Sitting of 4 March 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Alliance and Dublin Gas Bill,
"To confer further powers upon the Alliance and Dublin Consumers Gas Company," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill,
"For conferring further powers on the Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.
Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding Fifteen Members, to be called the Local Legislation Committee, to whom shall be committed all Private Rills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general Law.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 124, 150, and 173A apply to all such Bills.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Four be the quorum.
Ordered, That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any Clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than Clauses containing Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government regulations) are such as, having regard to the terms of reference, it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses and so much
1680
of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shah determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their Report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee.
Ordered, That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of and be subject to the instructions which apply to the undivided Committee, and that Four be the quorum of each of the two Committees.—[Mr. Brace.]

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION".
Copy presented of the Seventieth Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England and Wales, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Milk (Mothers and Children) Order, 1918. Potatoes Order, 1917, General Licence, Food Hoarding (Amnesty) Order, 1918, Horse and Poultry Mixtures Order, 1917, General Licence, Egg (Restriction) Order, 1918, Meat (Licensing of Wholesale Dealers) Order, 1918, Food Control Committee (Local Distribution) Amendment Order, 1918, Tea (Prices) Order, 1918, Tea (Distribution) Order, 1918, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the. Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION.
Copy presented of Supplementary Report on Works Committees by the Committee on Relations between Employers and Employed [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Second Report on Joint Standing Industrial Councils by the

1681
Committee on Relations between Employers and Employed [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR SERVICES, WARLIKE OPERATIONS, AND OTHER EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR, 1918–19 (VOTE OF CREDIT).
Estimate presented of the amount required to be voted for general Navy, Army, and Air Services, Warlike Operations, and other Expenditure arising out of the War [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 19.]
NATIONAL DEBT (SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
Annual Account presented for the period ended 20th November, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 19]
NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
Account presented of the Gross Amount of all Bank Annuities and many Annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all Sums of Money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the Gross Amount of Annuities for Lives and for terms of years, etc., granted within the year ended 5th January, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 20.]
NAVY (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT).
Copy presented of the Appropriation Account of the Navy for 1916–17, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon, and upon the Store Accounts of the Navy [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 21.]

SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute under the Superannuation Act, 1884, dated 26th February, 1918, declaring that Thomas Brogan, Telegraphist, General Post Office, was appointed without a Civil
1682
Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
Copy presented of Agricultural Wages (Constitution and Proceedings of District Committees) (Ireland) Regulations, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Agricultural Wages Board for Ireland (Constitution and Proceedings) Regulations, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1906.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House: Copy of Rule, dated 1st March, 1918, as to Intestates' Estates [by Act].
NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Ordered, That the Evidence taken before the Select Committee of National Expenditure in Session 1917–18 be referred to the Select Committee on National Expenditure.—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS (INCREASED FARES).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the meetings of the tube railway companies in London at which a probable increase of fares on the London tube and underground railways was foreshadowed; whether, before any fares are so raised, they must be submitted for the approval of the Railway Executive Committee; and, if not, will he consider that these railway companies should submit and justify such increases to the Board of Trade before they are charged to the public?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle):I have seen the statements to which I presume the hon. Gentleman refers. Any general revision of fares on controlled railways is a matter in which the Government are directly interested, and would be consulted, but the tube railways are not controlled, and the Board of Trade have no power to prevent them from altering their fares within the authorised limits.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Do I understand that there are no statutory fixed fares with regard to the Tubes, and that it will not be necessary to come before this House or the Board of Trade?
    Mr. WARDLE: There is a statutory limit, but within that limit they have power to raise them.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the hon. Member say what is that limit?
    Mr. WARDLE: Not without notice.

    WASTE PAPER (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked whether a large quantity of waste paper is exported from Ireland to be re-manufactured in Great Britain, and then re-imported into Ireland; and whether, in view of this wastage of tonnage, time, and money, he will arrange that the waste paper shall be supplied to Irish mills, and that, if necessary, arrangements shall be made to equip more paper mills in Ireland?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am informed that the great bulk of the waste paper collected in Ireland is sent to the Irish Mill, and that only a small portion comes to Great Britain. There is no objection to this small surplus going to the Irish Mills if they are able to deal with it.
    Mr. FIELD: If I give the hon. Member particulars, will he arrange that the surplus is sent to Ireland, because his information is contrary to mine?
    Mr. WARDLE: I will do my best.

    MERCHANT SEAMEN.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked when a tangible recognition of the heroism of merchant seamen who go to sea, though having been torpedoed, will be made?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am afraid I cannot say more than that this matter is still under consideration. I regret the delay, but it is really unavoidable.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Board of Trade is sympathetic towards this recognition?
    Mr. WARDLE: I can go so far as to say that we are going to consider it to-morrow.

    NON-EDIBLE OILS.
    Sir GEORGE TOUCHEasked if the use of non-edible oils suitable for soap making is authorised for the manufacture of linoleum; if such use does not permit of the recovery of the glycerine contents in the same measure as if they were used for soap making; and is he satisfied that the need for supporting the linoleum industry is such that it is more important to satisfy it than to maintain the output of glycerine at the highest point, and to require, as formerly, that all non-edible oils and fats should be devoted to the production of glycerine?
    Mr. WARDLE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Carlisle on the 21st February.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether sufficient stocks exist of linseed oil for use in foodstuffs and in making soap; and whether the latter industry has first claim after the first requirement?
    Mr. PARKER: The limited stocks of linseed oil in the United Kingdom are allocated—first, to foodstuffs; secondly, to the soap and candle manufacturers, who split the oil and pass on the glycerine obtained from it to munition factories. The residual fatty acids are allocated on the following system of priority:

    (1) Soap and candle trades;

    (2) Paint and varnish;

    (3) Linoleum and kindred trades.

    PAPER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. PARTINGTONasked whether on the 20th February information was supplied by him to the Newspaper Proprietors' Association as to the details of the probable importation of paper and paper-making materials to be permitted

    1685
    during the coming twelve months; and, if so, will he say why this information was not also supplied to other interests concerned?
    Mr. WARDLE: The importance of supplying similar information to other interests was fully recognised, but some delay occurred owing to the desire of the Paper Commission that the notification should be accompanied by the new Regulations regarding distribution, which were only ready for issue on 28th February.
    Captain Sir CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether ho is aware that the paper millers who supply provincial newspapers with their paper have given them notice that next month and thereafter the supply to them of paper will be only two-thirds of their present supply or less than half their pre-war supply; and, if so, whether, in view of the value of the provincial Press in making clear war aims, promoting the increased production of food and the loan of money to the Government for the conduct of the War, and generally in fostering patriotic feeling and activity, he will take steps to curtail the waste of paper in other directions before compelling such newspapers, through insufficiency of paper, to cease publication?
    Mr. WARDLE: The Paper Commission are doing all in their power to curtail and check the waste of paper, and they are taking steps by the collection and distribution of waste to afford some relief in the scarcity which is inevitable under the present necessity of restricting imports.
    Sir C. BATHURST: In the interests of the freedom and usefulness of the Press could not the wrapping of parcels, in dry weather, except in specified cases, be compulsorily discontinued?
    Mr. WARDLE: The whole question of paper and paper control is now being reconsidered, with a view to seeing if some more drastic alterations can be made.
    Mr. PETO: Will the hon. Member see in this reconsideration that the demands of the provincial Press have special consideration, in view of the fact that they do not require anything like the quantity of paper the daily organs do to convey the same amount of news and information?
    Mr. WARDLE: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is every desire on the part of the Commission to see that the provincial Press is not handicapped.
    Mr. WING: Will the hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Commission to the great waste of paper on our hoardings, advertising things of which we are supposed to be short?
    Mr. WARDLE: As I have already indicated, the whole question is under consideration, and I hope that some very drastic changes will take place.
    Sir C KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the hon. Member's reply apply to the waste of paper in public Departments?
    Mr. WARDLE: It applies to the waste of paper everywhere.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the lack of success which has attended the efforts of the Paper Commission in some aspects of its work; and whether he will consider the desirability of the creation of a Paper Controller, with an Advisory Committee to help him; and ensure that representatives of the actual users of paper other than newspaper proprietors and printers are represented on this Advisory Committee?
    Mr. WARDLE: My right hon. Friend will bear in mind the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

    MATCHES (SCARCITY).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the scarcity of matches in some parts of Kent and that in Swanscombe the small shopkeepers and general stores cannot get matches to supply their customers; and will he say what steps will be taken to meet this deficiency?
    Mr. WARDLE: Whilst it is well known that there is a scarcity of matches throughout England owing to the prohibition of the import of foreign matches, it is also a fact that the county of Kent has received supplies of matches in excess of the quantity estimated to be necessary for the requirements of the normal population.
    During the week which ended 23rd February, for instance, 589,000 boxes of matches were sent into Kent for a population estimated at 750,000. This would be

    1687
    equal to thirty-eight matches a week for each man, woman, and child in Kent, Retail dealers should, therefore, not experience any great difficulty in obtaining their supplies.
    No complaints have been received by the Tobacco and Matches Control Board as to any shortage of matches in that county, and if any retailer is unable to obtain his fair share of supplies he should communicate with that Board.

    ENEMY BUSINESSES.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether of the 718 interned enemy subjects engaged in business here and re ported to the Board only 51 were wound up; and how many are still being carried on?
    Mr. WARDLE: As stated in my answer on the 18th of last month to the question asked by the hon. Member, the number on the interned list supplied by the Home Office was 423, not 718; while the number on the exempted list was 295, making a total of 718 cases, which is the number referred to by the hon. Member.
    Of these cases 51 businesses have, as stated in my previous answer, been ordered to be wound up. It is quite impossible to say how many of the remaining businesses are being carried on. A great many of them were of trifling importance, such as bakers, barbers, etc., in regard to which inquiries were not considered necessary.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: As this House has directed that these businesses should be wound up, will he consider the necessity of winding them up, whether they are large or small?
    Mr. WARDLE: The hon. Member himself, in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill dealing with this subject, said that in the case of small businesses of this character it would not be necessary to wind them up.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that the hon. Member studies my speeches too carefully.

    COMPANIES ACT (REGISTRATION).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether under the Companies (Particulars as to Directors) Act, 1917, and the operation of
    1688
    various other Acts the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown is to the effect that companies must register not merely the names of the directors but the names of every other company of which they are directors; whether this obligation was unforeseen when the Act was being passed; whether he is aware that it is causing inconvenience in financial circles; and whether he can see his way to ask the Registrar to waive such particulars, pending the decision in a test case, or whether he will bring in a short Bill to remedy the grievance?
    Mr. WARDLE: The advice given by the Law Officers of the Crown as to the interpretation of the Companies (Particulars as to Directors) Act, 1917. is to the effect stated by my hon. Friend. The Board of Trade have no jurisdiction to waive the requirements of the Act, but I will ask the Committee recently appointed to consider amendments in the Companies Acts to advise whether any alteration of the law would be expedient.

    RAILWAY TRAFFIC (CONGESTION).
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it is a month since the railway company accepted goods in Dunfermline and district for London; that, in consequence, there is a great accumulation of goods throughout Fife, both for civil trade and Government Departments, in the way of war supplies; that, in view of the extra cost of yarns and other materials necessitating the use of larger capital, the manufacturers will be faced with financial difficulties if they cannot deliver their goods; and whether he will make immediate inquiries into the matter with a view to an early remedy for the present congestion?
    Mr. WARDLE: Inquiries are being made in this matter, and I hope to be able to let the hon. Gentleman know the result shortly. As, however, he is aware, some delay to ordinary traffic cannot always be avoided in the present circumstances of railway transport.

    CENTRAL AFRICA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to give the Netherlands Government an assurance that Great Britain will favourably consider any invitation to attend a Conference of the Signatories of

    1689
    the Berlin and Brussels Acts summoned to consider a provisional settlement of Central African problems?
    The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): We have never been asked for any such assurance.
    Mr. KING: If the Government were asked, would they favourably consider such an invitation?
    Mr. BALFOUR: We will wait until that event occurs.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that in the early days of the War representations were made by Spain to this Government with regard to this matter, and that this Government refused to listen to that appeal?
    Mr. BALFOUR: No, I am not aware of that fact.

    PEACE PROPOSALS (COUNT HERTLING'S STATEMENT).
    Mr. DAVID MASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of Count Hertling's statement that we should be much nearer peace if proper responsible representatives of the belligerent Powers would meet in conclave for a discussion, His Majesty's Government will take steps to bring about such a conclave?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to the observations which I made on this subject last Wednesday.
    Mr. MASON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if such a conference were arranged it would lead to the common ground of agreement which he desires?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have dealt with that point.

    DALMATIA.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the American Minister in Sofia to the effect that the American Government had let it be understood that it would not countenance Italy's claim to Dalmatia; whether, to his knowledge, this statement voices the opinion of the American Government; and whether it meets with the approval of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The American Minister in Sofia is alleged to have made such a statement in a Press interview, but I am unaware whether the allegation is correct.

    RUSSIA AND GERMANY.
    Colonel W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make any statement in regard to the peace conditions made between Russia and Germany in the name of Lenin and Trotsky; if he is in a position to say the amount of Russian territory that is under German control; and if he can state the number of towns that are in the hands of the Germans and the number of the population they represent?
    Mr. BALFOUR: My information on these questions does not go beyond what has appeared in the Press.

    SIR CECIL SPRING RICE (OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS).
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to whom all official documents in the possession of Sir Cecil Spring Rice at the time of his death were handed; and whether it is proposed to appoint a new British Ambassador in his place?
    Mr. BALFOUR: All official documents remain in the archives of His Majesty's Embassy. Lord Reading is at present His Majesty's Ambassador on special mission to the United States of America.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether Sir Cecil Spring Rice was bringing any papers back to England with him, and, if so, whether they are in America or in this country?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Of course, they are in America.

    PRESIDENT WILSON.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether there have been communicated to President Wilson copies of all treaties, whether secret or public, and memoranda of all other agreements or undertakings to which this country has become a party since 4th August, 1914; and, if not, whether copies of all such documents will be handed to the American Ambassador in London?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Member may rest assured that President Wilson is kept fully informed by the Allies.

    MARSHALL ISLANDS.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether at the time of the taking of the Marshall Islands the Japanese Government gave an undertaking to hand them over to the Commonwealth of Australia; whether he is aware of the apprehension that has been aroused in Australia by the immigration of a number of Japanese to the islands; and whether any representations have been made on the subject?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The two last parts should, if asked at all, be addressed to the Colonial Office.

    ASIATIC RUSSIA.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether his attention has been drawn to statements in French newspapers to the effect that if the Allies do not give Japan a free hand to occupy Russian territory that country may join the enemy; in view of the effect that such statements are calculated to have upon Australian troops, will he make representations to the French Government on the subject; (2) whether his attention has been drawn to the endeavours of British and French speculators to secure the seizure of Russian territory by Japan and effect the crushing of the Revolution by Japanese Armies; in view of the fact that any such attempt would cause the Russian people to seek security from Asiatic invasion by alliance with Germany, will the Government take prompt steps to discountenance this propaganda; the Prime Minister (3) whether his attention has been drawn to the agitation in this country and France demanding the seizure of Russian territory by Japan in the interest of speculators whose schemes of exploitation have been affected by the restoration of the land of Russia to the Russian people; and can. he say whether this campaign is part of the propaganda of Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Northcliffe?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I will deal with these three questions together. I fear I am not
    1692
    at present in a position to say anything with regard to the situation in Asiatic Russia beyond that it is receiving the closest attention from His Majesty's Government.
    I should add that many of the implied statements of fact contained in these questions have not the slightest foundation.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French journals are taking it for granted that Japan will join the enemy if not given a free hand in Siberia, and can he give a denial to these statements, considering the effect that they must have upon the people of Australia?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has quite as full opportunities of reading the French papers as I have.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I have an opportunity of reading them, but I was asking whether you would take steps to contradict these statements. May I further ask whether the lands in Siberia have not been handed over to the peasants, and whether any action by Japan would not mean the dispossession of the peasantry?

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    POULTRY KEEPING (BUCKWHEAT SEED).
    Mr. A. K. LOYDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will consider the possibility of obtaining and making available for poultry keepers a supply of buckwheat seed?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): The amount of seed available in this country is very small, but I shall give effect to the hon. Member's suggestion and endeavour to secure the importation of a further supply.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that he is anxious to encourage poultry keeping rather than no discourage it, and is he aware that a vast amount of this industry is being stamped out by the Government methods?
    Mr. PROTHERO: We are very anxious to encourage poultry keeping to the utmost extent provided that economy is exercised in the use of grain

    POTATOES.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is in a position to make a definite statement as to whether farmers will or will not be allowed to retain for the purpose of feeding cattle, horses, and pigs any specified proportion of the potatoes they themselves produce?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. There is nothing in the existing Orders relating to potatoes which prevents a farmer from feeding his own potatoes to his own livestock, and there is no intention of introducing any such prohibition.
    Sir C. BATHURST: I should like to know if that answer applies similarly to beans, peas, parsnips, and other crops?
    Mr. PARKER: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that is covered by the answer to his own question.
    Major BOWDEN: What happens when a man can buy the food and has the pigs, but when the Ministry of National Service or whoever is responsible takes him for military service instead of leaving him to provide tons of meat for the people?
    Mr. PARKER: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.
    Sir C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is proposing to make the spraying of potatoes this year compulsory as a precaution against fungoid disease; and whether steps are being taken to secure this year a sufficiency of sprayers and spraying material for this purpose?
    Mr. PROTHERO: In reply, I would refer my hon. Friend to the detailed answer given to the hon. Member for the Tiverton Division on 30th January last.
    Sir C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, seeing that potatoes are the most dependable of all home-grown breadstuffs in an emergency, and that they can be grown in nearly all soils and climates, and by every class of land cultivators, he is making arrangements for the planting of a definite and exceptionally large area of land with this crop in the present year; and whether he already has reason to suppose that the area to be planted with this crop in 1918 will exceed that so planted in 1917, and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. PROTHERO: The Board, in conjunction with the Ministry of Food, are urging the largest possible increase in the area devoted to potatoes, but it is impossible at present to say whether the area planted will exceed that of last year.
    Sir C. BATHURST: Could not the War Agricultural Committee be urged to earmark a definite area in each county for the production of potatoes, so as to provide against the possibility of a disastrously bad corn harvest?
    Mr. PROTHERO: The point is a difficult one, inasmuch as the potato crop is itself a precarious one, and the amount of labour required for handling that crop is much larger than that required for the corn crop, but I can only repeat that we are endeavouring by every possible means to increase the supply of potatoes.

