainly that no country has been put through such a course of political gymnastics as Ireland—one policy started and given up, and another started and abandoned. Is it to be wondered that Irishmen do not feel that respect for Government that they ought to have? You must maintain law and order in Ireland. We have now, as far as I can see, settled policy, a strong Lord Lieutenant, and a Chief Secretary who I believe is going to do his duty. I must say that the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, was quite frank in his statements, but they were open to searching criticism. He has laid down what is proposed for Ireland. Let the Government

481
stick to it firmly, and without favour to the end of the war, and then and only then should a settlement of the Irish question be taken up.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who is sitting on the front Bench below the gangway made a statement which reminded me that the situation in Ireland and the position of the Irish people is very little understood in this country. He told us that the people of Quebec were distinguished from the people of Ireland in the fact that they were possessed of a language of their own, and while I listened to that statement—
LORD SYDENHAM: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did not say distinguished from the Irish people; I said that, they had a language of their own in universal use. I did not say it was a distinguishing point.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I understood the noble Lord to imply that Ireland was devoid of a language of her own.
LORD SYDENHAM: No, no.
LORD ASHBOURNE: That is how I understood it, and other noble Lords may have done the same. That reminded me that a short time ago, when Mr. John Dillon approached the Prime Minister on some point connected with an Irish question and spoke rather roughly to him, the Prime Minister answered that Ireland was not a nation in the sense that Wales was a nation, for Wales had a language whereas Ireland had not. Any assumption of that kind, as he is well aware, was untenable. Beidheadh se i mo chumas gan acht gaedhlig a labhairt agus mise ag cur i g-ceil dibh ar an g-ceist sea. Ta gaedhlig againn in Eirinn agus ta an teanga ceadna ag na h-Albanaighibh fos. Ba mhaith liom gan focal a radh i d-teanga eile acht ta eagla orm nach tuigeadh an cuid is mo agaibh me. Da d-tuigeadh, leaneadh me leis an sgeul ar feadh na h-oidhche. Acht an fiu sin? Is doigh liom nach fiu, agus ar sou sin labhrochaidh me i m-Beurla anois. I could go on and make a whole speech to your Lordships in the language of our country. It is abundantly evident from this—and I am sure Mr. Lloyd George knows it—that we have a language. I am not sorry that he made that point, because it has now been distributed all over Ireland by the. Gaelic Leagues in their leaflets and propaganda literature, all of which are headed with the statement of the, Prime Minister that Ireland is not
482
a nation in the sense that Wales is because Ireland has not it language. I think that your Lordships will not mind my preventing the continuance of that belief here.
The situation created last week by the noble Earl who leads the House has been somewhat complicated by the more recent speech of the Prime Minister on the same subject, but I propose to deal more particularly with the speech of the Leader of this House, because the Prime Minister being, like myself, a Celt—and that is why I can speak of the matter, for if any one else mentioned it I should probably resent it—he possesses the virtues and the faults of our race, and the chief fault of our race in public life which IS WA often understood in this country is that we have too much imagination for the amount of education that England allows us to have, and on account of the unsuitability of that education to our countrymen and our past. The education that we have had in the past in Inland has been such that our whole national character has been falsified. Irish children for a long period have been forced to learn and to be able to read in the schools these lines of which I believe Archbishop Whately is the author—
"Thank the goodness, and the grace that
On my birth has smiled
And made me in these blessed days
A happy English child."
Those lines have had to be learnt in the Irish schools, and to be repeated by the Irish children. The result is that the modern Irishman, as we know him, is a man whose character has been systematically falsified. Now we are trying to deal with this situation, and we are met by a state of things in Ireland which I think every speaker in this House is agreed is a state of anarchy. We are met by the incapacity of any Government in England to deal with Ireland, and we have to face that. A mere negative solution is no solution. It will lead to nothing.
The noble Earl the Leader of the House last week made three main points, as I understood him, in his speech. First of all he told us that the Bishops—or I think he said the clergy, but of course he meant the Bishops had forced the Irish people, under pain of eternal damnation or something to that effect, to oppose Conscription. I was in Ireland when the crisis came, and when the news of the announcement Parliament was given. I happened to meet some of the Bishops, and the conclusion I came to was that they did not

