Sitting of 5 March 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Regulations under which Special Grants in aid of certain Local Education Authorities in England and Wales will be paid in 1918-19 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
Copy presented of Statute made by the Governing Body of All Souls College, Oxford, on 3rd November, 1917, and sealed on 30th November, 1917, amending Statute III., Clause 7, of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
WAR OFFICE ACT, 1870.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 27th February, 1918, deferring, inter alia, the duties of the Master General of the Ordnance and the Finance Member of the Army Council [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 4th March, 1918, granting the honorary rank of Captain R.M.A. to Lieutenant B. S. Green, M.V.O., R.M.A., Director of Music [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1918.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 4th March, 1918, fixing the date of operation of the first Register to be prepared under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Sixty-seventh Report from the Church Estates Commissioners for the year preceding 1st March, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 955 (Nyassaland, Report for 1916–17) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR

    RUSSIA (JAPANESE INTERVENTION).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been before the British Government any proposal that Japan should occupy or send troops to any part of Russian territory; and whether any action on the part of any of the Allies has been taken or is contemplated in order to protect their interests in the far East of Russia?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer returned yesterday to the hon. Member for Hanley. I have nothing to add to it.
    Mr. KING: Can we hope for a statement upon this subject not later than Thursday, when a Vote of Credit will be moved?
    Lord R. CECIL: The hon. Member can hope for it.
    Mr. KING: Can he hope with any prospect of realising his hope?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: May I ask whether, before any decision is taken on this question, there will be an opportunity for discussion in this House?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not know as to that matter.
    Mr. KING: Is the Government afraid of discussion?

    EX-KING CONSTANTINE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange, in such a form that Members of

    1803
    this House may have cognisance of it, the communications which have been exchanged between this Government and that of Greece since the deposition of King Constantine relating to the pension to be paid to him?
    Lord R. CECIL: In view of the doubt which existed as to whether the Greek Government were or were not making any payments to the ex-King of Greece, His Majesty's Minister at Athens received instructions early last month to ascertain definitely what action the Greek Government were taking in the matter. Lord Granville was informed, in reply, that no pension had up to now been paid to King Constantine since the latter had from the first refused to accept one. No other communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Greek Government in the matter.
    Mr. LYNCH: Might I ask if these Papers would be accessible to any Member of the House of Commons in order that the inner meaning of these transactions may be seen?
    Lord R. CECIL: The hon. Member is very suspicious. There is no inner meaning in these transactions. I shall be very pleased to show the hon. Member any Papers that he desires to see on the subject.
    Mr. LYNCH: Might Task the right hon. Gentleman, in order to remove his suggestion of my suspiciousness, if there is not a real inconsistency between the answers now given and those given some time ago when this pension was defended on that bench?
    Lord R. CECIL: Never
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that there is at the present time at a London tailor's hampers of clothes waiting to be dispatched to King Constantine or an agent acting on his behalf; whether he will state definitely if it is proposed to grant permission for the dispatch of these goods; if so, will he state his reasons for so granting or having granted such permission; and whether, having regard to the fact that King Constantine is notoriously hostile to the Allies, it will be regarded that supplying him with goods of any description constitutes trading with the enemy?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the negative. The last part has already been answered.
    Mr. BILLING: Might I ask the Noble Lord whether he will say definitely whether it is proposed to dispatch the hampers which are at present lying at Messrs. Davis's, Hanover Square?
    Lord R. CECIL: That is a large question.
    Mr. BILLING: Might I ask the Noble Lord not to introduce humour into this matter? It is a most serious question of principle whether it is proposed to supply people hostile to this country with clothes, and with uniforms at that. Are they German or British uniforms that are being dispatched, and is it proposed to dispatch them or not?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech.

    BRITISH EXPORTS (SWEDEN).
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the imports of tea from the United Kingdom to Sweden amounted in 1913 to 245,660 lbs. and in 1916 to 6,614,258 lbs.?
    Lord R. CECIL: I beg to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer returned yesterday to a similar question by the hon. Member for Wimbledon.
    General CROFT: Is it a fact that the exports of tea from this country into Sweden have increased twenty-fourfold during that time?
    Lord R. CECIL: The hon. and gallant Member will find the whole of the facts set out in the answer. I should not like to commit myself to any figure.
    General CROFT: Can the Noble Lord say whether it is a fact that this enormous increase did take place?
    Lord R. CECIL: A very large increase did undoubtedly take place, as set out in the question.
    General CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount of resin exported to Sweden in 1913 and in 1915?
    Lord R. CECIL: The total imports of resin into Sweden for 1913 were 6,772 tons,

    1805
    and for 1915 6,382 tons. Of this, there came from Great Britain in 1913 19 tons, and in 1915 1,432 tons, and from Germany in 1913 5,943 tons, and in 1915 81 tons.
    General CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the amount of pepper exported from the United Kingdom to Sweden in 1913 and also in 1915?
    Lord R. CECIL: The re-exports of pepper from the United Kingdom to Sweden in 1913 were 21 tons, and in 1915 were 1,166 tons. In 1916 licences for about 20 tons were issued.
    General CROFT: Is there any possibility of any of that pepper going through to Germany, and is it a fact that it may be useful in the manufacture of tear shells?
    Lord R. CECIL: I speak rather ignorantly as to the last point, but I believe that this particular kind of pepper is not used for tear shells. I have no doubt that a considerable portion of the 1,166 tons in 1915 did find its way into Germany. Since that time exports have been cut down to what we believe to be for Swedish uses only.

    SWITZERLAND (BRITISH IMPORTS).
    General CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the increase in the export of linen piece goods to Switzerland in 1917 as compared with 1913; and whether he will take immediate steps to reduce such exports?
    Lord R. CECIL: The exports from the United Kingdom were 772,100 yards in 1917 as against 660,000 yards in 1913; but it must be remembered that before the War Switzerland obtained large quantities of linen goods from Germany. Owing to shortage of home supplies, it has not been possible for some time to issue licences for the export of linen goods to Switzerland, and export is unlikely to be resumed for the present.
    General CROFT: Can the Noble Lord give an undertaking that none of this increase has gone through to Germany?
    Lord R. CECIL: It is impossible to give any such undertaking; but, as a matter of fact, I believe that none has gone through. That is my belief.
    General CROFT: Is it absolutely clear that in the last six months there have been no exports going to Germany?
    Lord R. CECIL: It is impossible to be perfectly certain what happens to small parcels, but, generally speaking, I believe that to be true.
    General CROFT: Then would it not be better to stop the whole of it?
    Mr. LINDSAY: Is the Noble Lord aware that large quantities of piece goods are regularly sent from Ireland to Switzerland to be embroidered and then returned, and will he see that neither this nor any other legitimate trade is interfered with?
    Lord R. CECIL: The hon. Member is perfectly right. These questions are extremely complicated and difficult, and it is impossible to dispose of them if you only have regard to one side of the question.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    DUTCH PRODUCE (MR. KROELLER).
    General CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Kroeller is the principal adviser of the Dutch Ministry of Trade and Agriculture on the distribution of foodstuffs in Holland; whether he is Largely responsible for the Dutch agricultural produce which goes to Germany; is he further aware that Mr. Kroeller has made a very large fortune out of the War, and it has repeatedly been stated in various Dutch newspapers that he is openly hostile to the British Empire; whether representations will be made to the Dutch Government with reference to this matter; (2) whether his attention has been called to the fact that when an arrangement was made between the British and Dutch Governments that potatoes should be exported from Holland in equal quantities to England and Germany, when the time arrived Mr. Kroeller ruled that this could not be done, that no potatoes could be sent to England but everything to Germany as they must have coal; and whether a request will be made to the Dutch Government to remove Mr. Kroeller from his present position as adviser to the Dutch Government?
    Lord R. CECIL: I understand that Mr. Kroeller holds the position to which reference is made, and I presume accordingly

    1807
    that he is consulted in all matters concerning the export of Dutch produce. With regard to the export of potatoes, the quantity which Holland sent to the United Kingdom last year was, I understand, greater than that sent to Germany. On the other points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend I must point out to him that it is, generally speaking, undesirable to make representations to a foreign Government on such matters.
    General CROFT: Is Mr. Kroeller a member of the firm of Mullers, and during the first two years of the War was he in this country and was he received in various Government Departments with confidence?
    Lord R. CECIL: I cannot speak as to the last part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question. I do not know. I cannot speak as to what happened during the first two years of the War without inquiry. As to the other part of the question, he is certainly a partner of Messrs. Mullers and Company, and I am not here to defend Mr. Kroeller.
    General CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. Kroller's steamers of the Batavier Line have for a considerable time been prevented from sailing to England and continue to lie alongside the quay at Rotterdam; and whether any action is to be taken in the matter?
    Lord R. CECIL: Some ships of the line referred to are laid up—presumably owing to the fear of war risks. The whole question of Dutch shipping is now under consideration.