    STORE CATTLE.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is in a position to state definitely whether the prices will or will not be fixed for store cattle; and, if so, when an Order will be issued in order to enable farmers to know where they stand?
    Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply. Acting upon the advice of the Board of Agriculture and of a Subcommittee of the Central Advisory Committee on Live Stock and Meat Supplies, Lord Rhondda has decided not to fix maximum prices for store cattle. Since the basis of maximum prices for fat cattle will not be altered during the current year, it is felt that there will be no inducement to farmers to pay inflated prices for stores. I may, however, point out that any inflation of the prices of store cattle which may hereafter take place will not be considered a valid reason for an increase in maximum prices for fat cattle.

    AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what arrangements are being made to supply farmers with agricultural implements, such as reapers and binders, necessary to enable them to harvest the grain crops on the increased arable acreage?
    Mr. PROTHERO: In reply, I beg leave to refer my hon. Friend to a reply given to the hon. Member for North Sussex on

    1695
    the 31st January. The number of Government reapers on order or delivered is now 6,100.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of these reapers is about double the pre-war price, and will any opportunity be taken to reduce the price?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I am afraid that we cannot control the increase in prices. Everything has gone up so much that it is impossible to control them.

    PIGS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will instruct county agricultural committees to use their utmost influence to induce all cottagers and other persons having styes to keep pigs, and thereby quickly add to the national supply of food?
    Mr. PROTHERO: The course suggested by my hon. Friend has already been adopted as part of a wider scheme for encouraging the keeping of pigs.
    Sir C. BATHURST: Could not an attempt be made to fill every empty pig-sty in the Kingdom, and form pig clubs with this object in every village?
    Mr. PROTHERO: There are pig clubs being formed already as fast as we can do it in the villages, but whether you can fill all the ordinary pig-styes in the country depends in a great measure upon the sows in the country.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's answer to Question No. 30 also applies to Question No. 33, that is to say, whether cottagers will be able to do the same as small farmers?
    Mr. G. FABER: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to write to the Local Government Board to the effect that no impediment, sanitary or otherwise, than is absolutely necessary, should be put in the way of pig-keeping by small cottagers?
    Mr. BILLING: Are steps being taken to ensure that these pigs will be able to be fed before people are encouraged to keep them?
    Mr. PROTHERO: With regard to the question of the local by-laws, to which the
    1696
    hon. Member alluded, I do not think there is any real practical difficulty in rural districts, and we are endeavouring to get them modified in urban rural districts where they are of a more stringent nature. Obviously, if a man keeps pigs, he will be all right, because no man minds the smell of his own pig.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of farmers being fined for feeding pigs with barley when it is still used for brewing purposes?
    Sir C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) whether, if cottagers and allotment holders grow food of any description in their gardens or allotments on purpose for their pigs, he can give an assurance that under no circumstances will they be prevented from feeding their pigs with such food or be deprived of the pig meat so produced; (2) whether, if a farmer, in addition to his allotted acreage for the production of human food, sets apart a special area of his farm land and plants it with potatoes, parsnips, or leguminous crops with the deliberate object of feeding his pigs, he can count on retaining such crops for this purpose, or whether, if sound, he will run the risk of their being commandeered as human food?
    Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply. The Food Controller, in conjunction with the three Departments of Agriculture, is engaged in considering these matters, and it is hoped to make a definite announcement at an early date. I may point out that the grower of potatoes is in any case entitled to retain whatever part of his crop he requires for consumption on his own farm, whether by pigs or other live-stock, or for human food.
    Sir C. BATHURST: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the lack of definite statements on these matters, the patriotic activity of a large number of small cultivators is being suspended, and therefore a very large amount of available human food will be lost to the country next winter?
    Mr. PARKER: I can only reply, following what I have given as the official reply, that this matter is being considered by the Food Controller and the three Departments of Agriculture concerned. As soon as the announcement is made the hon. and gallant Gentleman will get his information.

    HARVESTING IMPLEMENTS (LABOUR).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what arrangements are being made to supply the increased number of wheelwrights, shoeing-smiths, implement repairers, and harness makers necessary to ensure the proper harvesting of crops from the increased arable acreage?
    Mr. PROTHERO: Arrangements are made with the Labour Priority Committee of the Ministry of National Service for the supply of skilled men of these classes for the purpose of dealing with the present season's cultivation and crops. Arrangements have been already made or are in progress for increasing the supply of rural handycraftsmen from interned aliens and prisoners of war.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of conferring with the Ministry of National Service as to further instructions being sent out to tribunals, in view of the increased need of such workmen at home, even when eligible for military service?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I will make that representation.

    PASTURE LANDS (PLOUGHING).
    Sir C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state, for the information of those farmers who have very heavy, badly- drained old pasture which their county war agricultural committees have decided must be ploughed up for seeding during the coming spring, what right of appeal, if any, they have against such a decision if based on insufficient know ledge or an excess of imprudent patriotic zeal?
    Mr. PROTHERO: There is no appeal from the decisions of the county agricultural executive committees, but those committees are always ready to consider any objections to the ploughing up of particular fields which may have been scheduled, and the Board are satisfied that the practical men on those committees, with their knowledge of the local circumstances, form the best tribunal available in the present emergency.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Is it not a fact that the sanction of the Board itself is required before the decision of the county war
    1698
    agricultural committee is of necessity acted upon; and is not that, in effect, an appeal to the Board in exceptional cases?
    Mr. PROTHERO: No, Sir; that is not the case. No sanction is required for these Orders. In certain cases of difficulty the executive committee have themselves referred the cases to the Board, and in those cases we have exercised the powers of appeal.

    SMALL ALLOTMENT HOLDERS.
    Colonel THORNEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware of the discontent in the minds of the small allotment holders in the various parts of the country on account of having no permanency of tenure for their allotments; and whether the Government intend passing through the House a one-Clause Bill to give them the absolute protection they desire?
    Mr. PROTHERO: The Government are aware of the feeling on this subject, but, in view of the fact that much of the land now used as allotments will be required for building purposes after the War, it is impracticable to guarantee permanence of tenure. Allotment holders can, however, in the great majority of cases, rely upon retaining their plots for a sufficient period to enable them to obtain an adequate return for their labour and expenditure, and the Board have made provision for payment of compensation to occupiers of land taken under the Cultivation of Lands Order, 1917 (No. 2), who may have to be disturbed before the end of the present year. The whole position in respect of allotments is being carefully considered by the Government.
    Colonel THORNE: Do I understand from that reply that we are to go back to the old silly conditions after the War is over, and are to rely on the food products from other parts of the world?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I very much hope that we shall not.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer apply to land which is being sold, not for building purposes, to those who already have large holdings, and have allotments been sold to those who already have large holdings?
    Mr. PROTHERO: In those cases I presume that the allotment holder would have a right to compensation against either the vendor or the purchaser.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in villages situated in large parks no allotments are available, and in these circumstances can he say what a man is to do who wishes to obtain an allotment, but cannot get the owners of the surrounding ground to grant one?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I am not aware of any instances where villages are situated in the middle of large parks.
    Mr. BILLING: What action is a man to take if he is in a park district and cannot obtain allotment ground?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Is the compensation for these unexhausted improvements to be paid by the taxpayers or by the landlords who are getting building site prices for the land?
    Mr. PROTHERO: They will be paid for by the Board of Agriculture, and therefore by the taxpayers.

    FISH.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his Department estimate the increased demand for fish due to the limited supply of meat at or at more than double normal pre-war demand; what steps have been taken to increase the supply in proportion; and whether he anticipates that during the summer the supply will be equal to the demand?
    Mr. PROTHERO: It is impossible at this stage to forecast the increased demand for fish due to the shortage and rationing of other foods. I cannot within the limits of a Parliamentary question, state in detail the action by the Board to stimulate the production of fish. I shall be happy to send my hon. Friend, if he wishes it, a full Memorandum on the subject. With the material in men and boats now available, it is, in my opinion, impossible to increase supplies from our home fisheries to anything like the demand.
    Mr. PETO: In view of the very serious nature of the end of the reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can assure us that his Department, the Food Control Department, and the Admiralty will take the whole of this question into immediate consideration with a view to raising the question of the relative needs of keeping closed large fishing areas which are now
    1700
    closed and of releasing a larger number of our trawlers for immediate work in this summer?
    Mr. PROTHERO: Yes, that shall be considered, but I may be permitted to point out that each trawler engaged in mine-sweeping facilitates the import into this country of many thousands of tons of food, and it is a question whether the trawlers may not be -I do not say they are—more profitably employed from a national point of view as mine-sweepers rather than as fishing vessels.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in the limits of an answer to a question, what steps have been taken with regard to fresh-water fish, particularly eels?
    Mr. PROTHERO: That is one of the points I propose to deal with in this Memorandum. We are dealing with it, and I hope to increase the supply.

    AGRICULTURAL WORK (HOME-SERVICE TROOPS).
    Colonel THORNEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any arrangements are being made to get Home-service men leave in the various parts of the agricultural centres to help with the agricultural work; and if any arrangements have been made to grant leave to those soldiers who own small plots of land to enable them to cultivate it?
    Mr. PROTHERO: Agricultural furlough not exceeding four weeks may be granted by Commanding Officers of units at home to men required for any kind of farm or market garden work who can be spared from military duty. Under arrangements recently made, the War Office are endeavouring to trace all men below Category A who have had agricultural experience with a view to transferring them to Agricultural Companies for work on the land.

    CATTLE FEEDING-STUFFS.
    Colonel YATEasked whether any compensation which can be determined by the Defence of the Realm Losses Royal Commission in respect of cattle feeding-stuffs taken over by the Food Controller under Section 1 of the Cattle Feeding-stuffs (Requisition) Order, 1918, must be limited, under Regulation 2 B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, to the maximum prices described in the Cattle Feeding Cake and Meal and Millers' Offals (Maximum Prices) Order, dated the 1st November, 1917; and whether any applica-

    1701
    tion made to the Royal Commission for sums based on any higher prices would therefore necessarily be useless?
    Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply. I cannot, of course, anticipate any finding of the Royal Commission, but I am advised that the answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

    COPRA.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether importers of copra have been constrained by the Ministry to receive their supplies through brokers other than their own brokers; and, if so, whether any and, if so, what objection exists to allowing firms to take delivery through brokers they have themselves hitherto employed?
    Mr. PARKER: No objection is made to firms taking delivery of copra through the brokers whom they have formerly employed.

    MANUFACTURE OF ALCOHOL (GRAIN).
    Major DAVID DAVIESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has been in communication with the Foreign Office as to the state of public opinion in the United States regarding the use of grain and foodstuffs in this country for the manufacture of alcohol; and whether he is in a position to state the result of his inquiries?
    Mr. PARKER: The Food Controller is fully informed as to the state of public opinion on this matter in the United States, and is in direct and constant communication with the United States Food Administrator. It may relieve the hon. and gallant Member from any present anxiety if I point out that until further order no fresh grain will be converted into malt for the brewing of beer.

    LONDON RATIONING SCHEME.
    Major NEWMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is satisfied with the working of the card-ration system on its first week of trial; whether the glut of poultry, rabbits, and meat which occurred during the first days that the system was on trial was relieved by a week-end presentation of coupons; and, as a result, has he been able to ascertain if butchers and poultry dealers were able to dispose of the supplies they had for sale and were not left with such perishable goods on their hands?
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
    1702
    Food whether, owing to the inadequate meat rations allowed to the civil population and the reluctance to use meat tickets, large surplus quantities of fresh and other meat were available at the end of the week in London; and, if so, what steps he means to take to avoid waste and adjust the supply to the actual demand?
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that tradesmen are not allowed to sell tinned or potted meats except on the same terms as fresh meat— that is to say, such meat as is rationed; and if he sees his way to allow tradesmen to sell their present stock of such tinned or potted meats freely, seeing that these meats are spoiling and their manifest presence in shops is not conducive to real economy or to the satisfaction of the ordinary purchaser?
    Mr. PARKER: The Food Controller regards the first week's working of the London rationing scheme as in the main satisfactory. Food control committees were authorised to allow the sale of meat without the presentation of coupons in any case in which perishable supplies were in danger of being wasted. As far as reports have yet been received, this arrangement substantially met the needs of the situation last week.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on Saturday in a large number of butchers' shops hundreds of pounds of offal had to be kept over until Monday, and were practically of no use whatever?
    Mr. PARKER: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Was any preference in regard to the purchase of the offal given to hotels and restaurants, and, if so, why?
    Mr. PARKER: I do not think so, but I think that there were some hotels and restaurants that had a stock and they were allowed to use it rather than that it should be wasted.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that private persons were unable to use their coupons for offal at all on Saturday?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many butchers, owing to the bad distribution of meat, were unable to supply customers, while others had a surplus?
    Mr. PARKER: I am aware that in some districts of London butchers did not receive the usual quantity that they should have received, but I will make inquiries on this particular point.
    Mr. LOUGH: Will my hon. Friend suggest to the Ministry that they should see that surplus food which may be sold without a coupon should be advertised so that the public may know that they can get that food?
    Mr. PARKER: I do not think that it will be continued in future. It was only to prevent waste on this occasion.

    FOOD PRICES (IRELAND).
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the representatives of the Irish Food Control Committee who attended the Pig Fair at Roscommon on Tuesday had any power to regulate the price of the animals; whether he attended merely to enforce the uneconomic price fixed in London; and, having regard to the difficulties the police experienced in saving his life and the action which has been taken in Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland, he can announce that the Food Ministry here will now desist from the effort to obtain from Ireland beef, bacon, and butter, her principal agricultural products so much needed by the people, at prices which have been placed at figures so low as to be unremunerative to the producer?
    Mr. PARKER: The representative of the Irish Food Control Committee who attended the Pig Fair at Roscommon on 26th February had no power to regulate the prices of the pigs sold at the fair, nor did he attempt to do so, his duty being to see that the maximum prices prescribed by the Food Controller for live pigs and for pork were not exceeded. I cannot agree that the prices fixed for the various articles of agricultural produce specified in the question are unremunerative to the producer.

    BACON CURERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that complaints have been made by the principal firms of bacon curers in Ireland that a sufficient number of live swine are not apportioned to them to enable them to keep their works going; and whether, in view of the saving in tonnage, the displacement of labour, and the
    1704
    economy of transit, it will be arranged that the usual ratio of supply of live pigs will be secured to the Irish bacon curers?
    Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Order relating to the control of Irish pigs provides for the licensing and registration of all buyers of pigs in Ireland after 1st March. Supplies will be allocated to registered buyers on the basis of a period of normal trade.

    TEA.
    Mr. GALBRAITHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that in the Circular M.G. Tea 1, just issued for the guidance of food control committees, certain wholesale tea dealers are mentioned by name as supplying retailers with packet teas, while one firm, namely, the Co-operative Whole sale Society, Limited, located in London, whose operations in packet teas are larger in the aggregate than of all the firms mentioned in the circular, is omitted; whether there is any special reason for the omission of this information which should be of importance to food control committees; and whether the circular in question, M.G. Tea 1, has received the approval of the Consumers' Council?
    Mr. PARKER: The circular to which the hon. Member refers was issued for the guidance of food control committees, and the firms in question were mentioned merely by way of illustration. Food control committees do not purchase tea, and there was, therefore, nothing in the nature of a suggestion that tea should be obtained from those firms. The circular was not submitted to the Consumers' Council as the matter was not of the kind usually referred to it

    FOOD ORDERS
    Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can say how many Orders have been issued by his Department since its institution; whether any copy of such Orders can be seen by the public at the office of his Department; if not there, where can such be seen; is he aware that members of the public are informed by his Department that they can buy copies of the Orders at certain printers' places and that that is the only method of becoming cognisant of the many Orders issued by it; is he aware that judges throughout the country are openly

    1705
    expressing their inability to master all the Orders of the Food Controller and that the general public are in daily fear of unwittingly infringing some Order and being heavily fined or even imprisoned; and will ho take some method of tabulating the many Orders so that lawyers at any rate may know what the law is?
    Mr. PARKER: Down to the end of January, 1918, 232 Statutory Orders had been issued by the Food Controller, of which 182 were then in force. A new Manual of Emergency Legislation, comprising the full text of these Orders, will be published in the course of this week, and new editions of this manual will be issued every three months and placed on sale. All Orders of the Food Controller are issued through the Press Bureau to the principal London and provincial newspapers, and they are accompanied by a Press notice which states the purport and effect of each Order in a popular form. Orders affecting particular trades are in some cases necessarily complicated, but care has always been taken to make any Order affecting the general public as simple as possible, and to give it the utmost publicity.

    FOOD HOARDING.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked what are the returns, in cash and in kind, from the week of repentance and restoration?
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the scheme of the Ministry for granting a period of seven days' grace to all hoarders of food in this country has proved a success; whether he will say the approximate quantity of each form of of food which has been surrendered; whether this includes the food which has been presented to hospitals during that, period, anonymously or otherwise; and whether he will undertake that all persons who refused to avail themselves of this opportunity of surrendering their hoards, if convicted for hoarding in the future, shall receive a sentence of a nature infinitely more severe than the convictions prior to the introduction of this scheme?
    Mr. PARKER: There is every indication that the scheme for granting seven days' grace has proved a success, but sufficient returns from the local committees have not yet been rendered to enable me to state even approximately the amount of food surrendered. I am informed that a
    1706
    large quantity of food was presented anonymously to hospitals and other institutions. As to the last part of the question, in all hoarding cases which have occurred since the amnesty period, instructions have been given to press for severe penalties.
    Mr. BILLING: Directly these returns are available, will the hon. Gentleman publish them?
    Mr. PARKER: I will report that matter. Up to the present there are only four of the five returns.

  AGRICULTURAL LAROURERS' WAGES (WESTERN DISTRICTS).
  Colonel THORNEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware of the discontent in the minds of agricultural labourers in Minehead and adjacent villages in Somerset because there has been no district wage board set up under the Corn Production Act, 1917, for adjusting and fixing the wages of agricultural labourers; if he is aware of the number of farm labourers in the Western districts that are not being paid the minimum of 25s. per week, in accordance with the Corn Production Act, 1917; and if he will take action in the matter?
  Mr. PROTHERO: The Agricultural Wages Board hope to establish the district wages committee for Somerset in the course of the next few days. The delay is due to the difficulty of finding suitable persons who are willing to serve. No information has reached me indicating that there is such discontent as is suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, but if he can furnish me with any instances of insufficient wages being paid to agricultural labourers I will have them investigated.
  Mr. WATT: Will those wages be retrospective when the decision is given?
  Mr. PROTHERO: Oh, certainly!