483
know what on earth was going to happen, and they did not know what they should do. The fact is that in the present state of things in Ireland no one can be said to be leading. The Nationalist Party has lost a great deal of its hold, and I am perfectly certain that the Northern leaders could not hold their followers if they tried to go against the stream that is flowing. I am also quite certain, from having been very much in touch with them at one or another time in different meetings, etc., that the so-called leaders of Sinn Fein are doing no more than toddle along after or with the people who are pretending to follow them. In the middle of all this, by the strenuous situation created by the proposal of Conscription, the Bishops have had the position of leaders thrust upon them. I am sure that they were very much surprised on the day that they found themselves leaders, and I am also perfectly certain that the description of the process given by the noble Earl the Leader of the louse does not fit the situation.
The second point in his speech was the plot. I read the Irish papers every morning, and I do not think that there is a single person in Ireland who believes in that plot; but my personal feeling is that I would not take the responsibility of going against the Government in the matter, for this reason. I was living in France some years ago when the Dreyfus ease was on, and I remember the howl of indignation that there was all over Europe about that case. I recall that I was one day in Switzerland taking a walk with three friends. Two of them were Austrians, and the third, I am sorry to say, was a German officer, but they were all very nice men. They began to discuss the Dreyfus case. They were all agreed that Dreyfus was guilty, but they said the French Government could only have discovered his guilt through some one in the highest; position in some foreign country. They said it was probably Germany, but they were not going into that. The object of some foreign Power is to discover how the French Government got that information: the French Government is bound, as a matter of life and death, to conceal that information. Consequently, not for the purpose of getting a condemnation of Dreyfus, but of throwing the necessary amount of dust in the eyes of the philanthropic and sentimental part of the public, they have to invent evidence against Dreyfus: that is the Dreyfus case.
484
Seeing this, if the Government conies before us and tells us that there is a plot I am not going to take the responsibility of saying that there is not, but I daresay they know by this time that in Ireland itself people are saying very strong things on the matter.
The third point in the noble Earl's speech was about Home Rule itself, and that is the main question. I was pleased that the noble Marquess sitting below me on the Front Bench (Lord Salisbury) made the speech he did to-day. We all know what his opinions have been, but I was glad that he brought them strongly before us on this point, because it gives me an opportunity of saying something as to how the matter stands and will stand in Ireland. The very use of the term "resolute government" reminds us of the famous "twenty years of resolute government." It reminds us of the whole past of Irish history, and it leads me to say this, and to insist upon it, that in modern conditions—they may be bad conditions, but they are modern conditions—you cannot keep up a system of resolute repression for ever. It may be weakness on the part of the modern Constitution—I am not saying it is not—but you simply cannot do it. The result is, if you try to do it, it will be followed by a reaction. Things will happen which will disgust public opinion here and there, you may get a sentimental outburst against the whole thing, and your whole echafaudage will fall to the ground.
The result is that you have to face the question in a positive way. The fact that we are a nation in Ireland, the fact that Shill Fein is there, the Irish language is there, and the Irish movement is going on, guarantees that whatever happens we shall be there to create a situation. It does not matter what you do to our representation in the House of Commons—you may halve it if von like, there will be a sufficient nucleus there to take advantage of any confusion—and there must be confusion in modern conditions. The result will be that if you do not settle the Irish question you will unsettle the English Constitution. Enough of that Constitution has been destroyed already. I have had to take part in it. I have been at public meetings, I have stood with Mr. Redmond, I have stood on various platforms in Ireland and England, and I have had a hand in the scrapping of things which I venerate most in the British Constitution. I was sorry