    CIVILIAN INTERNMENT CAMPS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary (1) whether he will state the particulars of the rations now allowed to German and other enemy alien civilians interned in this country; whether any of these persons receive parcels of food from Germany or elsewhere; whether they are permitted to purchase or receive articles of food outside their rations and, if so, to what extent; whether he will take steps to ensure that these persons shall in no case receive foodstuffs in excess of the rations allowed to civilians of British origin in this country; (2) whether any of the German and other enemy alien civilians interned in this country pay the British Government for
    1808
    the food supplied to them by the Government; what is the approximate total annual cost to the Government of feeding these persons; and whether it is possible to deport to Germany such of these persons as are past military age or are women if arrangements for their exchange cannot be made?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): The dietary for civilian internment camps has been revised from time to time so as to accord with the Food Regulations for the general population. Its latest form, which I will circulate, has been settled on medical advice and approved by the Food Controller. Prisoners are allowed to receive parcels of food from enemy or neutral countries, but are not allowed to purchase in this country additional articles of food beyond certain necessary condiments and the limited amount of potatoes and herrings specified at the foot of the dietary. The prescribed rations are supplied gratis to all prisoners, but in cases where prisoners earn wages for work done by them the wages are liable to deductions towards maintenance. Owing to the varying conditions of the different camps and the constant changes in prices it is difficult to give any general representative figure for the cost of feeding the prisoners. There are no women interned as prisoners of war, and every opportunity is taken of removing from this country any male prisoner whom there is not good reason for retaining here.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will my right hon. Friend state approximately the cost of keeping these enemy civilians in this country?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid I could not do so.
    The following is the Dietary referred to —

    CIVILIAN INTERNMENT CAMPS.

    Dietary.

    Bread.

    5

    ozs.

    Biscuit

    3

    ozs.

    Flour

    ¾

    oz.

    *Meat (fresh or frozen)

    4.

    ozs.

    Or

    Meat, Preserved (tinned)

    3

    ozs.

    †Salt-cured Herrings

    12

    ozs.

    ‡Herrings

    8

    ozs.

    Edible Fat

    ½

    oz.

    * On five days a week. † On two days a week.

    ‡ For breakfast three days a week.

    Tea

    ¼

    oz.

    or

    Coffee

    ½

    oz.

    Sugar

    1

    oz.

    Salt

    ½

    oz.

    Pepper (black)

    ½

    oz.

    Oatmeal

    4

    ozs.

    Syrup or Jam

    1

    oz.

    Split Peas or Beans or Rice

    1

    oz.

    Potatoes

    20

    ozs.

    Fresh Vegetables (other than Potatoes) or Fruit

    4

    ozs.

    Each prisoner of war employed on such work as the Government shall determine will be issued additional food, consisting of 2 ozs. of bread, 3 ozs. of biscuit, 1 oz. of cheese daily. In no other case will this additional food be given except on medical certificate.
    Purchases from canteens not to exceed 6 ozs. of potatoes or fresh vegetables and one herring not to exceed 8 ozs. uncooked.

    ARGENTINE SUPPLIES.
    Mr. ROCHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the strikes of workmen in the Argentine are interfering with the shipments of frozen meat and cereals to this and Allied countries; and what steps, if any, are being taken in connection therewith?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): Shipments of frozen meat and cereals have been interfered with only to a slight extent through the recent strikes in the Argentine; the situation is being carefully watched and every effort will be made to obviate further trouble.

    RAILWAY EMPLOYMENT (AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS).
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Great Western Railway Company, by superior attractions at Dawlish, Devon, are inducing men now engaged in food production to leave their employment; and will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R Winfrey): The Board have been in communication, with the Railway Executive Committee on this subject, and the facts are as stated in the question. The correspondence is being placed before the
    1810
    Ministry of National Service, and it is hoped that a satisfactory solution of the difficulty may be found.

    SWINE FEVER.
    Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the rigid adherence to the Swine Fever Orders with regard to slaughter and movements has resulted in a serious diminution of pig breeding; and whether he will consider the advisability of modifying these Regulations and arrange to have the serum treatment more generally adopted?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The Board cannot accept the statement contained in the first part of the question. The Regulations dealing generally with swine lever have been considerably modified during the War, and the serum treatment is now carried as far as it can be carried on the existing voluntary basis. I shall be glad to arrange for the hon. Member to discuss the whole question with the Chief Administrative and Veterinary Officers of the Board if he so wishes.
    Mr. FIELD: I will avail myself of the opportunity.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR PENSIONS.
  Sir CHARLES NICHOLSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the-number of widows of soldiers who have died in connection with the Transvaal War who are in receipt of pensions?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The number of these widows is, approximately, 1,300.
  Sir C. NICHOLSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mrs. Mercy Elizabeth Baker, widow of Company Sergeant-Major Alfred John, Baker, No. 180, late 2nd Royal Warwickshire Regiment; and whether she can be granted a pension, in view of the fact that her husband who had served in the South African War and earned the Distinguished Conduct Medal, joined the Remount Depot at Pluckley on the outbreak of the present War, and was among the first to volunteer for France, but at the urgent request of the commandant remained at the depot, and was killed by a fall from his horse as he was returning from leave to duty?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Alfred Baker was employed at the Remount Depot in a civilian capacity, and there is, therefore, no power to grant his wife the pension of a soldier's widow. I am inquiring further in to the circumstances of the case in order to see whether any award can be made under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

  BOMBAY ROUTE (ARMY TRANSPORT).
  Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the nature of the inquiries which were made with reference to the case of the transport used on the Bombay route in October and November last; and whether steps were taken to obtain evidence from the non-commissioned officers and men who were conveyed by this transport?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: In view of further representations that have been received, I am having special reports called for from the officer in command of the troops on board, the medical officer in charge, and two other medical officers who did duty on the voyage, and from the shipping company concerned. I am also having inquiries instituted amongst the rank and file of the various drafts which were on board. I am afraid that all this investigation will take some time to complete, but I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know the result as soon as possible.

  MESOPOTAMIA (LEAVE).
  Colonel AUBREY HERBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the men who have served for two and a half years or longer, consecutively, in the East will now be granted leave; and whether, in urgent cases, they will be further granted agricultural leave?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand my hon. and gallant Friend to be referring to Mesopotamia. Leave in that theatre of war is dependent, as elsewhere, on transport facilities, and the difficulties in this connection have been frequently explained. I understand that leave to India is granted to as many men as it is possible to arrange transport for and having regard to the military situation,
  1812
  but I am afraid that leave to this country can only be arranged in the most exceptional circumstances, and the suggestion, therefore, of special agricultural leave is hardly practicable.

  MAISONS TOLEREES (FRANCE).
  Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Under Secretary of State for War whether the practice of leaving maisons tolerées in France within bounds for British troops has been in force since the beginning of the War?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: As far as my information goes, the question of placing maisons tolerées in France out of bounds does not arise unless British troops have been misconducting themselves under circumstances which, in the interest of discipline, render it necessary to place such institutions out of bounds.
  Mr. SMITH: Is the War Office now considering the question of putting these places out of bounds for British troops?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I can add nothing to the statement I made the other day.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: That means that they have not so placed them?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: That is so.
  Mr. KING: Has the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief been taken on this matter?

  CAVALRY (OFFICERS).
  Major LANE-FOXasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there is a shortage of officers for the Cavalry in Palestine and Mesopotamia; and, if so, whether the claims of officers and non commissioned officers of Yeomanry regiments now dismounted and attached to Infantry battalions in France, whose long previous training in Cavalry work is now wasted, can be considered in selecting such officers or candidates for commissions?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: There is at present no shortage nor is there any expectation of a shortage. If the necessity arises we shall certainly draw on the sources indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    SOLDIERS OVER MILITARY AGE.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office are prepared to consider the position of men who volunteered for service on the outbreak of war when over military age; whether many of these men are now upwards of fifty years of age, and in some cases have served continuously in the trenches; and whether, in the cases of men with domestic obligations, the War Office is prepared to favourably consider applications for discharge to enable them to take up work of national importance in private life?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Applications based on domestic or compassionate grounds are, even if the applicant is category "A," sympathetically considered for a period of Home service, especially if the man concerned enlisted voluntarily and has served abroad for any considerable period. The man-power situation does not admit of the release of any fit men from the Army, and only cases of a most exceptional nature can, therefore, be considered.