  MUNITIONS.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (ENGINEERS' WAGES).
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Minister of Munitions if his attention has been drawn to a letter published by Mr. Thomas Henley, a member of the New South Wales Parliament, received by him from a young Australian engineer who has

    1707
    been working at Woolwich Arsenal from November, 1916, until a recent date; is he aware that this young man gives particulars of men drawing £6 to £8 per week who did not do ten minutes' work in the hour, and that in the carriage inspection department they were supposed to work on Sunday and got double time, but the majority came and got into corners and played cards all day long and never lifted a hammer to do any work, though there was plenty of work for them to do, and at any time during the day you could go to the canteens and find them smoking and drinking tea; is he aware that this young man alleges that the Amalgamated Society of Engineers' officials were well aware of the practices and did nothing to discourage their members in wasting their time; and will he cause investigations to be made and, if the allegations are found true, deal out suitable punishment to those responsible and make it impossible for such a condition of things to continue?
    Mr. PETOasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to a letter from an Australian engineer employed at Woolwich Arsenal and made public on the 23rd February by a member of the New South Wales Parliament; whether it accurately describes the rate of work given by members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers engaged on munitions paid at the rate of £6 to £30 per week on piece-work; and whether any steps have been taken or are contemplated to effect any improvement?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to the letter referred to in the questions. It is difficult to test statements of this nature unless the details are reported at the time of their occurrence, but an inquiry as searching as is possible is now proceeding. I am already in a position to state that most of the allegations in the letter are either without foundation or grossly exaggerated. As soon as the inquiry is complete I will ask my hon. Friend to put down another question, when the result will be communicated to the House. I may state that my right hon. Friend some weeks ago instituted a special inquiry into the use of labour at Woolwich. That report has just been completed and is under consideration. Should my right hon. Friend be satisfied from that report,
    1708
    and from the result of the further investigation which he is having made, that the conditions of work at Woolwich Arsenal are not satisfactory, he will not hesitate to make such changes as are called for.
    Mr. D. WHITE: In this investigation will the Department call on this young Australian engineer to give evidence?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: We shall be exceedingly glad to have the opportunity of securing his evidence.
    Mr. THOMAS: Will an opportunity be given for some representative of the workers to be present at. the inquiry, and is a letter of this kind submitted to the Censor, having regard to the importance of statements of the kind and the harm they are likely to do if they are not true?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: On the question of the censorship I am not in a position to say whether the letter was in fact submitted, or should have been, but since it appeared two others have appeared in the "Times," which show that there is good ground for very carefully examining the statements made.

    EXPLOSIVES (WAGES OF WORKERS).
    Colonel THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that about fifty members of the National Union of General Workers employed at a dye works making high explosives are not paid the full trade union rates; if he is aware that when the trade union official made an application for the 6s. 6d. that was being paid less than the proper rates the firm in question gave the men and women fourteen days' notice; and if he will take action in the matter?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The only complaint received by the Department respecting the firm in question related to the nonpayment of bonuses under certain awards. Inquiry was made into those complaints, when it was found that the awards did not, in fact, apply; that the firm was no longer engaged on Government work, and that it was about to close down.

    CONSOLIDATED ORDER.
    Colonel THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that the men and women organised workers of this country have entered a protest on more than one occasion against the length of delay in the issuing of the Consolidated

    1709
    Order which has been in hand since the 1st June, 1917; and if he can state when it is the intention of his Department to have the Order in question issued?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: A preparation of this Order has required the fullest consultation with all interested parties and this has necessarily taken a considerable time. A final draft has now been prepared and the Order will be issued as soon as it has been agreed by other Government Departments concerned.

    DISMISSAL OF WORKERS.
    Colonel THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that at a large munition factory in Essex 3,500 young men and women have received notices to leave their employment; if he is aware that the workpeople belong to the National Union of General Workers; if he is aware that in an institute adjacent to the works a large meeting was held protesting against their dismissal, and demanded that other employment should be found for them; if he is aware that when about a thousand women and girls were dismissed at Park Royal Munition Factory, London, the Ministry of Munitions agreed to give the women a free railway warrant to their homes, and paid them 25s. per week for four weeks in the event of them not being able to obtain any employment; and if he will take action in the matter?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Owing to certain necessary modifications in the munitions programme it had been decided to close entirely a munitions factory in Essex, where something over 3,000 men and women were employed. Of the total staff approximately 500 have already been discharged, of whom practically all the men and a large proportion of the women have already been found employment. The Minister is aware that women and girls dismissed from the Perivale Filling Factory received a free railway warrant to their homes and 25s. per week for four weeks. As was stated at the time, this payment was due to the exceptional circumstances of the case and was not to be regarded as a precedent.
    Colonel THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in the event of a very large number of women and girls being discharged from the munition factories, who have come from all parts of the country, he can see his way to give them
    1710
    a free warrant back to their homes and not allow them to be stranded in the streets?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I made that announcement last week. The Government have decided to pay the railway fares.
    Colonel THORNE: And a month's pay?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: As I have said in my answer. The precedent quoted by the hon. Member was due to the exceptional circumstances of the case. As to the action that will be taken in future on any large number of discharges being necessary, a decision has not yet been come to by the Government.
    Colonel THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether any management of any firm engaged on munitions of war, controlled, have power to give their employés notice to leave their employment without first getting sanction from the Ministry of Munitions?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: No sanction on the part of the Ministry of Munitions is required to enable either controlled or uncontrolled establishments engaged on munitions work to give notice to their employés to leave their employment, but Section 3 of the Munitions of War Act, 1917, provides for a minimum notice of a week, except in cases of misconduct justifying summary dismissal.
    Colonel THORNE: Are we to understand that any firm under control, making munitions, can shut down by giving a week's notice to their employés?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: It is within the power of an employer to dismiss his workpeople on a week's notice, and I do not think my hon. Friend would care for a rule to be made requiring notice to be given only with the sanction of the Ministry. That would be a very incorrect provision.

    NEW WORKS.
    Mr. KINGasked the total estimate for works being undertaken at a certain place, the name of which has been privately given; how much of this is for buildings; how much is for land and for other charges; whether these works are to be permanent or temporary; whether he is aware that persons in the locality consider that the nature of the foundations and other circumstances are against the success of these works being probable;

    1711
    whether these difficulties have been considered by any competent and independent civil engineer; and whether any person in the Admiralty or other Government Department is interested, directly or indirectly, in the company whose premises are adjoining?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Worthington Evans): The total estimated cost of the buildings, in which the Ministry of Munitions is interested, is £100,000. These buildings are intended to be of a permanent nature. The land has been taken under the Defence of the Realm Act and the price has not yet been settled. I am aware that certain persons in the locality have expressed doubts with regard to the suitability of the site and the nature of the foundations. The works are being carried out to a design prepared by His Majesty's Office of Works, and I am informed that none of the difficulties referred to in my hon. Friend's question have been experienced up to the present or are anticipated. So far as I am aware the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    HOUSING (DARTFORD AND ERITH).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that eviction of the working classes is still taking place in the Dartford area and that these people are mainly munition workers; and, in order to prevent this continuing, will Regulation 2A of the Defence of the Realm Act be applied to the area?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: A full investigation has now been made, and it has been decided that the urban district of Erith and the urban and rural districts of Dartford should be declared to be special areas for the purposes of Regulation 2A of the Defence of the Realm Regulations.

  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION BUREAUX.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the work which has been and is being performed by the newly-established Government Information Bureaux in distributing necessary and important information to the public on behalf of the various Ministries and Government Departments, the orga-
  1712
  nisers and other officials connected with this work are giving their services gratuitously or are receiving remuneration; if he will state the number of bureaux in London and the expenditure involved by the organisation; and whether, seeing that this Department has been a great success, it is proposed to extend the scheme to the provinces?
  Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The kiosks referred to as the Government Information Bureaux have been erected under the auspices of the National War Aims Committee, and in carrying out the scheme the Committee has had valuable assistance of a voluntary nature. The number of kiosks in London is twenty-five, of which seventeen have been supplied free of all cost by the firms and others who provided the sites. The cost of the remaining eight kiosks is approximately £150, and the cost of running the whole twenty-five is estimated at £42 a month. All the workers are giving their services voluntarily. The scheme is only in its experimental stage in London, and the question of its extension will be considered by the National War Aims Committee in due course. The report to hand from one kiosk for one week shows that publications relating to the following Departments and in the following numbers were asked or and given:

  National War Aims

  …

  …

  2,000

  National Service

  …

  …

  300

  War Savings

  …

  …

  300

  Food

  …

  …

  3,400

  Labour

  …

  …

  Nil

  Pensions

  …

  …

  400

  Reconstruction

  …

  …

  650

  MINERAL OIL
  Admiral of the Fleet Sir HEDWORTH MEUXasked the Prime Minister whether the attention of the Government has been called to the meeting of the Institution of Petroleum Technologists at the Royal Society of Arts, on Tuesday, 19th February, at which meeting it was stated that an immense amount of mineral oil could be produced in this country from cannel coal; whether the Government is aware that many millions of tons of cannel coal, from which an average of at least 35 gallons of oil per ton could easily and speedily be obtained, are now lying neglected on colliery waste heaps; and whether, in view of the necessity of obtaining oil for the Navy

  1713
  and reducing the tonnage now employed in importing oil into this country, the necessary steps for working this source of oil supply will be at once initiated?
  Sir W. EVANS: I have been asked to answer this question. I cannot add anything to the full statement I made in Debate on the 28th ultimo.
  Sir H. MEUX: Arising out of that answer—which is really no answer at all— I asked whether the attention of the Government has been called to the existence of oil in this country which could be got with the aid of the peculiar knowledge of the Royal Society of Arts? I further ask now were you given the severely censored report of these proceedings or the verbatim one?
  Sir W. EVANS: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will do me the kindness to read the remarks I made on the 28th ultimo— I think he was not in the House—he will see that I have answered his question.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Has the recovery of petroleum, urgent last October, ceased to be urgent now?
  Sir H. MEUXasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that since the outbreak of war a German subject, Dr. Ludwig Diehl, was released on a medical certificate, sent back to Germany, and is now working or superintending retorts on Westphalian coalfields to obtain oil; whether, previous to the War, this same Dr. Ludwig Diehl used a retort at Chiswick at which samples of Westphalian coal were satisfactorily tested to produce oil; and whether the proportion of oil thus obtained was greater or less than can be obtained from British cannel coal?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Dr. Ludwig Diehl is a metallurgical chemist who has been mainly occupied with the improvement of processes for the extraction of gold. In accordance with the agreement with the German Government he was allowed to return to Germany in January, 1917, as he was then over fifty-five years of age and suffering from angina pectoris. In March, 1917, he was under treatment in a nursing home in Berlin. I have no information as to his present occupation in Germany nor as to his alleged experiments in this country before the War.
  Sir H. MEUX: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries and find out whether this released German is not now doing for the German Government what our Government refuses to do for the people of this country?
  Sir G. CAVE: I have no means of ascertaining what he is doing in Germany.

  MINISTERS' INVESTMENTS.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will call upon all members of His Majesty's Government to make a statutory declaration as to the investments, if any, which they may hold themselves, or through the medium of a nominee, in any company or trading concern the directors of which are not in all cases British subjects; and whether he will lay the Papers in this connection upon the Table of the House?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some reason for this answer being in the negative, and will he consider the advisability of redeeming all Ministers' investments in foreign securities, out of the Treasury if necessary?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The best reason I can give for the answer I have just given is that I begin by assuming that everyone is honourable until the reverse is proved.

  M. LITVINOFF ("DAILY CHRONICLE" ARTICLES).
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the recent articles in the "Daily Chronicle" supporting the policy of M. Litvinoff; whether he is aware that the editor of the "Daily Chronicle," Mr. Robert Donald, has recently been appointed Director of Propaganda in Neutral Countries; and whether this appointment following Mr. Robert Donald's apparent support of the Bolshevik movement may be taken as an indication that the Government approve of the propaganda work carried out by M. Litvinoff in this country, and consider it

  1715
  in the best interests of the Allied cause that it should be extended to all neutral countries?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The allegations contained in the first part of the question are, in my opinion, entirely without foundation; the latter part does not, therefore, arise.
  Mr. BILLING: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the file of the "Daily Chronicle" since August, 1914, and is he not aware that ever since M. Litvinoff arrived in this country he has been boosted by the "Daily Chronicle," and interviewed, and everything else?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say I have studied the file, but it is one of the papers I have looked at, and, on the whole, I think it has played a very patriotic part throughout the War. Is it not possible that the hon. Member's views are biassed by the recollection of previous articles relating to the hon. Member for East Herts?
  Mr. BILLING: I will, with your permission, Sir, not reply to so disgraceful an observation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this paper has supported M. Litvinoff, and does the Government approve of that, having regard to the fact that they have appointed the editor as their Minister of Propaganda in Neutral Countries? Are we to understand that they wish Bolshevik principles to be preached in neutral countries?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; we differ as to the facts. So far as I have seen the paper has not supported Bolshevism in any shape or form.

  MINISTRY OF PROPAGANDA.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether Lord Beaverbrook and his staff have been installed in the offices of the War Cabinet?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The room which was previously used by Sir Edward Carson is being temporarily occupied by Lord Beaverbrook until other accommodation can be provided, which will be in the course of a few days.
  Mr. BILLING: Is Lard Northcliffe a member of Lord Beaverbrook's staff?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The information is well within the knowledge of the House. He is employed as Director of the Enemy Propaganda Department.
  Mr. BILLING: Under Lord Beaverbrook, or independently?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is Lord Beaverbrook bringing his editor, Herr Blumenfeld with him to this office.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK:Does Lord Beaverbrook occupy these rooms at the invitation of the War Cabinet?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really know nothing more about it than that the room in which the work was done by my right hon. Friend before was unoccupied and no other room was available.
  Mr. FABER: Was the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) a member of the War Cabinet at the time he occupied the room?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly; but I should be very sorry if this Government made it a hard-and-fast rule that a building should not be made use of because it had been previously used by a member of the War Cabinet.
  Mr. THOMAS: Apart from the question of the room, does it imply any change in those who are responsible for naval and military intelligence?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course not. The explanation has already been given. The room was vacant, it was needed, and it was used.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked whether Lord Beaverbrook has or will have any share in or control over the administration of the Admiralty or the War Office in respect of naval or military intelligence?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK:Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the position of Lord Beaverbrook in regard to naval and military intelligence?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not know what my hon. Friend means.
  Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether, considering that the War Aims Committee is engaged in the dissemination of knowledge concerning

  1717
  our own war aims as regards enemy countries, he will reconsider the question of appointing a Director of Propaganda, or some special Committee, for the proper dissemination in this country of the war aims of enemy countries as regards the British Empire?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave my hon. and gallant Friend on the 28th February, except to say that I shall bring his suggestion before the Minister of Information.
  Colonel YATE: Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the lecture given by the Earl of Denbigh the other day, and does he not think that it would be a great advantage to this country if the Government had the Earl of Denbigh as Director of Propaganda in this country, to bring home the aims and objects of our enemies so rapidly and vividly to the people of this country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have heard of the lecture given by the Earl of Denbigh and of the admiration of those who listened to it. Such information should certainly in some way or other be brought to the notice of the people of this country, and, as I have said, I will bring the matter before the Minister of Information.

  CIVILIAN PRISONERS OF WAR (EXCHANGE).
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Home Office has failed to put the civilians of enemy origin interned in this country to any useful purpose, and that they consume a quantity of foodstuffs, the Government will make fresh proposals to the Governments of the Central Powers for an exchange of civilian prisoners?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): This matter is under consideration, but I cannot admit the assumption in the first part of the question.

  FOREIGN OFFICE.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Prime Minister if a day can be given this Session for the Foreign Office Vote; and, if so, whether it can be fixed for an early date in order that this House may be afforded
  1718
  an opportunity for discussing the question of the contemplated reform of the foreign services before any final and definite scheme is deeded upon by the Government?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If there be a general desire for the discussion of this Vote, time will be found for it.

  SHIPPING SALES (ORDER IN COUNCIL).
  Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to an Order in Council, issued on 5th February last, which prohibits the sale of any ship or the shares of any company giving control of a ship to a British subject; and if he will state why it was thought necessary to issue such a prohibition, which in no way adds to the powers of control of shipping abroad possessed over British shipping by the Shipping Controller and which may seriously depreciate the value of British shipping?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Order of 16th February, 1917, with regard to the purchase of ships, as amended on 5th February, 1918, is general in its terms and applies to all classes of ships, British, Allied, and neutral. In the case of British ships the practice has been not to interfere with the course of the transaction except where it appeared, from the particulars which the intending purchaser is required to furnish under the Order, that the transaction would be contrary to the national interest. I am not aware that the Order has had any effect upon the value of British ships.
  Mr. ROCH: Am I to understand that the Order is not to prohibit the sale of shipping shares to British subjects?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: We have no intention of interfering with any bonâ fide transfer. The object is to prevent ships passing under improper control.

  GOVERNMENT AND NEWSPAPERS.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will

  1719
  direct a Return to be made, as asked for by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, as to the members of the present Administration who are financially interested in newspapers and the names of such newspapers?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: After careful consideration, I am not prepared to grant the Return asked for. To ask the members of the Government to give a return of their private investments, apart from any question of management in any particular business, would be to establish an entirely new precedent which I do not think would be desirable.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply a list of subsidies which the Government has paid to the Press to preach their pernicious gospel?

  RUSSIA (ANNULMENT OF LOANS, ETC.).
  Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that. on 26th January, 1918, the All-Russia Congress of Soldiers' and Working Men's Delegates adopted the annulment of State loans, guarantees, and external credits; whether this decision is to be taken as the State repudiation of debts incurred by Russia under the Czarist regime to this country: whether the matter has received the attention of the War Cabinet; and whether he will make a statement on this subject?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. For the rest, I have no statement to make.
  Mr. KING: Is the matter having the attention of the War Cabinet?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would like to have some suggestion from the hon. Member, if he will give me one, as to what use this consideration by the War Cabinet would be at the present stage?
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a communication if I send one to him?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If it is not too long, I will certainly consider it.
  Mr. KING: It shall be very short.