485
for it, and I think most of us were sorry for it, but we had to do it. And you have here to-day a people which is one of the most conservative peoples in the world, if they get a chance, and you have forced them to ally themselves with elements in this country with which they can never have a permanent sympathy.
All I want to do, in conclusion, is to warn any who may think that Ireland can be dealt with by a system of repression, even if you call it resolute government, without any attempt at remedial legislation, that they are creating a terrible situation for this country and for the British Empire.
THE EARL Or MEATH: My Lords, the present position of the Irish question is one of extreme obscurity. As far as we understand the matter, Home Rule and Conscription have not been dropped, but have been postponed; in other words, at any moment we may have the sword of Damocles dropping on our heads in Ireland, either in the form of conscription or of some Home Rule which may lead to separation. It is of the greatest possible importance that we should all think out as far as we possibly can all the forms of Home Rule which might possibly be sprung upon us some time or other at a moment's notice. I have already spoken in this House about my views on Conscription, and your Lordships are aware that, whereas at the time of the Rebellion I and many others were of opinion that Conscription might very easily have been brought in, at all events I am perfectly certain that it is a great mistake to have done it at this particular moment.
Another point which I hope we shall all take deeply into consideration is this, that everything depends upon what is the kind of Home Rule which we are going to give at some time or other to Ireland. There is Home Rule and Home Rule. I am positive that the old Home Rule of 1914 is dead and gone, whatever we may wish. At the same time I am perfectly persuaded that we must have some kind of self-government in Ireland, because it is not only an Irish question and an English question, but it is an Imperial question. The whole of our self-governing Colonies have to consider this question of self-government in Ireland. Not only that, but America has to consider it. When I was in America has to consider it. When I was in America I used laughingly to say to Americans when sometimes they spoke a little grandly, "Well, at all events we Irish govern you"; and it is
486
perfectly true. And therefore America is bound to think very deeply on this question.
I hope that we may not ignore the suggestion which was made by the late Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, in another place to take into consultation the representatives of our Dominions, and, I would add, there presentatives of the great Republic of America, and see whether they could not assist us in this most difficult problem of how to bring peace to Ireland and peace to the Empire and though that to the world. It appears to even that even at this moment the attitude of His Majesty's Government is one of opportunism. Home Rule and Conscription have apparently been put off, but we do not know what the Government intend to do in regard to the matter.
The debate has been au exceedingly interesting one, but in some ways slightly disappointing. We have had a great deal of destructive criticism, a good deal of warning, but to my mind very little constructive policy has been advocated or laid before us. Take, for instance, the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I have been a Unionist all my life, but I recognise now that the old Unionism cannot be carried on any longer. The noble Marquess still adheres, apparently, to the old resolute government without anything, as he said, to show us what we can do in the future. On the other hand, there was Lord MacDonnell, who took the other side but shirked (if he will excuse my saying so) the real point—how to get over the difficulty of Ulster. Ulster has a population, as your Lordships know, of about 1,500,000 out of 4,500,000; and the people of Ulster honestly and firmly believe that it is impossible for them to accept the Government of three-quarters of Ireland. If we have a Home Rule Parliament of the old class, or even a Home Rule Parliament of a Federal nature, with a Parliament in Dublin, even though it may be subordinate to the Parliament in London, what will be the result? The result will be that these Ulster men will be out-voted in Dublin. And do your Lordships imagine for one moment that they will not resent that? Do you think it will be possible to coerce Ulster? To my mind it is absolutely unthinkable. The intelligence of Ulster, the wealth of Ulster, the energies of Ulster—how are you going to get over these difficulty if you have a Parliament in which the Ulster men are in a minority? I do not believe that you will ever induce them to accept any safe-