    JEWISH BATTALION (PRIVATE J. RUBEN).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why Private J. Ruben, No. 110lJ, Jewish Battalion, has been drafted overseas after only three weeks in the Army and without any embarkation leave?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The man referred to by my hon. Friend had served for two months and ten days when drafted to complete his training overseas with his battalion. I am informed that he was given embarkation leave prior to leaving.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what charge J. P. Hughes, a conscientious objector, at Dartmoor, was arrested; whether it followed the report of Major Terrell; and whether that report will be published?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Committee on Employment of. Conscientious Objectors requested the Army Council to recall this man to his unit for refusing to work and for persuading other men to refuse to work. Before deciding to take this course the Committee had before them the report of an inquiry held at Prince town by the
    1814
    hon. and learned Member for Gloucester, the reports made to them by the manager and other officers of the work centre, and the man's own statement. The reply to the third part of the question is in the negative.

    TUBERCULOSIS.
    Major DAVIESasked the Minister of National Service whether his attention has been called to cases of men who have been enlisted into the Army while suffering from tuberculosis and who had produced certificates from the tuberculosis officer which were ignored by the medical boards; and whether he proposes to issue instructions to the medical boards, inconformity with Army Council Instruction No. 908/16, providing that a certificate from the tuberculosis officer or the medical officer of health is satisfactory evidence that a man is suffering from tuberculosis and that no further diagnosis is necessary?
    The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): No, Sir, I am not aware of any such cases. Certificates from tuberculosis officers are not ignored by National Service Medical Boards. On the contrary, all such certificates and all the evidence obtained from tuberculosis officers are carefully considered as directed in National Service Instruction No. 18, of 1917, which has been referred to in previous answers made on this subject to my hon. and gallant Friend. It must, however, be obvious that the decision in any case in which the presence of tuberculosis is alleged must rest with the medical board who are responsible for the diagnosis. I may add that the procedure laid down in the National Service Instruction was settled in consultation with some of the most eminent specialists in pulmonary disease in this country, and with the full concurrence of the Local Government Board. The Army Council Instruction to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is, I am informed, about to be withdrawn, and an Instruction embodying National Service Instruction No. 18 will be circulated by the War Office for the information and guidance of their medical officers.

    FARMERS' SONS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of National Service whether his attention has been called to the number of farmers' sons throughout the country there are engaged on the land and who are very fit militarily and between the. ages eighteen and

    1815
    twenty-five; and, if so, has he considered the advisability of substituting for these men soldiers of agricultural experience who have done their share of the fighting on the various fronts?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on the 24th January by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service, and to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for War to the hon. and gallant Member for Banffshire on the 5th February.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many farmers' sons of between fifteen and eighteen there are in the country?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I cannot go into that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has substitution taken effect to any extent in the case of farmers' sons?
    Sir A. GEDDES: There is a shortage of really skilled agricultural labour in this country, and at present we are engaged in reinforcing the supply of skilled labour to assist food production.

  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (CORRESPONDENCE).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of letters per month which British officer prisoners of war in Germany and German officer prisoners of war in this country, respectively, are permitted to write home; and whether he will take steps to ensure that German prisoners enjoy no greater advantages in this respect than are given to British prisoners?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: German officer prisoners are allowed two letters per week on special paper, which covers about two pages of ordinary notepaper, the lines being widely spaced. British officer prisoners are allowed two letters of unlimited length per month and one postcard a week.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that great additional labour is thrown on the Censorship Department by this very large number of letters which is permitted to German prisoners?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: That is no doubt the case, but they have not complained.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE (DISTINCTIONS).
  Colonel LESLIE WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the decision which has been arrived at with regard to the distinction or distinctions to be awarded to officers and men of the Territorial Forces who joined up previous to the outbreak of hostilities cannot be announced and such award be made now?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave him on Tuesday last, and more particularly to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wands worth on the 14th February. In the latter answer I mentioned that the whole question of the commemoration of War service in its various degrees had been considered and that an appropriate distinction or distinctions, would be granted. For reasons which I feel sure will be appreciated by my hon. and gallant Friend, no announcement can very well be made till the end of the War.
  Colonel WILSON: Is it not a fact that in the answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers he said that a decision had been arrived at; and is it not the case that when the decision was arrived at in regard to the Mons Star that decision was announced at once, and, if so, why cannot the decision now arrived at be announced also?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. and gallant Friend knows that the Mons Star is not a medal. He will realise that it is very difficult indeed to announce the decision we have come to before the end of the War, so far as medals are concerned.
  Captain LLOYD: In view of the very strong feeling on this matter in the Territorial Force, will not my hon. Friend reconsider it?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I can assure the House that at the end of the War the decision which has just been come to will be announced. If my hon. and gallant Friend will speak to me privately I shall be quite willing to tell him why we do not announce it now.
  Colonel CROFT: Can we take it that the fact that officers and men have been discharged owing to wounds or sickness will not affect the grant of the long-service Territorial decoration?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think that that arises, but we have come to the conclusion that war service does count double so far as efficiency is concerned.

  OFFICERS' WIVES.
  Sir ROBERT PRICEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that every European Allied Army except the British Army offers facilities for the wives of officers to be with their husbands in places not within the immediate war zones, such as Genoa; and whether he will consider the advisability of giving such facilities at all events to wives of senior officers who are likely to be resident in one place for some considerable time?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: As far as the British Forces are concerned in France and Italy, wives of officers are allowed to reside with their husbands, subject to the permission of the local commanding officer, with the following exceptions:

  (a) War zones.

  (b) Lines of communication.

  (c) Base ports.

  As regards spheres of operations overseas, permission is not usually granted to wives to join their husbands owing to the Government's decision that women and children shall not be permitted to cross the danger zone at sea.

  ARMY CHAPLAINS (PAY).
  Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether chaplains are to come under the new rate of pay of 13s. 6d. per day for captains, or is the distinction in pay at present existing between chaplain captains and Army captains to be perpetuated under the new scale?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given on this subject on the 25th February to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leominster.

  RETIRED OFFICERS (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
  Colonel BURNasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will con-
  1818
  sider the case of officers on retired pay who are employed as Army Special Staff Officers, Censor's Department, etc., with a view to putting them on equal terms as regards pay and allowances with those officers not drawing any pension who perform the same duties and whose pay and allowances have been increased under a recent warant?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid I cannot adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. The Warrant represents the decision of the War Cabinet arrived at after full consideration.

  ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT, DUBLIN.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office when the award of the Conciliation Board for increased wages to civilian clerks employed in the Army Pay Department and Record Office in Dublin may be expected?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Instructions will be issued very shortly.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Major DAVID DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an officer who has been removed from his regiment and has been transferred to the command of a service battalion is still entitled to the pension and emoluments on retirement which would have been due to him if he had remained in command of a unit of his own regiment?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Time in command of a service battalion with substantive rank of lieutenant-colonel counts as service towards a lieutenant-colonel's retired pay in the same way as time in command of a battalion of the old Regular Army.
  Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the declaration required in Army (Widows' Pensions) Form No. 1037, to the effect that the widow's private income has not been increased, including personal earnings and voluntary allowances from relatives and friends, it is the intention of the Ministry of Pensions to prohibit any

  1819
  widow in receipt of a pension from performing any duty for which payment is made or from receiving any gift from relatives or friends, and to reduce or stop the pension in the case of the widow doing so; and, if not, will he have this declaration cancelled?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The form referred to provides for a declaration of means, which is only intended for use by widows whose pensions are contingent on the amount of their private income. This declaration is not required from widows whose pensions are issued by the Ministry of Pensions, as such pensions are not contingent on private income, and the portion of the form providing for such, a declaration should be crossed out before it is sent to a widow drawing a pension from that Department. Every endeavour is made to see that this is done, but possibly my hon. and gallant Friend's attention has been called to a case in which this has been omitted by oversight. I understand that a fresh form omitting the means declaration altogether is in course of preparation for use in cases dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Pensions Minister when the present scale of pensions to soldiers' and sailors' dependants will be increased?
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether the pensions at present payable to widows and children are to be increased, and, if so, to what extent?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am not yet able to make any announcement on this matter, which is still under consideration.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether he can now say if the pension payable to war pensioners prior to the present War is to be brought in to line with the amounts in the existing warrants?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The proposed Warrant dealing with these pensions is not yet finally settled. As I have already stated, the terms when settled will be announced at the earliest possible moment.
  Major LANE-FOXasked whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to the application of Mrs. Florrie Dixon, whose husband, Corporal F. Dixon, of the Miners' Battalion, King's Own Yorkshire
  1820
  Light Infantry, died as a result of injuries received in an accident while on military duty in November, 1914, for a pension; and, if not, whether, in view of the delay that has occurred, a decision can be come to and announced forthwith?
  Sir A GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am glad to be able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that payment of a full widow's pension to Mrs. Dixon has now been authorised.
  Colonel HERBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions whether he has yet been able to ascertain whether Private W. Newberry, late No. 1753 Royal West Kent Regiment, was notified on the 17th November, 1917, by the Ministry of Pensions that a temporary pension of 30d. a day had been granted to him from the 24th August,. 1917, until the 27th August, 1919, his permanent pension of 24d. a day being in abeyance from the 24th August, 1917; and whether he can now explain why Private Newberry has received no pension since the 1st October, 1917?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: This is a "pre-war" disability pension, which has been temporarily increased on a re-examination by a medical board. Owing to a misunderstanding by the regimental paymaster there was a break in payment at the beginning of this year, but I am informed that the penson of 24d. a day was regularly paid up to the 31st December last. A sum of £14 12s. 11d. has now beer; paid to Private Newberry tins being made up of the extra 6d. a day due to him from 24th August, 1917, up to 31st December, and 30d. a day from the latter date to the end of the present month.