  INCOME TAX CONSOLIDATION.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has expressed his intention to refer the whole question of Income Tax consolidation to a Departmental or Select Committee; whether, instead of this, the Consolidation Bill has been brought into the other House; and whether he intends to pass that Bill this Session or to refer it to such Committee?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Post-War Committee which has been promised is to consider the revision of the Income Tax, and the Consolidation Bill to which he refers has for one of its chief objects the facilitation of the task of revision.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. SHAWasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the dissatisfaction of local pensions committees regarding the existing powers to pay supplementary allowances in respect of rent has how become acute in Scotland, and that certain committees are likely to resign in a body unless more equitable provision is immediately made to meet hard cases; whether he received a deputation of Members of Parliament on the subject last October: and what action has been taken?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): I am aware of the dissatisfaction to which the hon. Member refers, and I am glad to be able to inform him that new rent allowance regulations have been approved and are about to be circulated which I trust will meet the difficulties that have been pointed out Under these regulations local committee will be able to grant allowances for rent and for other contractual obligations up to a maximum of 12s. a week. The old restriction by which supplementary rent allowances could only be given when the rents were over 4s. is abolished.
  Mr. WATT: On what date will this be available?
  Mr. HODGE: I cannot give the exact date, but I hope that it will be soon.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  GRANT TO LADY MAUDE.

    KING'S MESSAGE [28TH FEBRUARY] READ.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to His Majesty, to be issued to Lady Maude in recognition of the eminent services rendered by the late Lieutenant-General Sir Frederick Stanley Maude, K.C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., while commanding His Majesty's Forces during the campaign in Mesopotamia."
    I never submitted a proposal to the House with a greater conviction of its merits and of its claims to acceptance. The services which Sir Stanley Maude rendered to the Empire, notably in Mesopotamia, were distinguished, far-reaching, and permanent in their effect. He found British prestige at a very low ebb in a quarter of the globe where prestige counts for much. The British Army in the East had suffered a series of severe reverses. One great enterprise, on which a good deal of the strength of the Empire had been concentrated, had to be abandoned. One British Army had surrendered to the Turkish forces, after another British Army had been defeated in a series of attempts to relieve it. In Egypt we had a large force sheltering behind the desert and the canal from an inferior Turkish Army.
    This tale of discomfiture and humiliation spread throughout every bazaar in the East, and, like a tree, grew as it spread. Before it ran into irreparable mischief for the Empire, the genius of Sir Stanley Maude had changed and restored the position. I know well how much of this success was due to the reorganisation of the transport service by Sir John Cowans and his able staff, the reorganisation of the medical Service by Sir Alfred Keogh and his assistants, and the reinforcements brought in by Sir William Robertson and Sir Charles Munro. But the enemy also had time to reinforce, and to strengthen his forces. The ground lent itself to
    1748
    entrenchmeents. Those entrenchments were constructed under the advice and direction of German engineers. The Turk was fighting at his best in a climate which suited him, and did not suit us. But against all these obstacles the leadership of Sir Stanley Maude and the valour of his Army triumphed.
    The highest proof of generalship is not so much in the winning of a victory as in its exploitation. No general ever made better or wiser use of his victory than did Sir Stanley Maude. The relentless pursuit of the defeated army, which ultimately destroyed it, and ended in the dramatic capture of Baghdad, sounded throughout the East. These were amongst the finest feats in military history, and they had a magical effect on the fame and position of Britain throughout the whole of the East. The Germans realised it. Sir Stanley Maude's achievements had destroyed their cherished dream. They sent one of their ablest generals there to effect a reconquest, and I do not think it is too much to say that their abandonment of that enterprise was due very largely to their appreciation of the fact, when they came there, that they were confronted by a leader of exceptional resource and power.
    But Sir Stanley Maude s real greatness was displayed in the use which he made of the victory after it had been obtained. He showed as much wisdom as an administrator as he displayed skill as a general. Every great general has a strain of statesmanship, and Sir Stanley Maude exhibited great gifts of statesmanship in his administration of that difficult country. Whilst ruling with a firm hand, he won the esteem and affection of that gifted but suspicious race, not merely by the equity of his rule, but by the intelligent sympathy which he displayed. He possessed that rare tact which is a blend of gentleness and understanding, and the article that appeared in an Arab paper after his death, and which was, I think, reproduced in the British Press last week, is the highest tribute that could have been paid to his great qualities as a governor and a man. He died a victim of the inbred courtesy of his fine character. I heard a story from a member of his staff the other day. Sir Stanley Maude visited a plague-stricken area at the invitation of its inhabitants. They were anxious to extend to him a welcome for the many kindnesses which he had displayed. They gave him a great one,

    1749
    and they offered him a small act of hospitality. Though he so well knew the peril that he had actually forbidden any soldier in his escort to eat or drink while on that visit, he himself ran the risk rather than hurt the susceptibilities of a people anxious to give him a welcome. There was cholera in the cup, and he died within a few days.
    4.0 p.m.
    Sir Stanley Maude will always be remembered as one of the great figures of this War, not merely for what he achieved, but for what he was. I know not what destiny may have in store for the famed land which he conquered, but of two things I am certain. The first is, that the whole course of its history will be changed for the better, as a result of the victory and the rule of Sir Stanley Maude; and the second is, that his name will always be cherished by the inhabitants of that land as that of the gentlest conqueror who ever entered the gates of Bagdad. A few days ago a record of his will appeared in the papers. It was a pathetic document. Had he devoted his great qualities of energy, insight, organisation and industry to his own affairs, he would have amassed a great fortune. He consecrated them all to the service of his country, and he died a poor man. The least the country he served so well— the country for whose services he gave his life—can do is to see that those whom be loved and who depended upon him shall not, at any rate, be left in penury.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to second the Motion, which has been moved in such feeling terms by the Prime Minister. The task would have been undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had he not been, to his great regret, unavoidably prevented from attending the House this afternoon. There is no need for me to stand between the House and the Vote, which I hope will be unanimous in favour of this Motion. Sir Stanley Maude's great services are so recent that they live fresh in the memory of each of us. He found a situation full of anxiety and even of peril, and he converted it into a triumph of organisation and of military achievement. He died in the full tide of victory and glory. In this House we can still do one thing, in the name of the nation, to express our grateful acknowledgment of his most distinguished service, and our deep-felt sympathy with his widow and family.
    1750
    We can pay him this last tribute by our Vote to-day, and with the hope that it will be a unanimous Vote, I beg leave to second the Motion.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I regret to have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in his expectation that the Motion made by the Prime Minister would be unanimously approved by this House. It is a very disagreeable task to have to strike a discordant note upon an occasion like this, but I do so, not on personal grounds, but on broad grounds of public policy. I know little or nothing of the personal qualities or eminent gifts or military achievements of Sir Stanley Maude which have been so eloquently described by the Prime Minister, and I am quite prepared to accept everything that he has just said with regard to them. But that does not effect in the slightest degree the ground for my opposition to this proposal. Even if it were desirable that some provision should be made, I should disagree with the way in which the Government propose to make that provision. The method that they propose is an equivalent of the old pernicious and discredited system of perpetual pensions. It is proposed to give a lump sum of £25,000. That sum will no doubt be invested in the National War Loan, or some other security, and it will bring in perpetuity an income of £l,200 or £1,300 per year. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Therefore, it is a provision made not only for the living dependants of Sir Stanley Maude, but for his descendants also. If it were absolutely necessary to make some provision for the living dependants it might be done by granting an annuity to them during their own lifetime or during the time they were unable to earn their own living or support themselves. But I object altogether to making any grant in a way like this which will be a permanent burden upon the resources of this country. I object, further, to the class distinction in such a proposal as this being introduced. We have, I understand, something over a million pensioners in this country to-day, most of whom are receiving very small allowances indeed. In addition to those who are in receipt of small Government allowances, it is within the knowledge, from their correspondence, of every Member of this House that there are now possibly tens of thousands of men who have suffered

    1751
    physically in this War and families who have been ruined financially, and who are receiving no financial recognition whatever from the Government. I do not think it is fair, and I am quite sure the country will not approve, that the Government should in one particular case grant such a comparatively huge sum as this while leaving so many people whose services may not have been so eminent but who at any rate have done all that they possibly could in the service of the country in the same War. For these two reasons I oppose this Motion, and I oppose it with the certain knowledge and assurance that it would be very much opposed in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no! "]
    Mr. FABER: Will you say so on a public platform?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am quite ready to say so on any public platform. I have already received a considerable number of letters from people living in different parts of the country expressing their strong disapprobation of this proposal. For these two reasons I certainly shall not support the Motion.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I very much regret, and I think the whole House will, that the hon. Member who has just spoken should have found it necessary to raise a dissentient voice on this occasion. I am glad to think he expressly said he did not desire in any observations he made to disassociate himself from the tribute paid to the late Sir Stanley Maude by the Prime Minister either as a soldier or as a man. As he has contrasted the treatment accorded to the dependants left by Sir Stanley Maude with that which the country is doing for others of those who have died for her in the field I think it may be permissible to say, and I say it with confidence, that if this House were a house of soldiers and of men who had themselves fought in any of our Armies, and above all, if they were men who had fought under him they would criticise this amount, not as being too large, but as being too small for the great debt of gratitude that we all owe to him. Perhaps I may be permitted to utter a couple of additional sentences in consideration of the office which I at one time held. I held office before Sir Stanley Maude reaped his great victories and made such brilliant use of them, but I was a member of the
    1752
    Government at the time that he was appointed and, naturally, deeply interested in the right selection being made. I think it is no improper revelation of confidence if I say that I permitted myself to urge upon Sir William Robertson, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, the great importance of the appointment and the need in all the circumstances for the appointment of a man of an already commanding reputation and whose mere name would inspire confidence in the Army which he was going to command. For it has to be remembered that after the brilliant success which crowned the earlier part of the Mesopotamia campaign our Armies there had suffered great reverses, the Command had been changed more than once in rapid succession, and those changes of command and those reverses could not but have had a disturbing effect upon the morale and confidence of our troops. It was at that troubled epoch that Sir Stanley Maude succeeded and in a comparatively short time, with comparatively small loss of life, won great triumphs for his army, for his country and for his own fame, which we are here recognising to-day. Surely those were achievements in all the circumstances of the case which might have enabled the hon. Gentleman opposite for once to silence his rather bitter and pedantic scruples and to join in the latest tribute of a generous and not ungrateful people.
    Mr. ALDEN: I have not the slightest intention of raising any discordant voice in the proceedings this afternoon, but I think there is a way of reconciling the views of my right hon. Friend who has just spoken and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). Sir Stanley Maude was a great and illustrious general and he deserves well of this nation, and we are doing right this afternoon, but I feel confident and am perfectly certain that Sir Stanley Maude himself would wish to have associated with his name the memory of the tens of thousands of brave men who have also died for their country, and I think if he were here this afternoon, or if he could call to us across the void, that he would ask us in recognising his services not to forget the many men who had died and who very often suffered a great deal of privation and hardship. There is not a single Member of this House who has not had cases brought to his notice of hardship and privation on the part of widows and dependants of men who have died in

    1753
    the service of their country. I ask whether it is not right, while our sympathies are all devoted to the memory of those who have died for their country, to once again put to the House the question whether we cannot do more for the widow and the orphan than grant them the small pension, not equal to the separation allowance which had been received before the husband died. That is a question which it seems to me the House ought seriously to reconsider. In the words of Lincoln, "the noblest sepulchre a man can have is a home in the minds of men." Sir Stanley Maude will live on in the imperishable memory of the minds of the people of this country. I think at the same time we should also bear in mind those hundreds of thousands of Englishmen who have died for their country, and that we ought to do what we can for those who are left behind. In the words of Lincoln, in perhaps the greatest speech he ever made—
    "Let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan; and to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY [26TH FEBRUARY].
  Resolution reported,
  SUPPLY [26TH FEBRUARY].
    NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1917–18.
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."

    ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1917–18.
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for Pay, etc., of the Army."
    Resolutions agreed to.

    CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1917–18.—Class IV.

      INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
      Resolution reported,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty,
      1754
      to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for Intermediate Education in Ireland, including the Teachers' Salaries Grant."
      Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. BOLAND: The Estimate as presented to the House is, to my mind, based entirely upon wrong figures, and for that, as well as for other reasons, I ask the House to consider for a few moments the basis on which it is now proposed to make a Grant of £50,000 for Intermediate Education in Ireland. If the House will refer to the Estimate presented, they will find the following note:
      "Additional Grant for Intermediate Education …This sum, together with the amount (£381000) of the Supplementary Grant voted in July last for Public Education, Ireland, represents the Irish equivalent of the additional funds which Parliament has voted for Public Education in England and Wales, and Scotland."
      I take exception, first of all, to this basis of what is called the Irish Equivalent Grant. It is here stated that £384,000 is to be the equivalent for Irish primary education, and the Government apparently, in spite of all the protests from managers, from teachers, and from members of the National Board of Primary Education in Ireland, having still insisted on fixing this sum of £384,000, have proceeded on that basis to state that the equivalent for secondary, or, as we call it in Ireland intermediate, education is to be the sum of £50,000. It is, first of all, with the arithmetic of these figures that I wish to quarrel, and perhaps at the outset I could make this clear by quoting the admitted increase of the English Grant. The Treasury Grant to secondary schools in England will be found in the Civil Service Estimates of 1917–18, on page 11, to amount to £847,650. The proposed new Grant by the English Minister of Education for secondary education in England is £433,900, or a total of £1,281,550. Now, if the basis of the so-called equivalent Grant is followed, the Irish equivalent, on the figures which even you yourselves have always admitted, would amount to £144,173. In Ireland, it has to be remembered, the cost of administration is borne upon the Grants, and not, as in the case of England, by the Treasury, and when these figures are added the cost of

      1755
      administration upon the Grants in Ireland amounted in 1915 to £25,000. Consequently, I contend that the total amount which is due annually to Irish secondary education from the Imperial Treasury is a sum of £169,780.
      What does the Imperial Treasury at present contribute to the cost of secondary, or, as we call it, intermediate, education in Ireland? There are two sources. There is, first of all, the Teachers' Salaries Grant, known as the Birrell Grant, which amounts to £40,000, and the Science and Art Grant, which comes to £29,000, or a total of £69,000, and when the deduction is made from the £169,000, which ought to be contributed from the Imperial Treasury, on the basis which you yourselves set forward of an equivalent to the English Grant, there is a sum of £100,000 which is legally due from you on your own calculation of the Equivalent Grant, and I presume the £50,000 which to-day we are considering is meant to be all that you are going to give of what I contend is the absolutely necessary and legally due Grant of £100,000. To return for a moment to the statement in the Estimate that the Irish equivalent for primary education in Ireland is £384,000, I am absolutely unable to understand upon what basis either the Irish Office, in accepting the figures, or the Treasury have gone. Here I cannot help remembering that, not many months ago, when the Chief Secretary, whose absence I regret to-day, was approached by a deputation on the subject, of the necessity of improving the position of secondary education in Ireland, I think I am not treating him unfairly when I say that his general attitude was this: He wanted to approach the whole question, not on the basis of what was called the Equivalent Grant, but on the wider one of the necessities of Irish education. That was certainly what the deputation and the general public understood to be his attitude—that he admitted the necessities of Irish education were the proper basis upon which to approach the Treasury; and, while we have the spectacle of the English Education Minister and the Secretary for Scotland being able to approach this House and the Treasury with a demand that the money for education in England and Scotland should be based upon the necessities of education here, and while we have the Chief
      1756
      Secretary also stating that he wanted to approach the question of secondary education in Ireland upon the admitted necessities of Irish education, the result to-day is that this has not been carried out, and again the Treasury is basing itself upon what it calls the Equivalent Grant, and is "doing" Ireland again in the process.
      I wish to take this opportunity of exposing what it means and what will happen if the statements contained in this Estimate is allowed to stand. Upon the purely financial side of it, what strikes me as most urgent, and what this House should grasp at the very outset, is that in England, Scotland, and Wales you look forward at the conclusion of the War to spending, not the £4,000,000 which the Minister of Education announced last year would be necessary, but an ever-increasing sum, because I suppose if this War has shown one thing more prominently than anything else, it is that this country was lacking in the scientific and technical side of its education, and that after the War it will be more and increasingly necessary year after year to spend public money upon education. primary, secondary, and technical, and English, Scottish, or Welsh members are the last people in the world to say that the £4,000,000 announced by the English Minister last year is going to be stereotyped, and that, no matter what may happen in years to come, there is going to be no increase upon it. That is your attitude, and it is a perfectly wise attitude, that you will not allow such a great service as education to be stereotyped. But, as regards the position of Ireland, I do not know whom to blame more—the Irish Government for not forcing upon the Treasury the real needs of Ireland in the matter, or the Treasury. In Ireland to-day—and I invite the Irish Solicitor-General to correct me if I am wrong—the impression absolutely held by all educationists now is that owing to the terms and conditions on which these two Grants for primary and secondary education in Ireland have been made, these are going to be stereotyped sums, and if in the future England, Scotland, and Wales increase their service, and get further Grants for education, Ireland is to retain only the stereotyped sum laid down in the Estimate of this House. The matter is of such urgency that I hope the Solicitor-General, when he replies to me, will deal

      1757
      first of all with this point, because if he is able to make it clear that these sums are not to be stereotyped, he will at least show that the Irish Government have been able to achieve something from the Imperial Treasury, and that the Imperial Treasury have not won on this occasion as they have apparently always succeeded in winning. Now, the sum of £384,000 which has been put down in this Estimate—the so-called Irish equivalent for education—has never been accepted by us, or by any body of educational opinion in Ireland, as a fair proportion of the sum due to us for education. I believe that if the Scottish equivalent figures were followed, we should be entitled to at least £600,000. The National Board of Education and the Commissioners for National Education have made it perfectly plain in their published statements that the necessities of Irish education amount to at least £800,000. It is preposterous, therefore, that this £384,000 should, first of 'all, be fixed for Irish primary education, and that to-day, when we are dealing purely with the secondary side of it, we should be put off with this miserable sum of £50.000 now being granted. I invite the Solicitor-General to take up this point when he comes to reply.
      Coming now more particularly to the position of the intermediate schools in Ireland, I think the House should bear in mind this remarkable fact: In 1900 the total which was being spent on secondary education—I gather this from the figures supplied to me—was practically the same as it is now. During that period the pupils attending the secondary schools have doubled in number. Whereas in 1900 they numbered 8,287 they now number 19,124. On these grounds, also, I think it is only right that a further Grant should be established. It looks to me as if in budgetting for secondary, as well as for primary, education the Imperial Treasury, or the Irish Government, always go upon the idea that Ireland is going to lose every year more and more in population, and that therefore they can safely go on cutting down the expenditure on education. I am glad to know that just prior to the War, and indeed some years previously, the rate of emigration had been steadily declining. Since the War emigration has practically ceased. There is no doubt that in the years to come the numbers of boys and girls in our secondary schools will show a remarkable increase. There
      1758
      is thus the double reason why we should not for a moment allow that there should be any stereotyped Grant at this moment, when an increasing population, as we shall see, just as you have in this country, suggests need for added educational grants. I hope, therefore, that the Solicitor-General will take this point into consideration.
      I have looked at the provisional Rules which have been introduced, and which accompany this Grant of £50,000. I am not sure to what extent I shall be in order in dealing exhaustively to-day with these particular Rules I am not quite clear on what date these Rules will become absolute. But if there is still some measure of time during which the Irish Government—and the Chief Secretary is now in. Ireland—can modify those Rules, I do hope something will be done. It is impossible to take them all and to go right through them. I agree that some of them are excellent. The idea of a capitation Grant has been introduced, and I think that is all to the good. But there are considerations which, I know, have been brought personally to the knowledge of the Chief Secretary, and it is important, if what we ask can be granted, that it should be, though I do not wish to see this Grant of £50,000, meagre as it is, lost. I should be very sorry indeed to see even this small instalment of justice lost by any action that we Irish Members might take. As I understand, however, the provisional Rules which accompany the Grant can still be modified in some particulars, which have been brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary, I hope that will be done as soon as the Rules of the House permit. Here one cannot help feeling—indeed, it is almost a byword in Irish education—that it is only when rules of this kind are presented to the House that Irish educational opinion for the first time really becomes possessed of what are the intentions of the Government. We have not, as you have here in this country, in Scotland and in Wales, local education authorities. We have not, so to speak, Irish education "devolutionised," with the result that in England and Scotland the educational leaders are consulted before great measures are taken. In England, and it is the right thing to do, the Minister of Education, before he takes action, calls into consultation people from all parts of the country. That has