487
guards, because it will be simply impossible to keep them. Then there is also the difficult that, unless Ireland is part of a Federal system of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, you will have this Parliament in Dublin—even though Ulster may be excluded—which will be representative of the great majority of the disloyal people in Ireland; and at any moment, if you do not, do exactly what they require, what will there be to prevent them from throwing off their allegiance to the Empire? All these questions are most difficult.
I speak to-night as an Irish Southern Federal Unionist. The whole of my interests are in the South of Ireland; my heart is wholly for Ireland; I have always been an Irishman from my heart. I am an imperialist, it is true, but I am an Irishman first and an Imperialist afterwards. Therefore if I say that you cannot coerce Ulster it is not because I am an Ulsterman. I give all honour to Lord Midleton for the way in which he carried on the leadership of the Ulster Unionists in the Convention. I give honour to his followers; I give honour to the Convention for the way in which they brought about a certain amount of agreement between Irishmen—a greater amount of agreement than has ever been brought about before—but at the same time I have been unable to see eye to eye with Lord Midleton and his Party, because it appears that they seem to have overlooked the difficulty of Ulster. If Ulster had consented to come in, then the position would have been entirely different; then we should have been united; then I, like many others, would have accepted the position, and, although we should have been swamped by the three-fourths of Ireland—still, there we should have been. But Ulster has not come in, and you will not make her do so by compulsion. What are you going to do? I believe that the only thing to do is to leave Ulster out. Let her remain as she is. And, if the three-fourths of Ireland will not accept Home Rule for their three-fourths, I say consult the Empire; consult our great Colonies, consult America, and then abide by the decision of the British Empire and America combined.
THE MARQUESS OF SLIGO: My Lords, I shall occupy your time for only a few minutes, and upon but one portion of the subject which has been discussed this evening—namely, the effect that the recent
488
policy of the Government has had, and is having, on us who live in the West. We have been told that the questions of Home Rule and of Conscription have been postponed until law and order have been restored, and that the announcement of this intention has produced relief in Ireland. It has produced considerable relief. At the same time we who live in the West have very grave misgivings. We doubt if the Government are really in earnest and intend to take measures that will be of a permanent character; and we hope that we may receive some assurance which will dispel those doubts.
I submit that we have good grounds for our doubts. Time after time during the last ten years Ireland has been allowed to drift into a state of disorder, and it is only after that disorder has culminated in some appalling outrage that the Government have stepped in and taken measures to restore order. We maintain that those measures have been withdrawn too soon. The result is that all law-abiding people are cowed, and depressed, and despondent. People in England do not realise the conditions under which we exist. We live under a law of systematic tyranny, persecution, and intimidation. It is no exaggeration to say that the law-abiding people live awaiting the next outrage, wondering how soon it will take place, wondering on whom it will fall, wondering what form if will take, and wondering, above all, why more outrages are not committed, because the majority of them—I may say three out of four—are perpetrated with impunity. Some of these outrages have a definite purpose, to obstruct authority, like the disappearance of an Admiralty launch, throwing a bomb into a police barracks, felling trees to stop the passage of troops, and so on. Others are committed merely wantonly in order to establish a reign of terror, such as blowing up a statue—not the statue of a sovereign, or of a statesman, or of a landlord, but of an ordinary inconspicuous individual, dead and forgotten long ago; the burning to cinders of a yacht belonging to a magistrate; and so forth.
We live there in the dread that we shall be awakened one night by the glare of a bull's-eye lantern, and find ourselves in the presence of men demanding arms and ammunition. We live in dread, if we are tradesmen, that we shall be boycotted if we do not, for instance, subscribe to funds