  WOOL CLIP. 1918.
  Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any arrangement has yet been made whereby farmers in selling their wool clip of 1918 will have some option in he choice of the wool brokers to whom they will send their output, so that they may not be forced to send their goods to brokers who may have acted wrongfully to those farmers in the past; and is he aware that this forcing of sales to particular individuals is a principle that goes further than any other Department has gone since the outbreak of the War?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the similar questions put by him on 28th January and 19th December last. It should be remembered that authorised merchants are merely commission agents acting under the direct supervision of the Department.

  SOLDIERS' WIDOWS AND CHILDREN (MEDICAL AID).
  Major DAVIESasked the Pensions Minister whether the scheme for the provision of medical aid for the widows and children of soldiers which was promised to the House on 6th March, 1917, has been put into operation; and, if so, whether he is prepared to consider the question of extending its scope so that it may also include the wives and children of soldiers who are now serving in the Army?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The scheme referred to was considered in connection with Article 10 (2) of the present Royal Warrant for the pensions of disabled men and widows, which allowed the Minister of Pensions "to deduct from any pension or allowance under Part II. of the Warrant the cost of any benefit which it may hereafter be decided to substitute for any part of the pension or allowance." I do not favourably view under present circumstances the scheme of making deductions from pension for the purpose, and the matter is for the present in abeyance.
  Major DAVIES: What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do to provide medical treatment for these women?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That, of course, is another question altogether. That matter is under consideration. If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a specific question I shall be glad to answer it.

  DISCHARGED DISABLED MEN (TUBERCULOSIS).
  Major DAVIESasked the Pensions Minister whether he has now been able to arrive at an agreement with the Welsh Insurance Commissioners so as to provide that in the future the cost of treatment of discharged and disabled men suffering from tuberculosis will be entirely borne by
  1822
  the Ministry of Pensions; and whether, as it is presumed that these men did not suffer from this disease when they entered the Army and contracted tuberculosis during their period of military service, he will explain why it is proposed that part of the cost of their treatment should now be borne by the funds provided under the National Insurance Act?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No such agreement as that referred to by the hon. and gallant Member has been considered, and I have no power under the terms of the Royal Warrant to pay the expenses of treatment so far as provision is otherwise made for them. Under the National Insurance Acts the provision of treatment for cases of tuberculosis in general falls upon the Insurance Commissioners and insurance committees. I have, however, made arrangements to defray the cost of treatment in certain classes of cases, namely, advanced cases of the disease and early cases sent for prolonged treatment and training to farm colonies; and in addition I have assisted the insurance authorities to provide additional Grants-in-Aid so as to secure preferential treatment generally for discharged men. The hon. and gallant Member's assumption that discharged men suffering from tuberculosis "did not suffer from the disease when they entered the Army and contracted tuberculosis during the period of military service" is incorrect with regard to a substantial proportion of the men.

  EX-CZAR (SECRET POLICE ORGANISATION)
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether any person in the employ of the Home Office is known to have been in the pay or service of the secret police organisation of the ex-Czar Nicholas of Russia?
  Sir G. CAVE: The answer is in the negative. The hon. Member may be referring to a Metropolitan Police officer who, after his retirement from the Force in 1912, and when he was free to take any employment he pleased, undertook certain inquiries on behalf of the Russian Government. This officer was not in the service of the Russian Secret Police, and his connection with the Russian Government ceased some time ago
  Mr. KING: When this officer undertook this work for a foreign Power, did he communicate the fact that he was doing it to the Home Office?
  Sir J. D. REES: Has any hostility to this country ever been brought home to the ex-Emperor, and is not the question a mere cover to an ungenerous attack on him?
  Sir G. CAVE: My hon. Friend must judge for himself. The man is perfectly free to do what he pleases.

  SUMMER TIME.
  Mr. THEODORE C. TAYLORasked the Home Secretary whether he will meet the public convenience by extending during summer time the period during which it is unnecessary to show lights on vehicles from half an hour after sunset to one hour after sunset?
  Sir G. CAVE: I am advised that the present requirements with regard to lighting up could not be relaxed without prejudicing the safety of traffic, particularly pedestrian traffic, and I am not prepared to make any change.

  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
  Sir FRANCIS LOWEasked the Home Secretary (1) whether the Commissioners appointed to select 100 constituencies in which the principle of proportional representation is to be tried will be required to obtain the consent of the electors of those constituencies and their representatives in Parliament before any such experiment is forced upon them;

  (2).whether, in formulating their scheme for the experimental application of the principle of proportional representation to Parliamentary elections in 100 selected constituencies, the Commissioners will be bound by the decision of this House whereby Birmingham was to be excluded from the operations of any such proposal;

  (3)whether the Commissioners appointed to test the principle of proportional representation will, in selecting the constituencies which are to be experimented upon, give priority to those which are represented by Members who voted in favour of this principle when it formed the subject of Divisions in the House of Commons?

  Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first two questions is in the negative. The third question is a matter for the Commissioners to determine.
  Sir F. LOWE: What steps, if any, are being taken to ascertain the views of the representatives of the people in the various constituencies affected on the question?
  Sir G. CAVE: I have answered that. The Commissioners have power to hold local inquiries, and I have not the least doubt they will do so.
  Sir F. LOWE: Have they started on these local inquiries?
  Sir G. CAVE: I really do not know. I do not control them.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: How long after the Report is issued are these inquiries to be held?
  Sir G. CAVE: They will be held before the Report.
  Sir F. LOWE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Instructions to these Commissioners have not been laid before the House, and therefore we are entirely in the dark as to what is going on?
  Sir G. CAVE: The Instructions are only those contained in the Act of Parliament. There are no others.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will not the recommendations of the Commissioners come before the House for its sanction?
  Sir G. CAVE: Yes.

  M. LITVINOFF.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Home Secretary what action, if any, the Government propose to take against the Member of the House who is reported to have urged the workers of this country to adopt Bolshevik methods and start a revolution in this country, this statement being made at a meeting at which M. Litvinoff was present?
  Sir G. CAVE: The Government do not propose to take action in this matter.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman exercise the new powers he has by the Order in Council in the case of any alien publicly advising the people of this country to adopt Bolshevik methods?
  Sir G. CAVE: I shall not hesitate to do so.
  Mr. FABER: Will my right hon. Friend give the name of the Member who acted in the way referred to in the question?
  Sir G. CAVE: It is hardly worth while giving the name.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the statement that a Member of this House advised the workers of this country to take Bolshevik action here, and, if so, does he still say the Member should not be prosecuted?
  Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the other 670 Members in this House, does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in justice to them at least, this name should be given out?
  Mr. FABER: What reason is there why the name should not be given?
  Sir G. CAVE: There is no reason except that it would not be worth while. It was the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) who made the statement that it was desirable that the people of this country should follow the example of Russia. I did not think it worth while to take any action.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is entirely untrue that the hon. Member made any such statement? I was present at the meeting and heard what was said.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Has the Home Office any proof that the hon. Member for Burnley did make the statement, and, if not, on what ground did the Home Secretary make his statement in the House?
  Mr. TILLETT: It is entirely untrue.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Burnley in this speech, which I heard, distinctly warned his audience against a physical force revolution?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss that question.
  Mr. TILLETT: It is entirely untrue.

  RUSSIA

    BRITISH MILITARY MISSION.
    Mr. KING:asked the Prime Minister whether the British Military Mission is still being retained in Russia; and, if so, whether its recall will be considered?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am not in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. KING: Is it any good for us to maintain a British Military Mission in Russia when we have no relations with that country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had his answer.

    RUSSIANS IN BRITISH ARMY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet has considered, or will consider, the present position of those Russian subjects who have joined the British Army, some as volunteers and others under the Russian military convention; whether he is aware that no British subjects have at any time been called up in Russia under this convention; whether it is intended to call up any more Russian subjects here to serve in the British Army; and whether he will consider a gradual demobilisation of those Russians now serving under the British flag if they apply to be discharged and on condition of their doing work of national importance, or, alternatively, whether full British citizenship will be offered to all Russians who continue to serve and bear good characters as soldiers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As has already been announced, no Russian subjects are being called up for military service. The various points referred to in the last half of the question are at present under consideration.