      1759
      no counterpart in Ireland—not a bit! So far as we are concerned, the first we learn of any action—as to what the Government is going to do in regard to Grants—is when the Estimates are presented to Parliament, or when provisional Rules, such as those I allude to now, are laid upon the Table of the House. We are continually in the dark. If that is so as regards educational opinion in Ireland, if it is so as regards the Irish representatives, then, so far as the public are concerned, they have not the least opportunity of learning what is going to be done when a. great measure of education is likely to be introduced into this House. There is every reason, therefore, why, on an occasion of this kind, the hon. Gentleman who replies for the Government should be absolutely frank in his statement and give us some indication as to what extent he is going to meet us, now that the Rules have been published, now that the Irish Chief Secretary has received a deputation and has had definite and concrete proposals put before him, to what extent he proposes to modify the Rules which have been laid upon the Table.
      I have had from my own part of the land, county Kerry, a resolution from the Association of Secondary Teachers. I understand that this resolution is being passed practically by every Association of Secondary Teachers in all parts of Ireland. This resolution, passed by the Kerry Branch of the Secondary Teachers' Association, calls attention to the disappointment they feel on the proposed Rules governing the distribution of the Grant, which are not, in their opinion, likely to ameliorate the lot of the teachers They press that feeling for the amendment of these Rules, and "We demand a representative Committee should be appointed to secure for the Irish Secondary Teachers the same rights that have been conceded to their confreres in England and Scotland, and to examine the whole question of Secondary Education in Ireland." I do not wish to detain the House too long, and I shall just recapitulate what I said were the necessary points to the Solicitor-General, with which he must deal here to-day if he wishes in any degree at all to satisfy Irish public opinion on the matter. First of all, we complain that the statement in the Estimates, that the Grant for secondary education in Ireland is based.
      1760
      on what is called the Irish Equivalent Grant of £384,000 for primary education, is absolutely based on wrong beginnings, and in no degree answers the necessities of Irish education. It has been scouted and ridiculed as in any way a settlement of the claim for Irish education. To base upon that this Grant of £50,000 for secondary education is to make the position even worse than it was before. The second point is this: Is this Grant of £50,000 now to be a stereotyped Grant in the same way as it was suggested that the £384,000 for primary education is to be a stereotyped Grant; that no matter what increase of population in Ireland there is, no matter what improvement there is in the attendance at our schools, that that is all of no account, while money, increasing by millions, is to be spent in the case of England, Scotland, and Wales? We apparently are to remain in the position in which we are to-day ! I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make the position perfectly clear: whether or not this Grant is to be stereotyped. The third point I wish to deal with is the position of the Rules which have been put forward. Is his mind, is the mind of the Irish Government, still open to be convinced that these Rules do not meet the necessities of the case, and that they are open to amendment? Or is it that the Chief Secretary has been influenced, in vain, by a deputation which met him on the subject? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman to-day speaking for the Irish Government take up the attitude which it is right that any representative of the Irish Government should take up and demand that it is the necessities of Irish education and not the idea of the basing it on Equivalent Grants which should really always be before their minds when they approach the Treasury; that he should join with us, the Irish Members, in impressing upon the Treasury that these figures cannot stand as they are, that there must be a more liberal and progressive Grant for Irish secondary and primary education in accordance with needs, before the Irish people will be satisfied that justice has been done?
      Sir EDWARD CARSON: I am tempted to say a few words on this Vote, first, because I find myself, at all events for once, in entire agreement with the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House, and, in the second place, because I feel that I have a particular claim upon the Solicitor-General, who is my colleague in the representation of Trinity College,

      1761
      Dublin, a great institution, as he himself knows, and I also cannot help thinking that we may never have a more favourable opportunity of presenting the claims of intermediate education in Ireland than the present one. What the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has said about the Equivalent Grant is to my mind unanswerable. I have, year after year, protested against this system of Equivalent Grants for Ireland. It is the most illogical and most mischievous method of financing the needs of Ireland that can possibly be conceived. To what does it come? In the present case that the sum of £50,000 is to be allocated for intermediate education in Ireland, not because of the necessities of the case—not founded on any estimate of what is required for intermediate education—but because you have a strong Education Minister in England, who has thought it necessary to bring in an Education Bill which will increase certain Grants from the Treasury here. Because he has done that, it is said, You are to bring in an Estimate for Ireland founded upon the proportion, in relation to income and population, and not at all according to the necessities of the case." Anything more absurd or more ridiculous it is impossible to conceive!
      I must say I think that the Irish Members themselves are in a certain degree to blame for this method of conducting the financial necessities of Ireland, because whenever anything is thought necessary as a Grant for England, Irish Members, whether it is required or not, immediately get up and say, "We must have the same thing for Ireland." The only question that ought to be considered is what is the position of intermediate education in Ireland? Is it run on a proper basis? Is it sufficiently financed? Have you got proper teachers? Are the teachers properly educated and are they paid such a salary as will attract the proper kind of teacher for those pupils who go into the secondary schools of Ireland? Nothing to my mind in relation to Ireland is more lamentable than the way in which the question of the teachers has been dealt with for many years past, not merely the teachers in the intermediate schools, but also those in the primary schools. I remember, as long ago as 1896, when the party to which I belonged came into power, going to the then Chief Secretary (Mr. Gerald Balfour), and imploring him to take up this question in a sympathetic way and
      1762
      not have as teachers of the youth of Ireland a number of underpaid, underfed, disgruntled people, who had hardly the bare means of subsistence, while they had to appear before the classes with as cheerful a face and as good an appearance as was possible. I have pressed the claim of this class in Ireland over and over again. Having got this sum of £50,000, which so far as I know has no relation to the needs of the case, what is going to be done? I do not profess to be able to follow the Rules which have been laid down, by the Government, nor do I—like the hon. Member opposite—know whether there is any opportunity of now altering them. But I do assure my hon. Friend and colleague that I have never had in relation to any subject more protests and more complaints from Ireland, from north, south east and west, than I have received as to the method and manner to which it is proposed to allocate this sum.
      There was a Grant a short time ago known as the Birrell Grant, which it was thought would have been immediately applied to bettering the position of lay teachers of secondary schools. But that has proved illusory, as I am informed by the teachers themselves. They complain bitterly that the Rules laid down here now will not better their conditions, but will leave them with minimum salaries such as they have hitherto received. Let me tell the House how these teachers are treated. Remember that a good many of them are people who have university qualifications, and who have attained a very high standard of education. They have extremely hard and difficult work to do. Here are some of the figures sent to me. Out of 350 schools only twelve pay salaries of £200 or over. There are not forty assistants altogether who receive such salaries, 35 percent. of the whole number receive less than £100 a year non-resident. Two hundred of those qualified lay assistants receive above the minimum, but 140 of these come from thirteen schools, and the remaining 337 schools contribute only sixty between them; about 170 lay assistant qualified teachers receive the actual minimum. They complain that, while receiving that minimum, there is no chance of any increase whatsoever as time goes on and as they give their services to the State.
      I do hope that my hon. and learned Friend will really seriously take this matter up, not merely with a view, for

      1763
      the moment, of doing something satisfactory to the pupils, but really with a view of considering what is of vast importance, namely, having a set of teachers on whom you can rely as being absolutely qualified and absolutely satisfied. You have these people, who for years and years have had admitted grievances which have never in the slightest degree been remedied, and you bring them from day to day in contact with the youth of Ireland. To do that is nothing but disastrous, and I do plead with my hon. and learned Friend—and I know how interested he has been all his life in education—to take this opportunity of putting before the Irish Government the necessity for not dealing with this matter piecemeal, but to really bring forward a scheme which will deal with the whole position of the teachers and put it on a progressive basis with a view to the further development of intermediate education in Ireland. The necessity for this has been impressed upon me from all parts of Ireland. I have received many letters dealing with the question, and I hope my hon. and learned Friend will press on the Irish Government the desirability of making a definite public statement that the Grant is to be used for the teachers, and that the Birrell Grant must also be made more available for the some purpose. Above all things, I would join with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Boland) in asking the Irish Government to at once appoint a Committee, as has been done in England and Scotland, to inquire into the whole question of the position of secondary education and of the educational machinery of the country, and to make proper provision for its progressive development in the future. I know it was contemplated when I was in the Government to set up a Committee of Inquiry into elementary education; I do not know whether it has been done. But the proposal was passed by the Government when I was a member of it. That, of course, is a question by itself. What I am asking is that this Committee we now ask for shall not be mixed up with that Committee, because that would entail delay for a very long time. I would suggest a Committee ad hoc which can report almost immediately, because the whole material it will require is really available in the Irish Office. I can assure my hon. Friend, my old class fellow in col-
      1764
      lege, who has been my friend through the many long years we have had together, that he will have done the very best thing he could for Ireland as the representative of a great institution like Trinity College if he can get the Irish Government to take up this question.
      Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I desire to enforce, if it be at all necessary, the most eloquent appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson). I followed closely the opening observations of my hon. Friend (Mr. Boland) who brought this matter forward, and I noticed that he dealt with the whole Grant of £50,000 in a general sort of way. I am certain he laid before the House arguments sufficiently strong to impress on the Government the necessity for enlarging the Grant that is now being made. But apart from the general demands and suggestions made by my hon. Friend, I would specially impress upon the Government the necessity of taking the case of the teachers into account, and for that reason I propose to pay more particular attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Let me recall the fact that an Act of Parliament, passed in 1914 for the purpose of putting into operation what is commonly known as the Birrell Grant, was referred to in the body of the measure as the "Teachers' Salaries Act." Well-intentioned as the object of that Act of Parliament was, and well-intentioned as the Grant was, experience shows that it has been misapplied and that it did not reach the teachers, although it contained a very severe penalty Clause which enabled the Treasury to withdraw the Grant unless the object of it was kept completely in view. Notwithstanding that, the Birrell Grant has been misapplied. It has been badly administered, and the class for whose benefit it was passed has not received that benefit. There is one principle contained in that Act which works out at a great disadvantage to the class for whose benefit it was intended. It establishes a minimum salary, and experience has proved—and it is shown by the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman just now—that when a minimum salary is established it absolutely becomes the maximum. I will trouble the House by reading the following passage from the Report of the Intermediate Education Board for the year 1916—the last Report which has been published:

      1765
      "The Reports which have been made by the Board for the two past consecutive years on the administration of the Teachers' Salaries Grant have called attention in a striking manner to the unsatisfactory nature of the status and remuneration of teachers in Irish secondary schools. Out of a total of 1,142 lay teachers only 398, or less than 35 per cent., have salaries and security of tenure which satisfy the very modest requirements of the Rules of the Grant for Teachers' Salaries for duly qualified teachers. These Rules provide that they shall have a right to three months' notice of dismissal and that the salaries shall be not less than £140 for non-resident men and £90 for non-resident women teachers, and not less than £110 and £70 respectively for those who have in addition to the salary their board and lodging supplied. On the other hand, considerably over 35 percent. of these teachers are non-resident, in receipt of an annual salary of less than £100. Out of these 1,142 lay teachers, there are not forty assistant teachers who enjoy an annual salary of £200 or over."
      5.0 p.m.
      Just think of those figures as salaries for men and women who are duly qualified!
      In most cases all these lay assistants are duly qualified persons holding degrees from universities and other institutions. I submit that at the present moment, when large proposals have been made for the improvement of the teaching class, it is only necessary to quote these figures to show that the system that is carried on in Ireland for the purpose of dealing with intermediate education is very short of the requirements of the case, and in no respect in harmony with the spirit of the time. I am fortified in expressing that opinion by what has been proposed in this House by the right hon. Gentleman who is President of the Education Board in England He proposed what I might call a great democratic measure for the furtherance of all things necessary for intensified education, the intensified education which it is now declared is absolutely necessary to put us in a position to compete with other nations when happily peace will have been restored, and when the nations will have taken up all their peaceful occupations. It has been laid down most eloquently in this House by the President of the Board of Education in England that the whole future of the country depends upon the manner in which the people will be educated, and the intensified manner in which production will be carried out, the result of scientific and secondary education principally. What did this large-minded Education Minister say on the 19th of April when he made his very famous statement that charmed us all, instructed us all, and made us all look
      1766
      forward with an enlarged scope of view on the future education of the country? On this subject of the teachers of secondary education in schools he made use of these remarkable words:
      "The calling of a secondary education schoolmaster in a State-aided or State-provided school has yet to be made reasonably attractive to a really able man. At present the secondary school teacher is ill-paid. He receives no pension, and yet his is a profession which ought to compete on equal terms for ability with the First Class of the Civil Service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1917, col. 1905, Vol. 92.]
      That is the opinion of the greatest authority upon education matters living at the present day, perhaps. That is the opinion of the President of the Board of Education in England, and when you compare what his views of the requirements of the teacher are with the statement that I have just read out to the House—that these fully-qualified persons, these men and women holding university degrees, are dependent for remuneration on £110 and £70 respectively—I think the House will agree that it is a shame, that it is a disgrace, and that it is altogether out of harmony with the spirit of the time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) stated what is clearly the minimum that the teachers of secondary education in Ireland demand. He very briefly and tersely put before the House what the view of the teachers themselves is on their position. He stated three things. He asked that the Chief Secretary, if he were here, and in his absence his hon. and learned colleague the Solicitor-General for Ireland, should get a definite statement that the money was to be used for the purpose of improving the position of the teachers. Nobody can contend that their position at the present moment is a satisfactory one, and I therefore hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman may not fail to make a statement under that head, and that the Rules that govern what is known as the Birrell Grant shall be modified so as to make it certain that the £40,000 a year which was placed at the disposal of the Board for the purpose of improving teachers' salaries in 1914 shall reach its destination. At the present moment it does not reach its destination. It has been misapplied, and that should be no longer allowed to go on.
      The third point—and this was one upon which the teachers of secondary education in Ireland are not alone in

      1767
      their demand—was that, as well as the Committees which were appointed for England and Scotland, a Committee should be set up to inquire into the whole position, and to lay down the requirements of the whole position for secondary education. The secondary education teachers demand that, and so do also the primary education teachers demand, that a Committee should be appointed. If a Committee be useful in England and Scotland, why should it not be useful in Ireland? If a Committee be appointed for England and Scotland, why should you fail to appoint one for Ireland? What is there in the case of Ireland which so distinguishes it in this question of education? That is what we should like to know. Everything, I fancy, has been said that can be said by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Boland) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman who so ably supported this demand. This state of things can be no longer allowed to go on. You will hear more about it. You are constantly hearing about these things, and why? Because when you take them in hand you do not apply a full and complete remedy. It was pointed out in 1914 that the remedy was inadequate. It has proved to be inadequate, and therefore, for these reasons, I do very humbly, but as strongly and as strenuously as I possibly can, support the Motion that has been made by my hon. Friend, and so ably supported by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Mr. McKEAN: By way of preface to the few remarks I propose to make, I should like to say that in ordinary circumstances I should be inclined to deplore the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the bead of the Irish Government, but in the particular circumstances of the case I am very glad he is absent. I am very glad we have here one of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland, who is a great deal more than a mere lawyer, or a mere Government lawyer. He is a man who understands these subjects, and I only wish that we had the Solicitor-General as Chief Secretary for Ireland instead of his being in the position in which he is. It would almost convert some of us from Home Rule. The hon. Member who has just sat down said that really there was nothing more to be said on this subject. There is just a little more to be said on
      1768
      the matter. The way that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. J. O'Connor) and the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member who preceded him (Sir E. Carson) presented this case to the House is calculated to give a totally false view as to the whole position in Ireland. I will show where the falseness of their view comes in. They dwelt on the position of the assistant teachers in the secondary schools in Ireland, they rang the changes on the inadequacy of salaries that are paid to these men, and the natural conclusion that any stranger who did not know Ireland listening to them would come to would be that there is a wholesale system of sweating on the part of the secondary schools in Ireland. That is the conclusion that a listener who did not know Ireland would come to, and it is the only conclusion to which he could come. I say that is a false view of the situation in Ireland. The majority of the secondary schools in Ireland are in the hands of, and conducted most efficiently, by the Religious Orders, and, for my part, I rejoice that it is so for the good of my country. Whatever you hare in England may do, as apart from the Catholic population in England and Wales, whatever secularist principles you may pursue in England, at all events we in Ireland will never allow that unnatural divorce to take place—the divorce between religion and education. Of all the hollow and false views of life there is none falser than the view that education ought to be conducted apart from religion. That principle governs the whole situation in Ireland. The overwhelming majority of the secondary schools in Ireland are conducted by the Religious Orders, and, as I said before, they are most efficiently conducted by those Orders. I want to emphasise the point I have already made that anybody listening to the speeches that have been delivered by the last two speakers—I am sorry I was not here during the whole of the speech of the hon. Member who opened the discussion—at all events the drift of those two speeches and the drift of the writings on behalf of all the assistant teachers in Ireland leads one to that conclusion, that the secondary schools in Ireland are underpaying their teachers. I will show that that position is totally unwarranted by the facts.
      What are broad facts that govern intermediate education in Ireland? I will tell