489
for separation allowances for the wives of men who have been deported. If we are farmers, then we live in dread that our crops and our implements may be destroyed or our cattle maimed or that, we shall be tired at in our houses through the door or windows as soon as it is dark. Is there any wonder that we have doubts when we see that there has never been continuity—I will not say there has never been, but that there has frequently been a want of it, and a want of consistency of policy. We were told by the noble Earl last Thursday that this feeling of relief which had been produced was to be encouraged. I do not think we have during the last week received much encouragement. Lord Curzon said that the Government did not see its way to proclaim Sinn Fein as an illegal association. He said that he was waiting for a further reference. I earnestly hope that in the meantime His Majesty's Government have satisfied themselves that they can proclaim this as an illegal association. The last Government I understand, did denounce it as an illegal conspiracy. In the meantime it has not modified its claims or its aims in any way. On the contrary, it has advanced them. If the Government does not see its way to proclaim this organisation, I fear that any measures which it is now taking to restore order will be seriously discounted.
The noble Earl the Leader of the House seemed to think that because eighty or ninety of the leaders of the Sinn Fein movement had been deported, this would be sufficient to destroy the association's power of doing further mischief. We in the West, my Lords, differ entirely. It is boasted there, and it has appeared in the public Press, that the arrest of these men was anticipated, that arrangements had been made to provide substitutes for them, and that in fact when they were arrested and deported the substitutes immediately took up the reins; and the activities of the association have not been checked for one day. My Lords, we earnestly hope that we may receive some assurance from His Majesty's Government which will restore confidence to us who have the misfortune to live in the West of Ireland.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Selborne, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): I desire to speak.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I will not intervene between the noble Earl and the House for more than a few minutes, but I want to warn the Government that they are going to embark upon another cruise of broken pledges. They have now promised men who jour as volunteers, to the number of 50,000, that they will get land in Ireland. The Government cannot do it. It is absolutely impossible. It means another broken pledge, and broken pledges have brought Ireland to her present condition. The Government broke a pledge when they brought a controversial matter like Home Rule before the House of Commons. They have broken pledges to Ulster, and they are now breaking pledges to the Sinn Feiners, because they will not have Home Rule and the Government will have to break their pledges with regard to land. It is that sort of thing which has put Ireland in a state of chaos.
I was very much distressed to see that the Roman Catholic hierarchy have taken the line they have about Conscription, because there is no doubt that the Roman Catholic hierarchy have the confidence of the people and have clone a very great deal of good for them in times gone by; but I warn them that whenever the Roman Catholic hierarchy have gone against any State enactment of a country they have always gone under. They have only to look at France and Italy. There is no doubt that what was at the bottom of their intention was to kill the Home Rule Bill. I believe that the great Prelates in Ireland were absolutely opposed to Home Rule, and that they have always been opposed to Home Rule since the Nationalists declared, in reply to the Ulster assertion that Home Rule meant Rome Rule, that it would be found that under Home Rule education would be taken out of the hands of the Priests.
With regard to Conscription, the people of this country have been taken in, and I am perfectly certain that the men of from forty-one to fifty would never have consented to Conscription if they had not understood that the people of Ireland would be called in too. Conscription means in Ireland the maintenance of a garrison of 100,000 men, and you ought to have 300,000 Irishmen; this means that 400,000 men are there, all of whom are wanted on the Western Front. I blush for shame of