  SUPREME WAR COUNCIL.
  Mr. DENMANasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange that the elected members of the Legislative Councils shall be invited to select one of the representatives of India who are to attend the sittings of the Imperial War Cabinet and so avoid the recurrence of the grievance felt by educated Indians last year?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Imperial War Cabinet consists of the representatives of the Governments of the chief portions of the Empire. It is therefore impossible to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

  GENERAL SMUTS.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he can say, without

  1827
  detriment to the public interest, the nature of the work which General Smuts is now engaged on; and whether he is a member of or has a right to attend the sittings of the War Council?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no change in the position of General Smuts, who continues to be a member of the War Cabinet.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: He is doing the general work of the Cabinet in the same way as other members.
  Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when General Smuts is likely to return to this country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall be able to answer that when he has gone away.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is it a fact that General Smuts, who is, perhaps, the one great character, is constrained to carry out the policy of Lord Milner in relation to—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is raising matter for debate.

  INVESTMENTS BY MINISTERS.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce some legislative measure to prevent any member of His Majesty's Government from either personally or through the medium of a nominee investing any money in any company, either British or foreign, which may be either directly or indirectly affected by the progress of the War day by day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, as Leader of the House, he will use his influence with the Coalition party to prevent them at least investing party funds in foreign securities for the duration of the War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW:I have not had my attention called to that, but the one reason why I did not answer the question in the affirmative is that I cannot imagine any business which has not been affected by the progress of the War.
  Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the opinion of the people of this country at least, a vast
  1828
  amount of the Liberal party funds were invested in Germany and South America before the War?

  IRELAND.

    RESTORATION OF LAW AND ORDER.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he had any statement to make with regard to the measures that have been or are about to be taken by the Government to aid the Irish Executive in the restoration of law and order in the three Southern provinces?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Chief Secretary is at present in Ireland, as is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Forces, and the information received by the Government is to the effect that the measures which have been taken are having the desired result.
    Major NEWMAN: Will the Royal Irish Constabulary be given every support in the future in carrying out their arduous duties?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is hardly necessary to answer that question. It is the full intention of the Government to maintain order in Ireland, as in every other part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only safe measure at the present moment is to stop tinkering with the Irish Question, and to give them a full measure of freedom?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is raising a wide question of debate.

    CONVENTION (COMMENT ON PROCEEDINGS).
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the Irish Convention has brought its deliberations to a close; and, if not, could the Regulation which prohibits discussion or comment on its proceedings, and which has been loyally observed for the past nine months by the members themselves and the Irish Press, but which has been treated as a dead letter by a portion of the Press of this country, be annulled?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that the Convention are now discussing questions like urban housing, land purchase, and so on?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had his reply.

    RECONSTRUCTION.
    Captain SHEEHANasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether, in the Advisory Council which he has appointed to assist his Department, he has absolutely denied representation to Irish town and country workers; whether this refusal to recognise the claims of Irish labour was of deliberate intention on his part; and, seeing that British labour interests are adequately represented, whether he can explain why the position of Irish labour is ignored?
    The MINISTER Of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): It would not be possible without making the council unduly large to include representatives of every interest, but it is my intention, as I have already stated, to add additional members from time to time, according to the nature of the subjects referred to the Council for advice; and in the event of any question affecting Irish labour being so referred, the necessity of obtaining the views of Irish labour representatives would arise.
    Captain SHEEHAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the point whether it is not the fact that he has absolutely refused to recognise the claims of Irish labour?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have constituted the Council as well as I can.
    Captain SHEEHAN: You have no Irish labour interest represented on the Council.
    Dr. ADDISON: A large number of people are not represented on the Council.
    Captain SHEEHAN: My point is as to Irish labour.
    Captain SHEEHANasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a once a distinctively Irish Reconstruction Council, thoroughly representative of all Irish trade, labour, and scientific interests, to deal with reconstruction work in Ireland after the War, and to formulate immediately national schemes of reconstruction for that country?
    Dr. ADDISON: I will consult my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, but my own view is that, at all events, most of the objects which the hon. Member has in mind may be better accomplished through the agency of the strong and representative Advisory Council which I have
    1830
    recently set up, and which contains members from England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.
    Captain SHEEHANasked the Minister of Reconstruction the number of Departments and Committees he has had assisting him in his reconstructive duties; upon how many of these was there special representation for Irish interests; and were any inquiries conducted in Ireland as to what could be done in the way of national reconstruction in that country after the War?
    Dr. ADDISON: I must refer the hon. Member to Command Paper 8196, which will, I think, give him the information for which he asks.
    Captain SHEEHANasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether his Department has considered the question of improving transit facilities in Ireland after the War, of establishing new harbours on the West Coast of Ireland and connecting them with the main railway systems of the country, and generally of improving the internal and external means of trade communications for Ireland?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am considering the question of the improvement of transit facilities generally, and, as at present advised, I am not prepared to consider specific proposals for the establishment of new harbours in Ireland or elsewhere.
    Captain SHEEHANasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether he has received any representations from Irish Government Departments in reference to rehousing schemes in Ireland after the War; if so, will he say what Departments made these representations, what was the nature of them, and what action was taken upon them; and can he give an estimate of the sum it is proposed to spend in England and Scotland, respectively, on re housing work after the War and what corresponding or equivalent sum is to be allocated for similar purposes in Ireland?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am in consultation with my colleagues on the subject of the general policy of housing throughout the United Kingdom, and have not considered specific schemes, which will be dealt with by the executive Departments concerned. I am not yet in a position to give the estimate asked for in the last part of the question.
    Captain SHEEHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of

    1831
    my question, whether he has received information from Irish Government Departments, and, if so, from which?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have been in frequent consultation with the Chief Secretary on this very matter.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Did the right hon. Gentleman call his attention to the fact that the Convention is going to spend next year in considering the question of Irish housing?
    Dr. ADDISON: No; it has nothing to do with that matter.
    Captain SHEEHAN: My question definitely asks whether any Irish Government Departments were consulted, and, if so, which?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have frequently consulted the Department of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.
    Captain SHEEHANasked the Minister of Reconstruction in what ways, and to what extent, it is proposed to carry out reconstruction work in Ireland after the War; what special industries it is proposed to foster and develop; and what new industries, if any, it is intended to introduce or establish in the country?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am not in a position to make a general statement in reply to this question. Representative Irishmen have a place on many of the Committees of Inquiry which are dealing with the problem of reconstruction, and I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary over various other matters in which Ireland is specially concerned.
    Captain SHEEHAN: What I ask is whether the right hon. Gentleman can make a statement as to actual reconstruction work being executed in Ireland? The idea prevails in Ireland that the right hon. Gentleman is doing nothing.

  SUBMARINE WARFARE (LORD FISHER'S MEMORANDUM).
  Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked whether Lord Fisher submitted to the Committee of Imperial Defence, on the 14th May, 1914, a Memorandum pointing out that the coming of the submarine had broken down the whole foundation of our traditional naval strategy, and that the
  1832
  question must be faced as to how a blockade could be enforced and our mercantile commerce protected?
  Commander BELLAIRSasked whether Lord Fisher submitted a Memorandum to the Admiralty prior to the War in which he conveyed the warning that German submarines would be used against our commerce; if so, on what date; whether Lord Fisher was a member of the Defence Committee at the time; and whether this warning from a former First Sea Lord was brought to the notice of the Defence Committee and Cabinet?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that Lord Fisher wrote a Memorandum early in 1914, but that it was not submitted either to the Board of Admiralty or to the Committee of Imperial Defence. I think that it was not circulated to the Cabinet, but I understand that it was given personally to the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  In the report of the answer which I gave to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone on the 25th February I notice that the word "not" appears in the first sentence. As Lord Fisher was a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence in 1912 I am having the necessary correction made in the bound volume of the Official Report.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he did not make this correction before, and is he certain that the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty of that date did not circulate that Memorandum to their Cabinet colleagues?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I said in my answer that I thought it was not circulated; but as I was not a member of the Cabinet at the time I can only be sure by asking the Prime Minister or some other member. As to the other part of the question, the mistake having been made I am having it corrected.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman consult the records of the Council of Imperial Defence, and find out whether this Memorandum was not circulated to that Council and to the Admiralty?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have given a direct answer about that. There are records of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and the answer is that it was not circulated by them. As regards the Cabinet I cannot say

  BRITISH ARMY (ROYAL PREROGATIVE).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that even in the reign of Queen Victoria the principle was not recognised that the monarch by prerogative spoke of the Army of the nation as "My Army," he will state the constitutional authority on which the present practice rests; and whether, in view of the necessity of giving the freest play to democratic sentiment, he will arrange, by legislation or otherwise, that the phrase "My Army" be discarded in Royal pronouncements?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member is mistaken as to the practice in Queen Victoria's reign. If he will refer to the Hansard of the period he will find the same phraseology used repeatedly. There has been no change in this respect and there is no intention of making any.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is it not a fact that Lord Palmerston prepared announcements for Queen Victoria to which she objected because he refused to style the Army "My Army"?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have never been informed as to the accuracy of that historical statement.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman weigh his answer in connection with the present circumstances, where it is necessary to call upon the democratic spirit of the people to eliminate—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is raising matter of debate.