      1769
      the House. In Ireland you have a people highly intellectual. I do not want to pay any compliments to the race to which I belong, but I think it is a fact admitted by all people that the Irish are a highly gifted race intellectually. Not only are they highly gifted intellectually, but they love education with a passionate love. The people of Ireland would make any sacrifice to give their children not merely a good education, but the best education of which the children are capable of availing themselves. On the other hand, you have a poor people, a people who, while they love education and are anxious to advance education, are not able to pay for this luxury of secondary education. What does that lead us to? In ordinary circumstances, in a different country from Ireland, what would be the result of this? The result would be that you would have a people who are thirsting for this intellectual fruit—what Lamb calls
      "the sweet fruit of academic instruction "—
      you would have them starving for this fruit, and not getting it. But they do not starve in Ireland. To whom is that due? Is it due to good government in Ireland; is it due to adequate provision for good education in Ireland? No; it is not. It is due to the Religious Orders in Ireland. They come in and supply this boon of secondary education at rates and on terms such as it is not supplied on in any other country in the world, not since the Religious Orders were expelled from France. Before the Religious Orders were expelled from France a similar state of things obtained there. To what does this lead us? In each of these secondary schools conducted by the Religious Orders you have the greater part of the work of education carried on by men who never get any salary at all. They are men who have to get their living out of education, but they get no salary and they are doing the work of the State without any recompense whatever from the State. With the claims of the assistant teachers I am heartily in sympathy, but the teachers in the intermediate schools ignore entirely the fact which I have been dealing with. I am now dealing with Catholic schools, and I do not want to interfere with any claims that may be made on behalf of the Protestant assistant teachers. What I want to do is to protect the Roman Catholic schools of Ireland from the serious reflections that have been made upon them by implication. Those reflec-
      1770
      tions have not been made directly but by insinuations in half a dozen different ways, and they are wholly unwarranted.
      The assistant lay teachers in the Catholic schools have to bear in mind the facts of the situation. They must remember that the country is poor, and that in the same colleges they teach side by side with a number of other men whose qualifications are certainly not inferior to those who get no salary whatsoever. The last speaker said the Grant was misapplied, but I deny that the Birrell Grant of £40,000 was misapplied. I say, and I am prepared to prove it before any impartial and intelligent audience, that so far as the administration of the Catholic secondary schools is concerned, they have treated their teachers not merely with justice but with Irish generosity. If the Grants that the Catholic secondary schools in Ireland get were taken, if the sums granted to Catholic secondary schools or the Grant in Aid of the teachers were taken and divided up amongst all the teachers of the colleges, ecclesiastical as well as lay teachers, the assistant lay teachers would get a good deal more than they are getting to-day. That is a view of this case which has never been presented to this House, and I do not think it has been presented anywhere, and it is the true view.
      My experience of this House is that it has the false view of every case presented to it, the hollow, shallow and specious view of every problem and the real true view that lies beneath the surface you seldom get presented, and there never was a case where you had the shallow view put forward so conclusively as in this case arising out of the payment of the teachers in the secondary schools in Ireland. In these Rules there is a Clause dealing with secondary schools which I believe compels; the school to employ one or more lay teacher, and I object entirely to any such rule. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Why should there be such a rule? Why should it be made compulsory that a school should employ any teacher? What virtue does there reside in a lay teacher that his presence in a school should be. insisted upon? I think the opposite ought to be the case. The fact that a man is religious in nine hundred and ninety cases out of a thousand is an absolute guarantee that he is a man of absolute moral intelligence, and that is a matter of supreme importance.

      1771
      Why should you oust one ecclesiastic in order to make way for a layman? It is an utterly indefensible rule and there is no justification for it whatever. There is no such rule in this country. I do not know what Grants the secondary schools receive here, but I know there is no such rule applying to Catholic schools in this country, and I want to know why we have such a rule in Ireland. I will tell hon. Members. It is the thin edge of the wedge of secularism, but you will never drive that wedge home in Ireland. We should always give in Ireland that position to religion in connection with the work of education that it ought to have, namely, the dominant position. This rule, imposing upon Catholic schools the necessity of employing one or more lay teacher is indefensible, and it cannot be defended on any ground. It certainly cannot be defended on the ground of efficiency, because these men, whom I know personally, for I have been taught by them myself, are men of the very highest qualifications, and I say that so far from intermediate education in Ireland being inferior to intermediate or secondary education in England it is quite the contrary. There is no country in the world that provides so admirable secondary education as Ireland.
      Sir F. BAN BURY: You are asking for more money for it.
      Mr. McKEAN: I heard that portion of my hon. Friend's speech which dealt with the insufficiency of the Grant, and certainly it is a subject which needs to be driven home. That is exactly where the shoe pinches, and it is a necessity of the case. The religious men in Ireland are doing the work of the State and they are getting practically no pay for it, although the State is accepting their work. If there is any sweating in Ireland or underpaying, it is the British Government that is the sweater. That brings me to the subject with which the hon. Member opened the discussion. It is a gross scandal the way in which the British Treasury deals with this matter of education as well as every other matter. You got from Ireland last year £22,000,000, and how much did we get back for Irish services? We got back about £11,000,000, or only about half, and consequently you are making a profit out of your trust in Ireland. There is nothing more scandalous in the whole history of the world than the way in which England deals with Ireland, which is a poor country.
      1772
      You are bleeding Ireland and have been doing so for years. You take from us this large sum of money every year—
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Donald Maclean): That topic is quite outside the Vote which is now before the House.
      Mr. McKEAN: I do not see it.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member does not, I do.
      Mr. McKEAN: It would strengthen your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I saw it also. We are dealing with a Grant for £60,000 for intermediate education in Ireland, and I say it is utterly inadequate. I want to know whether that is relevant or not? I say it is utterly inadequate, and I strengthen my claim for a larger Grant by saying that we do not want English money, and what we want is Irish money that has been paid over to the Imperial Treasury, and we want our fair share of it back again. If I am not in order in showing that this country has a balance to its credit of £11,000,000, then I do not understand what the rule of relevance means. I protest against the way in which this matter has been put before the House by the last two speakers. I dare say they did not intend to convey this impression, but they did. I wish to say a word with reference to the Committee on Education. The senior Member for Trinity College suggested a Committee ad hoc. What we do want is more than a Committee ad hoc; we want a Committee to examine not merely into the justice of the claims put forward on behalf of the assistant teachers, but we want a Committee to inquire into the whole question not merely of intermediate but also of primary and technical education in Ireland. A Committee to deal merely with one of these subjects is utterly absurd, and we want a larger Committee. I do not speak with hostility to any of the assistant teachers. I am as friendly disposed towards them as anyone, and I will not have their case put forward in such a way as to cast injurious and unjust reflections on a high-minded and an unselfish class of men.
      Captain S. GWYNN: I rise to say a word or two in support of the view that, if £50,000 per year were added to the provision, of salaries for secondary teachers in Ireland, that provision would still be inadequate. The speech to which I have just listened has strengthened the view that I hold very strongly that it will be very difficult to get this matter dealt with

      1773
      in any satisfactory manner so long as we have the present machinery for distribution. Unfortunately, that is a matter that one cannot go into on this Vote, but I can see perfectly well the strength of the case that is made by the hon. Member when he says that the Catholic clerical teachers do admirable work practically without pay. Take, for instance, the Jesuit Order, who may be, and in many cases are, as highly equipped teachers as there are in the world. They get no salary, and they are practically giving their services for their keep. I am interested in this matter not merely from the point of view of the Jesuit schools, but also from the point of view whether you are to have lay teachers at all in the Catholic schools in Ireland. The existence of these clerical teaching orders creates a competition which does not exist in the Protestant community, with the result that the Catholic lay teachers cannot get a living wage. If existence is to be made at all possible for the lay teachers in Catholic schools, the State must subsidise them, because, unfortunately, as the result of long decades or centuries in which there has been bad government in the whole system of education, people do not realise that it pays to spend money on education. Every class expects to get education under cost price. Education is indirectly subsidised by charitable endowments, and the whole thing from start to finish is on a rotten basis. It will never be dealt with reasonably and rightly until the two problems of Catholic and Protestant education are separately dealt with by a Protestant body and by a Catholic body to whom the Grant is allocated in proportion to the numbers of population. It is a question that I have naturally thought a good deal about, having myself once been a teacher, and I cannot conceive a more unfortunate position than the Catholic lay teacher. There is no outlook for him at all. It is a serious thing for the Catholic community. They will have to make up their minds for themselves—no one can dictate to them about it—whether they are going to have the teaching profession one which will attract men. Unless they do, in my opinion the quality of their education will go down. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] For the very excellent reason that you will have a very limited choice. If you want to get the best minds you must be able to attract not merely the best religious minds, but some, at all events, of the best secular minds. As a matter
      1774
      of fact, the Catholic schools in Ireland do employ a certain number of lay teachers, but they cannot expect to get men of the first quality. They cannot expect to get laymen of the same quality as their best clerical teachers. Their best clerical teachers are as highly qualified teachers as there are in or out of Ireland. That is the problem you are up against.
      There is also the problem of the Protestant lay teachers. They suffer, not from this difficulty of clerical competition, but from the underlying vice that everybody expects to get education too cheaply. It is a miserably underpaid profession. I have had family budgets sent me by highly qualified teachers, and they are simply heartrending to contemplate. Everybody knows that the price of every commodity has risen, and there is a clear case for putting up this Grant. The Grant was never adequate. The secondary teachers are worse paid in proportion than the primary teachers, and that is saying a good deal. I therefore add my voice to those who have said that this Grant, far from being excessive, is inadequate, but I do not expect this House to deal adequately with the question at all. It is one of those questions that remain for Ireland itself to deal with.
      The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Arthur Samuels): I am sure that the teachers in Ireland are indebted for the speeches which we have heard from all sides of the House this evening, putting forward their irrefutable case. Anyone who has lived in Ireland or taken any interest at all, as all the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken this evening have taken a very liberal and active interest, in the case of Irish education, is compelled to agree with the words that have been uttered by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain S. Gwynn), that the position is on "a rotten basis," that "the position of the secondary teachers is comparatively worse even than the very bad position of the primary teachers," and that the whole position of these gentlemen of high education and attainments, who in other professions probably would have a great career before them in many instances, is altogether "a miserable one." We live, however, in times of great stress, when great demands are made upon the nation, and overwhelming financial demands have to be met, and with a Grant of £50,000 which comes to us for the first time we have to see how far it

      1775
      can be applied to carry out the intention of those to whom is entrusted the care and custody and direction of secondary education in Ireland. Let me say, in answer to the query very naturally put by the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Boland), who has taken such a very long and valuable interest in Irish education, and who, indeed, perpetuates in his own person and century the almost prehistoric reputation of Kerry for devotion to high educational matters, that this sum of £50,000 is what is called an Equivalent Grant.
      Personally, I am in accord with the opinion and with the conviction that Equivalent Grants have no real basis, constitutional or otherwise. As my learned Friend and colleague the right hon. Gentleman who represents the University of Dublin along with myself (Sir E. Carson) said, the real test is the need of any one of the three Kingdoms upon any particular question. It is absurd and preposterous, because England requires something to advance any particular object within its corners, that Scotland or Ireland should get an Equivalent Grant. On the other hand, if Scotland requires something for its particular needs, it should get it. The same with regard to Ireland, if it has any particular needs. If it has not, then it should not get the Grant. In this matter I would like to say that Ireland should be treated by the Treasury as a cheerful giver. We have, however, a sum of £50,000 given to us, and, as you see by the Vote, it is an Equivalent Grant. That at once implies that it is not a stereotyped Grant. I have had the advantage of consulting the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who assures me that it is what is called an Equivalent Grant, and that it will vary from time to time, if this system of Equivalent Grants is continued, according to the amount that may be paid for English education. Let me remove a misapprehension that possibly may exist. The name of the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Birrell), who certainly did in his time all that he could to push the interests of Irish education, is very honourably associated with what is called the "Birrell Grant.'' That is a stereotyped sum of £40,000. This Grant of £50,000 is not a stereotyped sum. You must recollect that those two sums, amounting together to £90,000, are not the only sums devoted to secondary
      1776
      education in Ireland. There is a sum taken from an Irish source, the Disestablished Church Fund. That was a sum of £1,000,000, and, at 3¼ percent., it brings in £32,500 a year. That is devoted to secondary education.
      Mr. McKEAN: Yes; but it does not come from the Imperial Treasury. It comes from an Irish fund.
      Mr. SAMUELS: I quite agree that it comes from an Irish fund, and I think it ought always to be taken into account as an Irish contribution. I would go so far as to say that in reality it is a local contribution from Ireland, because it represents the commutation of tithes which were a charge on Irish land. That is a capital amount of £1,000,000. I would have been very well pleased, and others would have been very well pleased, if, when dealing with the Irish Church Fund, it had been made double or treble. Next you have the Grant which used to be given under the Customs and Excise Act, which fell from £71,000 in 1900 to £46,560 in 1909. To prevent a further decrease it was stereotyped at the latter amount in 1911. Then there is the £29,000 a year, referred to by the hon. Member for Kerry, which comes from the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. That altogether makes a sum of £198,000. It is something to get it, at any rate, and it has been got comparatively within the last few years.
      When we come to deal with the question of how the £50,000 is to be applied, I am, and I am sure that the Chief Secretary will be, very greatly indebted to the hon. Members who have spoken for the suggestions they have made and the criticisms they have offered with regard to the proposed new Rules. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University referred to the Report of the Commissioners of Intermediate Education, and other Members have also referred to it. In their last Report the Commissioners made certain suggestions and recommended them very strongly to the consideration of the Government. Those suggestions will be found on pages 9 and 10 of the last Report. They ask for a school Grant It should be remembered that the object of the Birrell Grant was for lay teachers. This is to be a school Grant, which they suggested should be a capitation Grant, paid to schools which have complied with certain conditions, on all pupils between certain

      1777
      prescribed ages who have been in regular attendance throughout the year. The conditions to be fulfilled by the schools are, first, that the Board should be satisfied as to the efficiency of the school; secondly, that a reasonable proportion of the pupils should pass the certificate examinations— that is to say, that they should come up to a certain high standard; and, thirdly, that the teachers should possess qualifications to be approved by the Board. They also suggested that the capitation Grant should be greater for students between the ages of sixteen and nineteen than for those under sixteen years of age. They also asked that special Grants should be paid to schools to meet exceptional circumstances. They further asked that powers should be given to the education authority administering the system to expend part of its funds on objects of the nature already referred to in the Debate, such as summer courses for teachers, and in general to pursue a progressive course free from such limitations as at present render the Board unable to adapt its methods to modern and varied needs. These were the lines upon which they asked to have further assistance given. When the Chief Secretary went to the Treasury and asked for a Grant for these purposes he got this £50,000, which is not a stereotyped Grant, but what is called an Equivalent Grant, which is made on the basis that for every £80 England gets Ireland is to get £9.
      For a moment I shall now refer to the Birrell Grant. The object of that Grant originally was to benefit lay teachers only. With that object a register was to be formed, and these lay teachers were to have a salary which was fixed at £140 for non-resident men and £90 for non resident women teachers. For the purpose of fulfilling the conditions of the Birrell Grant it was necessary that a certain quota (fixed at one for each 40 pupils) of the certificated teachers—that is, teachers of high standing—should be in the schools before they were entitled to got their share of the £40,000. What has happened in regard to that? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University and the hon. Member for Kerry have referred to the breakdown which has taken place, more or less, in regard to the Birrell Grant. In 1914 there were only forty-six certificated registered teachers in the Roman Catholic schools. That number rose to 125 in 1915 and to 164 in 1916.That shows a certain amount of
      1778
      progression. When we come to deal with the number of pupils in the schools we find that they have risen from 12,000 to 13,200 in those years. If you divide the 164 teachers into the 13,200 pupils, you will find that the quota of 330 has not been nearly fulfilled, and that there are 166 lay registered teachers deficient, if I may say so, in the Roman Catholic group of schoole —that is practically to say that they are 50 percent. below what the proper quota j should be in order to get the full advantage of the Birrell Grant. On the other hand, the second group of schools—the Protestant schools—had 237 certificated teachers in 1914 and 295 in 1916, while their pupils had risen from 5,500 to 5,900, so that they have 100 percent. more than the necessary quota to get the Grant. There is, therefore, a serious difference in the schools under Protestant and Catholic management referred to by the hon. Member for South Monaghan and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway. In the opinion of most educationists it is essential for the success of Catholic education in Ireland that there should be fully qualified and able lay teachers, as well as those devoted men who give their lives gratuitously to the service of education, in the schools, and the great object of the Birrell Grant was to benefit those men and to see that they had something like a career before them. So far as that has not been fulfilled the position is unsatisfactory.
      When we came to deal with the new Rules that are proposed to be made in regard to the Grant of £50,000 we have tried, as far as possible, effectively to raise the position of lay teachers in these Catholic schools, as well as the position of the teachers in the Protestant schools. We do what we can. If I am not wearying the House, as there is a great deal of interest taken in this matter in Ireland and a great many representations have been sent in to me, as I am sure they have been sent to other hon. Members representing Irish constituencies, by teachers and others, perhaps I may be allowed to refer briefly to the character of these Rules. In the first instance, I can assure the hon. Member for Kerry that these Rules are not to be taken as stereotyped at present. It is true the Rules for the distribution of the present Grant will have to come into operation by the 31st March, but I may say that I have spoken to the Chief Secretary in regard to the Rules generally, and he would be prepared to consider representations of such a character