491
my countrymen; they are the finest fighting race and have many of the finest characteristics in the world. But the present condition of things in Ireland is entirely due to the broken pledges of the Government—pledges to all classes of political opinion—and now the Government are promising land which they cannot give.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the debate has been very general in its character. I have taken note of a dozen speeches which have been delivered, and upon which I shall not be expected to reply; but I desire to deal with two concrete points, and two alone, which have arisen this afternoon. I see no occasion, for instance, to meet the highly controversial statement as to the attitude of the Imperial Parliament towards Ireland which has been given to us by the noble and gallant Lord opposite. There is quite another side to that question, and I think one could make out a good debating answer to his case. Then, again, I do not think it necessary to deal with what I might almost call academic speeches, such as Lord Bryce's extremely interesting and valuable statement as to the merits and difficulties of Federalism. Lord Salisbury criticised the Government of Ireland during the last ten years, and contrasted it with the previous ten years. Lord Oranmore dealt with the point whether there is enough land in Ireland to satisfy recruits who are likely to join the Colours—a point to which Lord Beresford also alluded. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the statistical position of land. Lord MacDonnell's chief contribution of interest was some inner history of the Irish Convention, and so on. Lord Ashbourne, whose speech was interesting to your Lordships, especially the part which noble Lords on both sides failed to understand, made an extremely interesting and vivid attack upon the system of Irish education. If worth while I think one could show that elementary education in Ireland is the education which the vast majority of Irish Members desire. But that, again, has nothing to do with the departmental and executive problems before the House and the country to-day.
The only two points on which I feel it incumbent to reply are one raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Sligo, who made an extremely practical and highly relevant contribution to the discussion, and by Lord Mayo. On one of the matters raised I am
492
powerless to answer. Lord Midleton first, and Lord Mayo this evening, made a grave charge against the honour and good faith of Mr. Duke. A pledge was given by Mr. Duke. Well, the pledge was given in private, and the charge has been made in public. I do not know what the private pledge was, or what Mr. Duke's version of it is. It is, therefore, impossible to deal with a matter of that kind, which I gather must be twelve months old, and which may be interesting as marking a certain historical development in the history of the Irish Convention, but which, so far as I see, has little practical bearing on the problem of to-day.
One definite and concrete point has been put to your Lordships by Lord Sligo and by, I think, Lord Mayo, too. That is the attitude of the Government with regard to proclaiming the Sinn Fein society or organisation. It seemed to me that the noble Marquess opposite had some doubt if the Government had ascertained whether it was within its power to proclaim this society. Of course it is within the power of the Government to do so, apart from the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Under the Act of 1887 it is possible for the Government of Ireland, after due notice by Proclamation, to proclaim this society to be an illegal association. All I have to say to your Lordships is this, that the Government of Ireland is fully conscious of its powers under the Act of 1887. At least two clauses of that Act have quite recently been put into operation.
LORD BERESFORD: Will the noble Earl say what they are?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Change of venue—numbers three and four. If it is held advisable by the responsible advisers of the Government the remainder of that Act will be put into force, but I think Lord Sligo underrated the measure of activity already shown by the Government. I do not know how many leaders of this society have been apprehended—ninety, my noble friend the Leader of the House tells me. This shows at least that the statement by the Lord President is well founded—that the Government are determined to do what lies in their power to re-establish and to maintain law and order, and if the Government do not think it advisable to put into effect the remaining clauses of the Act of 1887, I hope that neither Lord Sligo nor Lord Mayo will think that the reason is that they do not mean, and are not de-

493
termined, to carry out the policy of maintaining law and order.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have no right to speak again, but as I ventured at his request to represent the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, at the beginning of the day's proceedings, perhaps your Lordships would allow me to ask leave that the Motion should be withdrawn.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CHEPSTOW GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  PONTYPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]

    RED CROSS AND ORDER OF ST. JOHN BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.
    The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    House adjourned during pleasure.
    House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following twelve Bills received the Royal Assent—

Consolidated Fund (No. 2).

Defence of the Realm (Beans, Peas, and Pulse Orders).

Horse Breeding.

Westgate-on-Sea Congregational Chapel Charity.

494

Marriages Provisional Order.

Motherwell Water (Supplementary Supply) Order Confirmation.

Brixham Gas.

Yorkshire Electric Power.

Harrod's Stores.

Pontypool Gas and Water.

Chepstow Gas.

Red Cross and Order of St. John.

PRIVATE BILLS, ETC.
[From Minutes of June 26.]
UNION OF BENEFICES BILL. [H.L.]
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Paper containing sections of various Acts proposed to be incorporated in the Bill (The Lord Chancellor) agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
LONDONDERRY CORPORATION BILL.
A Witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
HARROD'S STORES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL. [H.L.]
Paper containing sections of various Acts proposed to be incorporated in the Bill: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this day), and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.