  CIVIL SERVICE (PENSIONS).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of lower-grade Civil servants in receipt of pensions of less than £100 per annum who through age, infirmity, or other valid reasons are unable to supplement their at present admittedly inadequate allowance; and whether, with a view of granting them a temporary addition during the period of the War, he will introduce some feasible scheme?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): My hon. Friend (Mr. Stanley Baldwin) has been called away, and he asks me to say that he has nothing to add to his previous answers on this subject

  BANK CHARTER ACT, 1844.
  Mr. E. DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Committee appointed on the 10th January, and presided over by the Governor of the Bank of England, to inquire into problems in currency and foreign exchanges during the period of reconstruction are only to report on the steps to be taken to bring about the restoration of normal conditions and that the Bank Charter Act, 1844, was one of the normal pre-war conditions and that therefore the effect of that Act is outside the Committee's terms of reference, he can see his way to appoint a small Committee to consider the desirability of forthwith amending or repealing that Act?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The question whether it is desirable to amend or repeal the Bank Act of 1844 is regarded both by His Majesty's Government and by the Committee itself as falling within the terms of reference of the Committee referred to, and will be considered by them in the course of their inquiry.
  Mr. DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the question is not sufficiently important to be referred to a separate Committee, on which the Government and the Bank of England need not necessarily be represented?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is of very great importance, and I certainly think that this Committee is very competent to deal with it. As it happens, the Governor of the Bank gives up his office at the end of this month, and he must in any case look at the question from the point of view of the public interest.

  ENEMY BANKS.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the proposal made by Sir W. Plender, in his Report of the 16th December, 1916, that the outstanding debts and assets of the Deutsche Bank, the Disconto-Gesellschaft, the Dresdner Bank, the Oesterreichische Laender Bank, and the Anglo-Austrian Bank should be vested in the custodian of enemy property, to be realised by him as far as possible, and administered in accordance with the licences granted to the banks by the Home Secretary; whether this proposal was con-

  1835
  sidered and rejected by the Government; and, if so, whether there exist for such rejection any better reasons than those advanced by Mr. W. Leaf and Sir R. V. Vassar-Smith in their Report of 12th January, 1917?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I have recently again considered a suggested alteration in the method employed in the collection and disposal of the assets of the London agencies of the enemy banks, but the results achieved under Sir William Plender's direction since the investigation of this question by Mr. Leaf and Sir Richard Vassar-Smith confirm me in the view that to make the change suggested would not hasten the final liquidation of the banks.
  Mr. FABER: Is not the amount of the still outstanding assets a relatively trivial matter compared with the overweening necessity of winding up these banks once and for all?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have looked into this question very closely, and the rights of individuals are bound up with it, and I do not think we should be justified in taking the course suggested.
  Mr. BILLING: Are they individual Britishers or individual Germans?
  Mr. FABER: In the circumstances would it not be better to reimburse the individuals and close these banks?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think so. I think that everything that can be done is being done to wind up these banks effectively and quickly.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Is it not a fact that they are practically wound up; that they have ceased to exist as banks?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, they have ceased to exist as banks.
  Mr. HENDERSON: What more do you want?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Some of their assets have to be realised, and that is the point.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the statements in paragraph 21 of Sir W. Plender's Report of 13th December, 1917, and fully recognising the valuable services rendered by Sir W. Plender in the liquidation of the German and Austrian
  1836
  banks in this country, he will request Sir W. Plender to make a further Report not later than June, 1918, with a view, if possible, of terminating his duties as controller of these banks?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It does not appear that any useful purpose would be served at the moment by asking Sir William Plender to make a further Report not later than June, 1918. His last Report dealt exhaustively with the position at 30th September, 1917, and explained the nature of the operations still to be undertaken. I understand that the delivery of securities to the custodian is proceeding as quickly as possible, but that certain Vesting Orders embracing the most important section of the securities, both in value and bulk, are still to be made. A further Report will be asked for at 30th September this year.
  Mr. BUTCHER: When these Orders now in contemplation have been made and the securities still belonging to the banks have been placed in safe custody, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the proceedings for the winding up of the banks are brought to an end and the question of the adjustment of the rights of individuals be considered hereafter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the wish of the Government that the banks should be wound up effectively as soon as possible. I think that nothing is gained by doing more than we are doing now.
  Sir J. D. REES: Are there not small committees of administration? Is it correct to speak of Sir W. Plender as the Controller?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Is it not a fact that the mere vesting of assets in the Public Trustee completely closes the banks for all operations in this country, and that simply to force realisation would be to injure ourselves, when there are so many assets which cannot possibly be realised until after the War is over?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I do not take the view of my hon. Friend. I think that the general desire, with which I sympathise, is that the banks should, if possible, be finally closed.
  Mr. HENDERSON: They are closed.

  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  Mr. COCHRANEasked the total number of War Savings Certificates issued

  1837
  to the end of February, 1918, and the total number presented for repayment to the same date?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The total number of War Savings Certificates issued to the end of February, 1918, was 164,600,000, and the total number repaid to the same date was 5,146,000. The latter figure includes about 750,000 certificates which were surrendered in subscription to other war securities.

  DOWAGER DUCHESS OF COBURG.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the arrangement by which the British Treasury pays £5,000 a year to the Dowager Duchess of Coburg rests on a contract with the Government of Russia involving mutual obligations, and that these obligations are not being respected, and considering, moreover, the necessity of Germany and also the pro-German activities of the person in question, he will declare the contract null and void?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the previous answers which I have given on this subject.
  Mr. LYNCH: Since the previous answer was given, has not the position with reference to Russia changed in such a way that all previous contracts have gone by the board?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No. It is quite true that the present Russian Government, or those in authority in Russia, have cancelled the obligations, but it does not follow that we have cancelled ours.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the Government consider the advisability of appointing a Committee of Members of this House to inquire into all the enemies to whom we are paying pensions, and will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the hon. Member who has put the question should be a member of that Committee?

  REQUISITIONED STEAMERS (DUBLIN).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller if he is aware of the discontent amongst the checking and clerical staff of the City of Dublin Company's steamers at present being worked under Government control; and if he will say when they will be paid an increase in wages or if they will receive
  1838
  the Committee of Production's award, as is paid to the staffs of other requisitioned steamers running from Dublin?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The remuneration of the employés in question has been substantially improved since the ships were requisitioned. Their recent application is, I understand, now under consideration.
  Mr. BYRNE: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that 3s. a week increase on the war bonus is a substantial increase?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: As I understand, the increase is more than that in many cases, but as I have informed my hon. Friend there are further applications now under consideration.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    NEW TONNAGE.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked what was the amount of mercantile tonnage constructed in February?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The returns have been got in specially for this month. My right hon. Friend will presently deal with them.
    Mr. LAMBERT: The figures for November, December, and January were given a fortnight ago. Can you give them now?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I can say this: that the figures for February, though not up to forecast, are very nearly double those for January, and indicate a great advance.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May we not have the figures?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not got them with me.

    STANDARD SHIPS.
    Mr. ROCHasked how many different types of so-called standard vessels have been ordered; whether the number of different types is approximately thirty; and, if not, what is the correct number of the different types?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Apart from coasting vessels, of which the standard types have not been finally settled, there are ten approved types of standard ships.
    Mr. ROCH: Have there never been more than ten?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: There have never been more than ten.
    Mr. ROCHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether, since November or December, 1916, orders have been placed for some 345 standard vessels; if not, will he state the actual number of standard vessels which have been ordered in the United Kingdom; and whether he will state the actual number of these standard vessels completed and in service on 28th February last, giving the total gross register tonnage of these vessels completed and now afloat?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am sorry I am unable to state the number of standard vessels on order. The number delivered up to 28th February is seventeen, of about 86,000 tons gross. Of these, one of 5,173 tons gross has been lost.