      1779
      as have been made by hon. Members who have spoken in the Debate to-day. The Rules are elastic, and the Chief Secretary is quite willing to consider suggestions with regard to their final framing. There is a great deal of difference between the Rules under the Birrell Grant and the Rules dealing with this £50,000. The Rules under the Birrell Grant are Statutory Rules which have to be laid on the Table of the House of Commons, and they have the effect of an Act of Parliament after a period of forty days has elapsed. If you look at the conditions on which the Equivalent Grant is given, you will find that it is to be applied in accordance with Rules made by the Lord Lieutenant with the approval of the Treasury. Thus the Rules will be made by the Executive, and we shall be only too glad to get suggestions of value and of a practical character, and helpful criticisms such as we have had in the course of this Debate. The one object is to try to do the best that can be done for the improvement of the Irish schools so far as this £50,000 will extend.
      Let us look at the Rules and see what happens under them. The Intermediate Education Board is enabled out of this £50,000 in the first instance to give a Grant each year, not exceeding £2,000, for the purpose of establishing courses of instruction for teachers in the various subjects of the Board's curriculum, to defray all the incidental expenses in connection therewith, and to provide travelling instructors in certain subjects. That is a practical benefit which may be granted to teachers for the purpose not only of summer courses, which were suggested not to be quite satisfactory, but for courses of instruction for teachers and defraying their incidental expenses and providing also what is very valuable, travelling instructors in places where schools are scattered, so that persons of highly accomplished attainments may be able to travel certain distances and give instruction in one place here and another place there. The next thing is that there may be loans. The Board may, at their discretion, apply in any year a sum not exceeding £5,000 for the purpose of making advances to the managers of schools to be expended on the provision of new buildings, the extension and alteration of existing ones, the equipment of the school, the establishment and equipment of school libraries, and similar purposes. Hon. Members so well acquainted with Irish education will admit
      1780
      at once that every one of those subjects is most excellent, and that, loans for these purposes have been very much required in the past. These loans will be made at interest—I do not know what the exact rate of interest will be—and on approved security, which I suppose may be real or personal security. Then there is this provision—
      "Should the Board think fit they may devote a portion of the said sum of £5,000 to aid in the establishment and upkeep of schools in localities where the circumstances are such as, in the opinion of the Board, render this desirable."
      That is a very desirable provision. Another provision is that all advances when repaid to the Board should fall back into the Grant and go to swell the money which is available for education purposes.
      Mr. FIELD: Do the loans apply to technical schools?
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. SAMUELS: No. The hon. Member knows that these are what are called secondary schools, as distinct from technical schools. The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction has considerable funds which are devoted to technical education. But the schools we are dealing with are not what are known as technical schools. The next question is as to how this Grant is to be paid? Reference has been made to the appeals which we have all had from the teachers' associations asking that the whole of this money should go to the teachers. Under the Rules, that is not the case. It does not all go to them. We hope to assist the teachers in another way:
      "All of the Grant not expended under Rules 1 and 2 —"
      and the total amount of that would be only £7,000—
      "shall be paid to managers of schools complying with the conditions set out below in respect of all pupils between the ages of twelve and nineteen who shall have made 100 attendances while between those ages during the educational year."
      And there is a provision that with regard to pupils between sixteen and nineteen the amount shall be doubled. To enable the school, however, to get that Grant we carry out as far as possible the conditions which the Intermediate Board ask and we do it in this way, that the school shall be recognised by the Board—that is, the Board is able to inspect and see that it is an efficient school—

      1781
      "The Board shall satisfy themselves that the buildings and equipment of the school, and the teaching given therein, are satisfactory—"
      I think that is a very necessary and proper provision.
      "(c) Except as provided below—"
      and this is where we have tried to assist the teachers—
      "for each complete forty pupils upon whom the capitation Grant is payable and for each twenty or more such pupils in excess of a multiple of forty, there shall be employed in the school at least one teacher recognised by the Board, such teacher to be in receipt of a salary of at least £20 per annum more than the minimum stated for a ' duly qualified teacher ' in the Rules governing the Teachers' Salaries Grant (1915), and to have the security of tenure required for a duly qualified teacher in those Rules."
      Mr. J. O'CONNOR: How many new teachers will come in under that Rule? How many will get £20 more?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I could not tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that. It is a matter which will remain to be proved. A teacher to come in under these Rules should be a. teacher recognised by the Board, but it does not say a lay teacher. He may be a gentleman in Orders.
      Mr. O'CONNOR: What about the 1,100 existing teachers?
      Mr. SAMUELS: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will kindly allow me to explain this. It is a little difficult to follow. In the first instance, a teacher will get at least £160 a year if he is a non-resident man, and he will have security of tenure as provided by the Birrell Rules—that is, he cannot be dismissed under three months' notice. For each forty pupils there must be a teacher receiving £20 more than the minimum laid down in the Birrell Grant Rules, and another for each twenty in excess of a multiple of forty. The way it would work out would be this: Supposing there are only forty pupils in a school there should be one such teacher, who will get this additional sum of £20 per annum more than he was getting. If it is a school of sixty there should be two such teachers, each getting £160. If it is 100 there would be three, for 140 there would be four, for 180 five, for 220 six, and so on. But certain schools may not have the exact numbers to fit these multiples, and we go on to provide—
      "Where a school has certain teachers satisfying the above conditions, but not a sufficient number, the capitation Grant shall be reduced so as to be in proportion to the number of such teachers, and similarly where the number of such teachers is in excess of the number re-
      1782
      quired by the conditions the Grant shall be increased so as to be in proportion to the number of such teachers."
      Thus if four teachers were the proper quota to get the full amount of the Grant and there were only three, the school would get three-quarters, and if only two it would get a half. That is the way it is intended to apply the Grant, and the great object is that, directly or indirectly, in certain instances the teacher shall get a substantial benefit, at any rate, out of this £50,000 a year, as well as the schools. If there is a gentleman in Holy Orders who is getting £140 a year, he will be entitled to get the £20 a year and the school will get the benefit of the Grant. The Intermediate Board pointed out that there were certain exceptional cases which must be dealt with where, owing to the scattered character of the population, they do not come up to the forty pupils. What we propose is—
      "In the case of schools with less than forty pupils in localities where, in the opinion of the Board, a really useful purpose is served by such schools, the Board may, if they think fit, pay the capitation Grant, even if condition (a) is not satisfied, provided that the Board shall be satisfied on presentation of the accounts of the school that a satisfactory proportion of the income of the school is paid to those actually engaged in the teaching of the pupils."
      There we see that the teachers, in the case of these small schools, get the benefit, if, in the opinion of the Intermediate Board, they are decently paid, as far as the revenues of the school will permit, before the school gets any benefit from the Grant. Further,
      "In cases where, in the opinion of the Board, the buildings, equipment or teaching, or any of them, are not satisfactory, the Board shall have power to reduce the capitation Grant or to withhold it altogether."
      And it will be the duty of the Board, through its inspectors, to see that the schools keep up their equipment and the character of the teaching if they are to continue to get the Grant. There is a provision in the Rule, which occurred in the Intermediate Education Act, providing for the religious beliefs of the pupils, who cannot be taught against the wish of their parents. With regard to the application of this Grant in the present financial year, it will be necessary that these Rules should come into effect before 31st March, at any rate provisionally, so any recommendations or criticisms—and I am sure some may be very valuable—upon them should come in before 31st March to be dealt with satisfactorily. The hon. Member (Mr. Boland) put down a question

      1783
      asking what were recognised schools? The question was not reached to-day. But the Rules say what recognised schools are.
      "So far as respects the application of the Grant in the financial year 1917–18, the fore going Rules shall have effect with the following modifications."
      We cannot carry out all these things in a moment. We want to see that the school and the teachers shall, as far as possible, get the money in the coming financial year.

      "(a) All the schools which receive Grants from the ordinary funds of the Board in respect of the educational year 1916–17 shall be provisionally taken as being recognised by the Board.

      (b) On or before a date to be fixed by the Board, the manager of each school desiring to participate in the new Grant shall make a return, in such form as may be prescribed by the Board, of the number and names of the teachers to whom he intends and promises to pay during the year ending 31st July, 1918, a salary equal to that specified in Rule 4 (c)—"

      That is the £140 provided by the Birrell Grant—plus £20 additional,
      "and to whom he shall have given security of tenure as specified in that Rule."
      That is, he must get £20 a year more than under the Birrell Rule so far as he has been entitled to get £140 a year, and he also shall have security of tenure and cannot be dismissed under three months' notice.
      "The Grant shall then be distributed in the manner specified in the foregoing Rules on the supposition that these are the numbers of the recognised teachers in the schools. The number of pupils upon whom capitation Grant shall be paid shall be the number between the ages of twelve and nineteen years, who made 100 attendances while between those ages during the educational year 1916–17.
      (c) On or before the 1st day of October, 1918, the manager of each school participating in the Grant shall furnish to the Board, in such form as the Board may prescribe, evidence that the promises made in respect of the salary and security of tenure of the teachers have been carried into effect."
      I am sure these Rules will be loyally observed by the managers of the schools, and I hope they will carry out our intention that these teachers, so often underpaid, struggling with great difficulties, devoting their lives to the higher education of our people, shall get all the benefit they can possibly be given them under the circumstances in this Grant—
      "Should the manager of a school refuse to furnish the Board with such evidence, or fail to do so, the Board may, should they think fit, refuse to recognise the school for the purpose of the Grant at the next distribution, or reduce the amount of the Grant payable by such percentage as they may think fit."
      1784
      These Rules are of very great importance to education in Ireland. I know there is a great deal of anxiety prevailing in regard to them, and we shall be most anxious to receive every helpful criticism and consider it as best we can.
      One thing that has been pressed on us by several hon. Members is the question of a Committee to consider this matter. I communicated with the Chief Secretary and have had a reply from him. A Committee might be considered in two aspects, a Committee to consider the question of teacher's pay in primary and in secondary schools. It is proposed to set up a Committee to consider the question of remuneration in primary schools, but I think it would be better, if a Committee is required, and I gather that it is, to inquire into the position of the Grants and pay in the secondary schools to keep it separate from the case of the primary schools. I gathered from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University that it would be better to have the inquiry ad hoc. I do not know whether that would meet the views of the hon. Member for Kerry.
      Mr. BOLAND: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an opportunity to myself and my colleagues in the course of the next few days to consider whether there should be one Committee dealing with primary and secondary education or two separate Committees? We should be very glad to communicate to him our decision in a few days.
      Mr. SAMUELS: Certainly; I should be very glad to receive such a communication. I may just mention that I have been in communication with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in regard to this matter, and he writes:
      "My aim has always been to maintain or bring about conditions under which the lay teachers would get the full benefit designed for them. I do not think they do at present. I expect to be able to achieve it by administrative means in connection with the new Grant or by amendment of the Statutory Rules, or both. In regard to the question of a Committee, I am not quite sure whether it would be advisable to include the intermediate education question in the inquiry with regard to the elementary system. I am willing to include it if I find that it is considered by competent judges to be the best course. I should be rather disposed to make an ad hoc inquiry, which could be conducted without great delay."
      We shall be only too glad to receive suggestions from any side of the House dealing with this matter. I know how earnestly it is the desire of the Chief

      1785
      Secretary, and in fact we are all of us desirous of doing what he can, to lift up the position of Irish education and make it more worthy of the intellectual capacity of the country about which we have heard so much to-day.
      Mr. FIELD: I am very glad that the Solicitor-General for Ireland has spoken in a sympathetic way in regard to the scheme put forward in connection with the salaries of teachers. He recognises that education is the foundation of citizenship, and now that we are extending the franchise it is more than ever necessary to have a proper system of education for all classes of society. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the whole foundation of the education system in Ireland is more or less on a rotten basis. Those are his own words. It is also admitted that although the primary teachers are badly off, the secondary teachers are even worse. He has also stated that the Equivalent Grants are really no basis upon which to give permanent increases, but are rather a temporary expedient. That being so, and in view of the fact that the teachers are not satisfied, it is not unreasonable to ask that the Grant of £50,000 should be increased, because he himself has stated that it would be looked upon as a kind of instalment. I do not wish to reiterate the arguments which have been advanced before, but there are one or two paragraphs in a circular issued by the Incorporated Association of Assistant Teachers which might be usefully quoted. They say:
      "The Grant is the one asked for as an equivalent to the Fisher Grant in England, and we feel that, in the main, it should be used for their benefit. The Rules proposed for its allocation have excited universal opposition from the intermediate teachers."
      If you want to have good teaching you must have teachers who are satisfied, and this circular says that the teachers are universally opposed to these Rules. The circular continues:
      "Whatever the intention of those who drew them up, the result must be that the benefit accruing to the assistants will be practically negligible. Experience has shown in the case of the Birrell Grant, which was admittedly intended for the lay assistant teacher, that a large portion of that Grant has been misapplied, despite the existence of a penal Clause, far more stringent than that contained in the proposed Rules for the new Grant. This offers little hope that the conditions attached to this new Grant will be complied with or enforced. Further, it has always been contended that the principle of a minimum salary is a bad one unless a scheme of salary increments is
      1786
      attached. The result is that a minimum virtually becomes a maximum, and this contention is fully borne out in the present case."
      Then fallow a number of figures which I will not read, because they have already been dealt with. In conclusion, the circular says:
      "We especially ask you to endeavour to obtain from the Chief Secretary a definite and public statement that the money is meant to be used for the teachers, a pledge to amend the Rules governing the distribution of the Birrell Grant, and a promise to appoint a Committee, as has been done in England and Scotland, to inquire into the question of the position of the secondary teachers in the educational machinery of the country."
      The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned various sums of money which have been granted, but, notwithstanding all these Grants, the money is not sufficient; it does not satisfy the demands, and it leaves us in Ireland in a much worse position than they are in England or Scotland. If you want a teacher to fulfil his position you must give him an adequate salary. If you want efficiency, no matter in what position in life, you must pay an adequate salary. It is not good enough to state here in Debate that you have no more money. You must find the money for education, unless you want the State to be based on a rotten foundation. In regard to the number of certificated teachers and the smaller number of pupils attending school, I do not intend to take up the time of the House, because it will require more inquiry and analysis than can be given to it in a Debate of this kind. I am thoroughly in agreement with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman and my colleague (Mr. Boland), that we ought to have a Committee to go into this matter. If an arrangement can be made whereby those members of the Irish party who are here can meet and decide whether the inquiry or the Committee should deal with the two subjects separately, or whether they should deal with primary and secondary education together, it would be well. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Rules are elastic. I desire to congratulate him on the fact that the Irish Office are prepared to confer with Irish Members on Irish matters, and if that is the case they will obtain a greater degree of knowledge than has been the case hitherto. In regard to the loans of £5,000, that is a very necessary thing. In my tramps through Ireland with Lord Mayor Tallon, some years ago, I visited schools in the South and West

      1787
      of Ireland where the school buildings and the sanitary accommodation were defective, and in some districts they were such miserable places they were calculated to give disease to the children. I believe that the conditions are better since then, but there can be no doubt that loans are absolutely necessary in some parts of Ireland in order that proper schools may be provided. You cannot expect the number of children who are confined in these schools to be properly taught unless the place is well ventilated and there is proper sanitation. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to capitation and security of tenure. All these things would be considered by a Committee, and I hope that some amicable arrangement will be arrived at whereby a more satisfactory system can be brought about with regard to Irish education. As I stated at a protest meeting the other day, an Irish scavenger gets more wages than some Irish national teachers. It is a scandal. That system goes right through the whole of the Irish educational business, and the result is that notwithstanding that we are a clever people, with a thirst for information, owing to the peculiar condition of Irish education and the want of proper pay for teachers, you have a seething mass of discontent amongst the teachers which, to a certain extent, has been and will be communicated to the children. This has been experienced to a very great extent. I think these facts ought to appeal to the authorities, and that the Irish teachers ought not to be driven into an untenable position. They ought to get at least a living wage. I hope some arrangement will be come to and that the Committee will meet and that an amicable arrangement will be come to. We want to help and not to hinder. We want more money, but we want to help the right hon. Gentleman if we possibly can in order that the Irish secondary education may be placed upon a more satisfactory basis than at the present time.
      Mr. HUGH LAW: I heard with great pleasure the announcement that the Government are willing to appoint a Committee to consider either separately or in connection with primary education the question of the position of secondary teachers in Ireland. That being so, I am the more free to pass by the technicalities of the Debate. I am extremely glad that
      1788
      the Government are going to take this particular step, because even with the additional money which will be provided by the Equivalent Grant I do not think anybody would say that the position of the secondary teachers in Ireland is left in anything like a satisfactory position. I do not know and I do not think the Government can tell us what number of secondary teachers are going to get the maximum of £160 for men and £110 for women, but even assuming—which is very far from being the case—that they are all going to get it, I do not think that anybody who knows what demands the teaching profession at its best makes upon men and women will say that that is a sum which would enable the education authorities in any country or in any part of these Islands to obtain the services of first-class men and women.
      During the fifteen years I have been in this House I have had more correspondence upon one class or another of Irish teachers than from any other body of my fellow countrymen — chiefly primary teachers, but also secondary teachers, who are less clamant but not less deserving. At one time or another I have attended teachers' meetings and demonstrations, and the fact has been borne in on me again and again that the resolutions passed by teachers in Ireland at their congresses and demonstrations, and the questions to which their minds were addressed, concerned really not matters of education at all, but always the eternal question of salaries, bonuses, and pensions. The explanation is that until we deliver men from mortal anxiety about their means of livelihood we do not set them free to give their minds wholly to what is their true profession and work. I do beg that the scope of the Committee which is about to be set up shall be wide, and that instead of approaching the question, as happens too often, from the point of view of how little can we get people to teach for, and at what price can we get rid of the complaints, the Government should approach the problem from the other end—what are the needs of education in Ireland and what provision is necessary by way of money or otherwise in order that secondary education in Ireland should be at least levelled up to secondary education in this country? I am sorry that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend who suggested that we were far in front. I am afraid that that is sadly far from being the case, and our

      1789
      object should be to put secondary education in Ireland on a sound educational basis, and, until that is done, we shall be far indeed from having solved the question.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT.
      Resolution reported,
      4. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,085, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Overseas Trade Department.''
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Sir F. BAN BURY: I see that there is a footnote to this Vote which says that a Parliamentary Secretary will be appointed by the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs jointly, and will discharge the functions both of Parliamentary Secretary to the Board and Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend will be responsible to two masters who may, perhaps, not see eye to eye on certain given problems, and therefore the duties of his office from the very beginning will be extremely difficult. Speaking from memory, I cannot recall any Parliamentary Secretary having been appointed in this House who was responsible to two totally different Departments. There may be good reasons, and I can conceive some myself, why this should be done, but, on the face of it, it requires some little justification. I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has come in, and I would ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the fact, and whether, in view of the discussion which we have had just now, which is not an isolated discussion in this House, but which goes to show that many Members think that a particular person ought to receive a higher salary whenever he asks for it, the Treasury are prepared to say, if my hon. Friend points out, later on, that he is doing two men's work, that they will not give him two salaries for doing two men's work, because the spirit of the times is such that whenever anybody does a little more work than perhaps he is actually bound to do, immediately he says that he ought to receive more money?
      1790
      That is, perhaps, a lesser point, but the original point which I made still remains, that it is very difficult for my hon. Friend to carry on his Department, if he is subject to two masters who are almost certain not to see eye to eye, and I think that we should have a little explanation as to this.
      Mr. WING: I am not so much concerned about the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Department not receiving an increase of salary, as that will be well attended to by the hon. Gentleman on his left. I rise for the purpose of asking one or two questions in a general sense. This Department seems to have come into existence not with any degree of publicity, and those who are interested in the matter have a feeling that this is the creation of the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the British Federation of Industries—the creation of this new Department—and there is an idea that these are representative practically of what you may call kings of industries, which have very little concern with the small classes of business, which may not come within the purview of these two great organisations. Several questions have been asked the hon. Gentleman as to the matter of representation on this new body, as to who selected this body, the Committee over which you preside; how they came to be selected, and how the selection is of so narrow a character? Several questions have been asked as to making it more representative than it is by the introduction of representatives of a commercial class, say, of commercial travellers.
      The commercial traveller, as I have him in my mind, is a man who knows very largely the art of salesmanship. In the great organisation of commercial travellers there are men who know the markets of the world. They are workmen, they have sold goods, they know the people, they are regarded by great commercial houses as confidential servants, and they occupy the high position of standing between the manufacturer and the purchaser, and it seems, to those who have been interested in this subject for many years, a very great mistake that this class of men, who know the ground, who could give the hon. Gentleman information as to the class of goods to be bought and the adaptation of English ideas to the necessities of foreign markets, should not be represented in any

      1791
      organisation that is set up. The Government themselves, and the heads of great Departments, and the leaders of great organisations, are represented, but those who come in midway seem to be rather the sport of circumstances and are very seldom included in an organisation of the kind. I ask whether the time has not arrived when a class like this should be represented on a body which has been created for the purpose of trade overseas? I have no reason to complain of the hon. Gentleman's replies. They are exactly the kind of replies I would expect from him—suave and soothing—but they are not business. They do not bring any result. What the ordinary commercial travellers of the country are asking is that they should be represented on a concern of this kind. They have interests as well as the great bodies that are always included. For instance, large numbers of these men are entrusted with commissions from the great houses of the country, and they travel these various markets and, representative as they are, they are given no voice in this matter. The hon. Gentleman's reply is, "There is no room. It would make the Committee too large." The hon. Gentleman does not think that it is really an answer that will satisfy anybody, that the addition of a representative is going to make this Committee of such unmanageable proportion. What we are asking is that this large organisation of representative people representing large firms, when we come to a subject to which they pay such great attention should be given representation.
      This organisation has been discussed for a long time. There have been resolutions passed by commercial travellers' conferences for the last fifteen or twenty years, calling for the establishment of such an organisation, and now when it comes into existence the commercial travellers are not asked to send any representative. Suppose that a commercial traveller has to take a tour of the British Empire, he finds that under present arrangements that tour would cost, in fines or licences, apart from the ordinary travelling expenses, no less than £110 or £120; and it seems to me, in reference to this matter, that a Committee of this kind should consider whether the carrying of British goods into various parts of the world is to be helped or hindered. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible to give some answer to the satisfaction of
      1792
      this very large and important class which is so concerned with the interest and welfare of the country. It would relieve the mind of those for whom I speak if it were known that this Committee would not merely be under the manipulation of large industries, with their great powers of organisation, that enable them to command large attention in foreign markets. "Without putting it in any way offensively, perhaps I may be permitted to point out that in a case where the Government is spending money upon a special organisation of this character, there is ground for urging that a representation of the class of commercial men to whom I have referred should be included. I would further point out that the time has gone by for allowing organisations of this description to be passed without calling attention to a question of the kind which I now submit. It may be replied that other organisations will also require to be represented, but I would point out that other organisations are already represented, and the interest in behalf of which I speak has strong grounds for being included. I hope that I may not have to press this matter any further, for it would be a matter of great satisfaction to the commercial travellers of this country, who represent very large organisations and industries, if they were represented on this Committee in some form or other.
      Sir A. D. STEEL-MAITLAND (Undersecretary of State, Department of Overseas Trade): As regards the point raised by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) the answer is fairly clear, although no doubt the experiment is without precedent. It is quite true that there are two offices, or rather the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the President of the Board of Trade jointly appoint the Parliamentary Under -Secretary, who is to have charge of this new Department. I do not think there is any likelihood of conflict, which perhaps the right hon. Member apprehends, because the two Departments are so separate that their responsibility would not in fact be in conflict, even though it is represented by one person who undertakes the functions of the two sides. Responsibility can be allocated as between the two. so that there is not likely to be conflict between either the Secretary for Foreign Affairs or the President of the Board of Trade. There is one other consideration: No doubt, in most circumstances, if a person serves two

      1793
      masters, he is likely not to be faithful to both, or not to be able to give satisfaction to both, so that there would be doubt as to whether his services would be satisfactory. But in this case the two masters are themselves members of a Government, and under a Cabinet which can reconcile differences between them, should there ever come to be a matter of dispute, which I think is unlikely, but if there should be, there are means of settling the difficulty which ought to prove efficacious. All I can say is that as the result of five months' work in this Department no occasion of difficulty has yet arisen which could not be solved comparatively simply, and I really have not seen any inconvenience in the working of this Department up to the present.
      Sir F. BANBURY: Supposing the Foreign Office wishes to dismiss a Consul because he does his work badly, and the Board of Trade wishes to keep him because he does his work well, what is to happen?
      Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is precisely the type of case which might have arisen under former circumstances, when there was really nobody to hold the balance, and that is one of the reasons for the formation of this new Department, namely, to establish a body that can judge of the performance of political work and commercial work, and ascertain on which side the balance goes down. In regard to the first point raised by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Wing), he complained that there had not been sufficient publicity given to the formation of this Department. I would point out that publicity was given to its formation, and that a White Paper was issued and placed at the disposal of every Member of this House, while it was also sold to the public outside. If anyone wished to see what was going on there was full opportunity of doing so. As regards the case he put as to commercial travellers, I am not able to concede his request. Doubtless, the hon. Member will say that I am merely answering with my usual suavity, if my reply does not come up to his expectation. But I can candidly say that I cannot grant his request. At the same time, however, my wish is to take full advantage of the knowledge which commercial travellers and other classes engaged in commerce may possess, and may be willing to put at our disposal. The hon. Member ridiculed the idea that only one additional representative on a committee could make any
      1794
      difference; but I would point out to him that every Member of this House who has anything to do with the appointment of Committees has come up against precisely the same difficulty as that which the hon. Member now represents. Hon. Members know very well that no one wants a committee which would merely be a body to register decrees; what is wanted is a small committee which would be of utility, one of manageable size and dimensions; but if you add one more member on the ground that it can make very little or no difference—and of course the hon. Gentleman would wish that one member to represent the Commercial Travellers' Association—there would immediately be a communication from the chartered accountants saying that they had a claim to representation on the Committee, or from the Institute of Civil Engineers, or the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, or the composite civil engineers and mechanical engineers, asking that one more member shall be added, as it would make no more difference.
      The same might happen in regard to electrical engineers, or even the Stock Exchange, because many questions arising on the Stock Exchange may conceivably come within the scope of our deliberations. The only thing I can say, therefore, is, that if I were to consent to the addition of one member as now requested, the result would be such as I have described. I would point out to the hon. Member, however, that this Committee is quite a small Advisory Committee. The hon. Member spoke of it as being narrow in its character, and he talked about great bodies and industries being represented upon it. The hon. Gentleman cannot know that it is narrow in character, because no publication of its composition has yet been brought out. The hon. Member when he spoke of great bodies being represented instanced the Chambers of Commerce, but he knows very well that if he were to go to the Chambers of Commerce and say that they merely represented large industries, they would be the first to deny the charge. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. A little later in his observations the hon. Member said that we should take advantage of the knowledge of commercial travellers representing large firms. The truth is that while we cannot give representation to that class, we should be glad of their genuinely valuable knowledge. A com-

      1795
      mercial traveller came to me the other day, whose particular line of country was in South America, and we had a most interesting conversation, in which he showed that he had a great deal of valuable knowledge that would be useful to us. I considered, however, that this gentleman, though possibly not too old, might be disinclined to start a new line, and I had the further impression that he would be earning far more in his present position than any salary we would be able to offer him, but I can quite imagine that with his information he might prove an uncommonly valuable officer in the Department. I think the hon. Member will agree that the reasons I have given are sufficient to justify my refusal to add to the number of the Committee. What we want is a small Committee, which will act in an advisory capacity; at the same time, we are quite open to receive advice from those who represent different associations and interests, and I hope, therefore, with that assurance, the hon. Member will accept the reply which I have given him.
      Mr. BUTCHER: I merely wish to express my conviction that those of us who have studied this question at all must have seen the absolute necessity of such an organisation as my hon. Friend has set up, and I desire to congratulate him on the work he has achieved and to offer him my best wishes. He cannot see his way to add a representation of the foreign commercial travellers, but, having heard the reasons which he has put forward for his not doing so, I hope that the hon. Member who has brought the question forward will be content with the assurance which the representative of the new Department has given, namely, that the representative of the commercial travellers will always have access to the Committee, that their representations will be attended to, and that the knowledge which they undoubtedly possess as to the difficulties of certain markets with which they are directly confronted from time to time in the course of their duties will be considered so far as possible, and their representations met. With that assurance, which I understand my hon. Friend gives, I think the hon. Member above the Gangway might very well be content.
      Question put, and agreed to.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Control of National Debt Commissioners over Special Investment Business.)
    1.—(1) Every trustee savings bank which carries on the business of making special investments shall so far as respects that business be subject to the control of the National Debt Commissioners and shall comply with any directions which may from time to time be given by the Commissioners with respect to that business.
    If a bank to which any such directions are given neglects or refuses to comply therewith, the Commissioners may themselves take the necessary steps for giving effect thereto, and for that purpose may do all such things and exercise all such powers as may be done and exercised by the trustees, managers, and other officers of the bank.
    (2) Without prejudice to the general power of control hereinbefore given to the Commissioners, the following provisions shall have effect with respect to the special investments business of a trustee savings bank:—

    (a) No money received for investment shall be invested, and no securities held on account of special investments shall be sold, except with the approval of the Commissioners:

    (b) No change shall be made in the rate of interest allowed to depositors in respect of special investments except with the approval of the Commissioners:

    (c) The amount to be expended by the bank for expenses of management on account of the special investments business shall not exceed such an amount as may be allowed by the Commissioners:

    (d) No money received for investment shall be invested except so as to become repayable not later than the expiration of one year, or, if the money is invested in Government securities, three years, from the date of the investment, or so as to be repayable on six months' or some shorter notice:

    (e) There shall be transmitted to the Commissioners, together with the statement required to be transmitted to them under Section fifty-five of the Trustee Savings Bank Act, 1863, a valuation of the securi-

    1797
    ties held by the bank on account of special investments, and for the purpose of the valuation the value of those securities shall be calculated according to the current market price at the date of the valuation, or, in the case of securities for which there is at that date no current market price, shall be taken to be such an amount as the Commissioners shall fix, having regard to the date of repayment of, and to the rate of interest payable in respect of, the securities.

    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    7.0 p.m.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I desire to take this opportunity of putting a question to my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, raising a point which is of some interest throughout Scotland at the present time, particularly in my own Constituency. The Committee are aware that in many towns throughout the country, particularly in Scotland, it is the habit of local trustee savings banks to lend to the local corporation, at a certain fixed rate of interest, loans extending for three, five, and seven years. The powers taken under this Bill are very considerable. For example, they give the power to the National Commissioners practically to veto any investment. I would like the hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance on behalf of the National Commissioners that there is nothing in this Bill which is going to interfere with the practice which has gone on so successfully in the past, and which is for the benefit not only of the local corporations, but of the whole community. There is a reasonable anxiety lest this Bill may give powers which will interfere with that practice, and I would like my hon. Friend to reassure the Committee on the point.
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I explained at some length on the Second Reading what the objects of this Bill are, and I can only repeat that the whole object is to safeguard the interests of the investors by trying to bring to an end the practice that has brought some of the trustee savings banks into trouble—that was the practice which some of them had got into of lending their money short and borrowing long. In those cases of lending to corporations and municipalities I can
    1798
    whole-heartedly assure my right hon. Friend that we have no desire to interfere with that practice, because the medium of the trustee savings bank, especially in small towns, is a very convenient medium for raising money. But we have to safeguard this point, that the banks cannot be allowed to let their money out in such a way that they cannot get it when they require it for the purpose of meeting the calls of their depositors. Perhaps my right hon. Friend is not aware of what I pointed out in Second Reading, namely, that the ordinary safeguard of banking— that is, a large proportion of liquid assets and the existence of uncalled capital— does not exist in the case of these trustee savings banks. We have gone as far as we can go in Sub-section (2), where we say that loans must be repayable at six months or some shorter notice, and if that rule is safeguarded there is no limit to the length of the loan. That is to say, that a municipality may borrow from one of these banks for a term it may be of five or seven years or even longer, provided that they make a definite arrangement with the trustee savings bank that the bank can call on its money at six months' notice
    Mr. WATT: Six months' notice?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, six months' notice. The reason of that is this: If there were not such a Clause, and if the money were lent out, it would not be available within a reasonable term of time, and the banks might find themselves in exactly the same difficulties which have compelled us to come to their rescue by the introduction of a Clause of this kind. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that this Bill, as amongst the trustee savings banks themselves, is practically an agreed Bill. I can perfectly understand the natural anxiety to which he has given expression on the part of corporations and municipalities, lest in the future they should find it more difficult to borrow from these banks. But I cannot think that the introduction in their borrowings of some Clause of this kind which gives a right on six months' notice, would imperil their borrowing for this reason, that so long as the savings banks do lend money to corporations or municipalities, those loans must be the best loans from an interest-earning point of view they have, and it will be their interest to hold them as long as they can. It must be clear to my right hon. Friend that they would only exercise such powers as are conferred in paragraph (d) in cases

    1799
    of necessity. I hope that the explanation I have given will satisfy my right hon. Friend. It may not be all that his Friends desire, but I think we have done our best in the Bill to meet this point, which we recognise is a fair point. I do not think, after careful examination, that the Bill will prejudice the position of corporations or municipalities.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I recognise that my hon. Friend has gone some considerable way in order to reassure my friends' anxiety in this matter. But he has not quite disposed of the whole point. He spoke of the savings banks borrowing short and lending long, and that is the practice which he is anxious to avoid as far as possible. This is not a corporation point alone. In my own Constituency 25 per cent. of the whole population have an interest in the local savings bank, so that it is really the money of the community going through the savings bank as a medium to invest in their own local undertakings. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is good local patriotism, and that it ought to be supported as far as possible. He has not given all I wish for, but I do not desire to detain the Committee now, and if he will be good enough not to take the Report stage to-night I would like to consult the representatives of both interests in Scotland, and if they are satisfied I shall, of course, offer no opposition to the further progress of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 2 (Establishment of Guarantee Fund, to Meet Deficiencies on Special Investments Accounts), 3 (Interest on Separate Surplus Fund), and 4( Interpretation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Extension to Channel Islands and Isle of Man.)
    This Act shall extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and the Royal Courts of the Channel Islands shall register the same.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. BOOTH: I would like to ask why it is that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are included in this Clause when they have Parliaments of their own? I think that trustee savings bank legislation with regard to the Channel Islands is generally dealt with here, but I am not so certain about the Isle of Man. I
    1800
    would ask if this is an innovation, and I may add that I have asked the question before, but I have never had a satisfactory answer, namely, why it is we are legislating for parts of the British Islands which have Parliaments of their own and which are not represented here?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The reason the Clause appears in this Bill is that it is common form, and it has appeared in all the Savings Banks Bank Acts. The hon. Member will find it in the Principal Act of 1863, almost in the same form, the words being, "The Act shall, except as hereinafter excepted, extend to all savings banks established or hereafter to be established in England, Scotland, or Ireland, Berwick-on-Tweed, the Islands of Guernsey and Jersey, and the Isle of Man." That form was repeated in 1904. and that being so we have included it in this Bill. With regard to the Isle of Man, I do not think there is any savings bank there, but there is one in Guernsey and one in Jersey.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Thursday next.

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  Ordered, "That the Lords Message [27th February] communicating the following Resolution, namely, 'That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,' be now considered."
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved, "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them thereof.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes after Seven o'clock.

WAR.
  ISLE OF MAN (TAXATION).
  ISLE OF MAN (TAXATION).
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  HALSTEAD COMMITTEE (MR. A. BLOMFIELD).
  HALSTEAD COMMITTEE (MR. A. BLOMFIELD).
  WHEAT PRICES.
  WHEAT PRICES.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  CATTLE PURCHASES.
  CATTLE PURCHASES.
  SHEEP (IRELAND).
  SHEEP (IRELAND).
  OFFICERS MESSES.
  OFFICERS MESSES.
  SOLDIERS ON LEAVE (RATIONS).
  SOLDIERS ON LEAVE (RATIONS).
  SEAGULLS' EGGS.
  SEAGULLS' EGGS.
  TEA.
  TEA.
  WHISKY.
  WHISKY.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  SECONDARY EDUCATION.
  SECONDARY EDUCATION.
  DRIFTER PATROLS.
  DRIFTER PATROLS.
  WAR SERVICE (NAVAL DECORATIONS).
  WAR SERVICE (NAVAL DECORATIONS).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  ARMY DENTAL SERVICE.
  ARMY DENTAL SERVICE.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  INLAND REVENUE OFFICIALS.
  INLAND REVENUE OFFICIALS.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  MEDICAL RECRUITING BOARDS (DOCTORS).
  MEDICAL RECRUITING BOARDS (DOCTORS).
  AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
  ARMY OFFICERS (PAY, ETC.).
  ARMY OFFICERS (PAY, ETC.).
  STAFF OFFICERS (REGIMENTAL SERVICE).
  STAFF OFFICERS (REGIMENTAL SERVICE).
  CAMBRAI.
  CAMBRAI.
  GERMAN" PRISONERS (ARMY TUNICS).
  GERMAN" PRISONERS (ARMY TUNICS).
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  VOLUNTEER FIELD AMBULANCES.
  VOLUNTEER FIELD AMBULANCES.
  WOMEN'S AUXILIARY ARMY CORPS.
  WOMEN'S AUXILIARY ARMY CORPS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
MUNITIONS.
  PRIORITY CERTIFICATES.
  PRIORITY CERTIFICATES.
  TIME-WORKERS (BONUS).
  TIME-WORKERS (BONUS).
  WOMEN FOR ARMY SERVICES (RECRUITMENT).
  WOMEN FOR ARMY SERVICES (RECRUITMENT).
  PUBLIC MEETINGS (ALIENS).
  PUBLIC MEETINGS (ALIENS).
  SUMMER-TIME.
  SUMMER-TIME.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  VOTERS (NEW REGISTER).
  VOTERS (NEW REGISTER).
  TRADES BOARDS BILL.
  TRADES BOARDS BILL.
  INSURANCE AGENTS (REMUNERATION).
  INSURANCE AGENTS (REMUNERATION).
  SKILLED ARTISANS (PRIVATE WORK).
  SKILLED ARTISANS (PRIVATE WORK).
  Inspectors of Weights and Measures.
  Inspectors of Weights and Measures.
  Prisoners (Death-rate).
  Prisoners (Death-rate).
  Secondary Education.
  Secondary Education.
  College of Justice, Scotland.
  College of Justice, Scotland.