    ALLIED FLEETS.
    Mr. ROCHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he can state in tons the quantity of steel or iron shipbuilding material which has been supplied to France and to Italy, respectively, during the past twelve months by this country?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Worthington Evans): I regret that particulars cannot be given without disclosing information which would be of value to the enemy.
    Mr. ROCHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether France has yet requisitioned the whole of her merchant tonnage for Allied purposes; and, if so, can he state the terms or rate of hire on which this tonnage has been so requisitioned for Allied purposes, comparing the same with the terms or rate of hire paid for British steamers of similar types which have been allocated to the French service?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division on the 19th February. The decree which the French Government have-sanctioned for the universal requisition of the French mercantile marine takes effect as from the 10th March, 1918, and not from the 1st March, as previously understood; this decree provides for the vessels to be taken by the French Government on the
    1840
    basis of a standard charter party, as to the precise terms of which I have no information.

  NEWFOUNDLAND (DIVERSION OF SHIPPING).
  Mr. PRINGLEasked whether ships on their outward voyage from British to American ports have been diverted to Newfoundland to carry cargoes of wood-pulp produced by the Anglo-Newfoundland Trust to the United States; whether this deviation involves a delay of seven days; and, if so, whether instructions have now been given to discontinue the practice?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I have inquired fully into this matter since my hon. Friend raised it in Debate. The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. No requisitioned ship, and so far as I can ascertain, no ship of any kind, either British, Allied, or neutral, engaged in or suitable for transatlantic trade, has been used to carry wood-pulp from Newfoundland to the United States of America. Certain small neutral and American ships have taken cargoes, in addition to two British ships, one a small whaler, and the other the small passenger ship "Florizel," which was recently lost. I think I ought to add that the two ocean going ships possessed by this company, and used by them for the special purpose of carrying their pulp to this country, were requisitioned by the Shipping Controller early in 1917, and are in general service.

  BRITISH SHIPBUILDING RESOURCES.
  Mr. ROCHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the falling off in building new ships during the past three months is in a measure due to the number of ships damaged by enemy action and requiring extensive repairs; whether he can state the total number of damaged vessels now in the United Kingdom which are undergoing repairs or waiting for facilities to effect repairs; and whether he can state how many of these vessels will or would occupy more than six months under present conditions to effect repairs?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The work of repairing ships damaged by enemy action has undoubtedly made a large demand on the shipbuilding resources of the country, particularly as regards labour, which would

  1841
  otherwise have been available for the construction of new merchant tonnage. The total number of such vessels which are undergoing repairs is seventy-seven; docking accommodation has been arranged for two others; and there are five vessels awaiting facilities for effecting repair. It is estimated that four of the vessels in question will take more than six months from the present date to complete.

  IRISH RAILWAYS.
  Captain SHEEHANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, now that Irish railways are under State control, he will take steps to have a connection made between the Cork and Macroom Railway and the Cork, Bandon, and South Coast Railway at Cork; whether at present traffic on the Macroom Railway is cut off from access to the port and also from rail connection with the rest of Ireland, with the result that all through traffic from Macroom has to be carted or driven through the city of Cork; whether he is aware that a connection between the two lines mentioned formerly existed, that the land for the purpose is still available, and that only a few yards of rail are necessary to make the connection; whether repeated complaints have been made from Macroom that their fairs and markets are injured by the fact that that town, from the want of the connection referred to, is cut off from both direct communication with the rest of, Ireland over the Cork link railways and also from port facilities, all traffic having to be transhipped at Cork, and that many buyers for that reason refuse to attend; and whether he will state the reason why the connection is not made?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): As the hon. and gallant Gentleman was informed on the 5th February, inquiries are being made in connection with this matter, and I hope that these inquiries will be completed shortly. I should, however, point out that the question involved is not one falling within the arrangements for the State control of the Irish railways.
  Captain SHEEHAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an announcement has been made that work has already been commenced in connection with those railways?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am not aware of that.

  TRAMWAY AND OMNIBUS WORKERS.
  Mr. TILLETTasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received intimation of the fact that the organised tramway and omnibus workers of the United Kingdom have given seven days' notice, terminating 9th March, entirely to withdraw their labour failing an extension to passenger vehicle workers of the Ask with award of 8th January providing for £l per week advance over pre-war wages granted to commercial vehicle workers; and whether, in view of the breakdown in the negotiations, he proposes to work jointly with the President of the Board of Trade to avoid an entire stoppage of the tramway undertakings of the country?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend has received such a notice. He has for some time been conferring with both sides and is continuing the conferences in the hope of reaching a settlement. He is also in consultation with the Board of Trade on the matter.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  Consolidation Bills—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be. joined with the said Lords.
  That they have referred the Income Tax Bill to the said Committee.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Commander BELLAIRS: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in reference to the questions discussed yesterday and to be discussed to-day—which open up a very large new field on the Navy Estimates in connection with the Shipbuilding Votes— whether we will be allowed, as sometimes has been done in the past, to discuss general policy in the latter stage on Votes A and 1?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question not so much for me as for the Chairman of Committees, but the rule is, and I have no reason to think that it will be departed from, that the general discussion on Votes A or 1 ranges over all topics presented in the Navy Estimates.

  SUPPLY [4TH MARCH].
  Resolution reported,
  SUPPLY [4TH MARCH].

    GRANT TO LADY MAUDE.
    "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 Lieut.-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."
    Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY.
    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.

      STATEMENT BY SIR ERIC GEDDES.
      Order for Committee read.
      The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Eric Geddes): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
      It is nearly three months since I had the honour of addressing the House on the Vote of Credit, and, before coming to a general review of the Naval situation and of Admiralty activity, I would like to occupy a few moments of the time of the House on a personal matter. It is considerably over a month since I have attended a sitting of the House, and my absence has been the subject of some
      1866
      comment, both in the House and outside. I venture to make a plea to the House, on my own behalf, that it will view my infrequent attendance here in the light of an assurance that if I am elsewhere it is simply because, in my judgment, I am thus best serving my country at this time. I recognise to the full my responsibility to this House, and the need, especially in my case, that I should earn and retain its confidence. I am a man with no party politics. I have neither knowledge, gifts, or inclination for them, and I most earnestly beg that, if I have the confidence of the House personally, I and the Admiralty may be left as far as possible outside party politics. While thanking the House for its indulgence in the past, I ask it to permit me again, on this occasion, to make constant reference to the very full notes which I have prepared, and would ask hon. Members to regard it as a statement of a plain business man, unskilled in oratory or rhetoric, endeavouring to give a true and faithful record of his stewardship. My absence abroad—to which I will refer later—was caused solely and only by Admiralty business, and I occupied my time on nothing else. My journey was undertaken in the knowledge that it is impossible to administer intelligently large and complicated establishments which one has never seen, under the control of officers whom one has never met; that one cannot understand the views and desires of one's Allies if one does not see their conditions for oneself and confer with them at the scene of their activities.

      STATEMENT BY SIR ERIC GEDDES.

        Naval Warfare.
        During the past three months the War at sea has continued very much on the same lines as during the whole twelve months since the last Naval Estimates were introduced by my distinguished predecessor in office, but I think I may say that, on the whole, naval warfare has proceeded increasingly in our favour. It has continued to be chiefly a trial of strength between the enemy submarine and the measures of ourselves and our Allies for countering that menace. There have been occasional interludes of which the country has heard—the raids upon the Lerwick convoys, the exit of the "Goeben" and the "Breslau" from the Dardanelles, and the recent raids by enemy destroyers upon our patrol craft in the Straits of Dover—and there have been other incidents. I am referring to such a one as was notified in the papers

        1867
        of Saturday last in which a report was published, coming from a neutral country, of the loss of a German torpedo boat and two mine-sweepers off the Frisian Islands.
        It is only when a neutral country obtains information of these incidents that we know for certain of the success of our enterprises, but the incident reported on Saturday is certainly by no means an isolated case, having regard to the bodies of German sailors picked up from time to time, and the tales of survivors of other enemy disasters who land in neutral countries.
        The occasional raids on our convoys and on the East Coast are the natural outcome of a blockaded enemy trying to harass the blockading Fleet. The exit of the "Goeben" and "Breslau" from the Dardanelles was, we believe, a raid of a similar character. The "Goeben," after she stranded on Nagara Point, was refloated, and while the earlier reports of her appearance justified the belief that she was damaged, we cannot at the present time trust to that, and must treat her as still being an efficient engine of war. The loss of the "Breslau" is a serious one to the enemy in that area, and more than outweighs, from a military point of view, the loss of the monitor "Raglan" and M. 28, which were stationed in Kusu Bay, as a known and recognised risk against raids of this kind. The loss of life on this occasion and in Submarine E 14 is a matter of deep regret, and our sympathy is, I can fissure their relatives and friends, invariably with those who are thus bereaved.

        Dover Raid.
        The recent raid on the Dover Straits patrol is, in a way, one of the more satisfactory incidents of the War in recent months, and the situation there is one upon which I am glad to be able to give fuller information to the House. I am told that it is commonly believed that the passage of submarines through the Dover Straits has been prevented by nets or other obstructions from the early days of the War. That is not the case, and undoubtedly a considerable number passed through the Straits towards the end of last year. A more vigorous policy was adopted quite recently. A surface barrage has been maintained across the Channel in order to obstruct the passage
        1868
        of enemy submarines. By day and night this barrage is maintained, and at night the patrolling craft—which number over 100—burn flares, so that any submarine attempting the passage on the surface has a reasonable chance of being engaged. It was to raid this barrage and destroy the drifters which ceaselessly maintain the patrol that the enemy came out on the night of 14th February. He succeeded in passing the covering forces guarding the drifters in both directions. I cannot comment further upon this incident, because the Vice-Admiral at Dover has ordered courts-martial to elucidate the incident, and obviously it would be improper for me to say more. I would like, however, in passing, to pay a tribute to the heroism and devotion to duty of the officers and crews of the drifters and other craft, who, after being hammered as they were by war vessels, have maintained their patrol, and went out again early on the following morning, and ever since. Everything possible was done and is being done to afford protection to those gallant men in the extremely useful work which they are doing, and the House will learn with pleasure that His Majesty has been pleased to confer on them a number of decorations in accordance with the recommendations of the Vice-Admiral, Dover.
        The sympathy of the House will, I know, go out to the relations of those who lost their lives in the work which they were conducting with such success —
        Mr. LYNCH: I rise to a point of Order. It is, I believe, the Rule or the House that no Member shall read his speech. [Hon. Members: "Order!"] I rise less with any intention of disputing that right than that of securing it for all Members. I ask your ruling on the point, Mr. Speaker.
        HON. MEMBERS: Go on!
        Sir E. GEDDESrose—
        Mr. LYNCH: On the point of Order. I have asked Mr. Speaker, as a Member of this House interested in the rights of the House, your ruling on the distinct point of Order which I have made.
        HON. MEMBERS: Go on !
        Mr. SPEAKER: The action of the hon. Member is extremely ungracious. I have to exercise my own judgment.
        Sir E. GEDDESrose—
        Mr. PRINGLE: On the point of Order. Are we to understand that the right of reading speeches is only reserved to inexperienced Members on the Front Bench?
        Mr. FABER: Do you ever read yours?
        Mr. PRINGLE: No; I never do.
        Mr. FABER: Nor does anybody else!
        Mr. SPEAKER: A great deal depends on the nature of the speech. If the character of the speech is such that it is likely to be read, not only throughout this country, but by our Allies and enemies, it is quite obvious that special pains must be taken in the composition of such a speech, and I think the House must judge these matters according to the importance and value of the speech.
        4.0 P.M.
        Sir E. GEDDES: It will, perhaps, be recalled that in my previous statements in the House I dealt chiefly with the naval situation in Home waters. This was not due to any lack of appreciation of the importance of other theatres of war and foreign naval stations—especially the Mediterranean—but because the main activities of the British Fleet, after driving the enemy's cruisers and trade from the Seven Seas, have necessarily been centred in waters around our own shores, which have become the enemy's chief field for submarine operations. It is in these waters that the greatest successes against the submarine have so far been obtained, latterly with the help of United States naval forces. On the other hand, the Mediterranean itself accounts for some 30 per cent. of the loss of merchant shipping, and there the conditions have been more difficult to meet; the resources have been less adequate; and the success against the enemy submarine has been correspondingly less satisfactory. It became increasingly evident that, as our resources improved, and as our scientific research developed, we would be able to turn our attention more to the Mediterranean. It will. I think, be within the knowledge of the House that the Naval Command in the Mediterranean rests with the French and in the Adriatic with the Italians, British naval forces in both seas acting under the French and Italian Admirals. This matter of anti-submarine warfare in the Mediterranean was referred by the Allied
        1870
        Naval Council—to whose deliberations reference will be made later—to a Committee to meet at Borne. This decision merely extended the principle of "one Allied Front" which has been adopted in military matters.

        FIRST LORD'S TOUR ABROAD.
        In order that I might personally obtain a fuller knowledge of the existing conditions and of our officers in charge of operations abroad, I went to Rome for the meeting of the Committee, and proposed to the Cabinet that thereafter I should proceed upon a tour of inspection in the Mediterranean. It was with their full concurrence that I did so. The meeting of the Committee—which was representative of all the Allies with naval forces operating in European waters— accepted fully the anti-submarine proposals put forward by Vice-Admiral Calthorpe, the British Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, who acts under the orders—as I have stated—of the French Commander-in-Chief, and it was agreed that we should forthwith adopt and adapt to the Mediterranean the measures which have given such success in the waters around these Islands, and that the main anti-submarine operation decided upon should be undertaken under Admiral Calthorpe's orders. This arrangement was agreed to with the greatest good will and cordiality by the Committee, and is one of the first fruits of the Allied Naval Council, from which we hope to derive material and increasing benefit.
        It may, perhaps, interest the House to hear for a moment about my visit to the Mediterranean. By the great courtesy of the Italian and French naval authorities, I was able to get a personal knowledge of the work and dispositions of their Fleets at the various bases, and, at the same time, I was also able to inspect the large establishments for combined aerial and naval warfare which are being set up at various points in the Mediterranean and Adriatic by the British Navy. I visited the British Naval Commander-in-Chief at Malta and inspected the dockyards and other establishments there, discussing with him matters of considerable administrative importance under his command, and also questions of organisation, etc. I took the opportunity of visiting Mudros and conferring with the naval authorities there, as also with those of the Greek Navy at Piraeus and Salamis.
        It will be of interest to the House to know that, at the request of the Greek Government, British naval officers are assisting our Greek Allies in the reconstruction and reorganisation of their Navy and Dockyard, and Captain Clifton Brown, of the British Navy, is head of the British Naval Mission to Greece, and is Chief Naval Adviser to the Greek Minister of Marine, with the rank of Rear-Admiral in the Greek Navy. The reorganised naval forces of Greece are already co-operating in the War in the Mediterranean, and rendering increasingly valuable service to the common cause. I would like to say here that Admiral Clifton Brown is enthusiastic about the Greek Navy, and cannot speak too highly of the keenness and increasing efficiency of officers and men alike. I feel confident that, in the light of this account of the reason for my absence from this House and from the Admiralty, it will be excused, especially when I tell the House that before my departure special and complete arrangements were made for the carrying on of Admiralty business, and that I was daily in telegraphic communication with the Admiralty.

        NAVAL ORGANISATION.
        Before coming to what is, after all, the most important point in a statement from the First Lord of the Admiralty at the present time, namely, the National and Allied position in relation to the submarine menace, there are one or two points of naval administration with which I would like to deal briefly—very briefly, on account of the time at my disposal.
        The first is the organisation of the Admiralty itself and the Naval Staff. Information was given to this House on the 1st November, and further made public on the 14th January, as to the Staff organisation, Board organisation, and a revision of the research and experimental side of the work. I can only say that, so far as I and my colleagues are able to form a careful opinion, the new organisation is working as smoothly and effectively as its best well-wishers could have hoped. The division of the Board of Admiralty and the reorganisation of Admiralty business has had the effect of freeing the Naval Staff from administrative detail, and I feel confident has, at the same time, enabled the members, especially the naval members, of the Board
        1872
        not on the Naval Staff to have more knowledge of operational matters than they had before. it has also had the effect of expediting business and strengthening and increasing Board control. The House will remember that an eminent electrical engineer was appointed as Director of Experiment and Research in the Admiralty two months ago, but this was not the only change which was made in the direction of uniting naval and scientific knowledge. Time does not permit me to explain in detail, but I am assured, and feel confident myself, that the extremely difficult problem of mixing the naval and scientific elements so as to secure the best results is far nearer attainment than it has yet been. The fruits of the combined efforts are already apparent. If any hon. Member is particularly interested in this question of making full use of the scientific brains of the country, I shall be glad to give him further information on the subject.

        ALLIED NAVAL COUNCIL.
        Another development of the last three months which has, so far, fully justified the hopes with which it was inaugurated, is the Allied Naval Council, to which reference has already been made in connection with the Mediterranean. The formation of this Council was announced in the public Press on 15th December last, as a result of the Naval Conference held in Paris at the end of November. As the result of our experience at those meetings, I feel very hopeful that increasing benefit will be. derived from them. The meetings were of a businesslike character. Matters which could not be dealt with were referred to Committees —one of which, as I have already explained, met at Rome—and in each case they are reporting back to the Allied Naval Council the result of their deliberations, which have been uniformly fruitful. It is believed that this Council will result in decisions being taken readily on vital naval matters affecting two or more of the Allied Navies—matters which would otherwise be adjusted with difficulty and delay. The contact between the Allied Navies and Versailles is maintained by the liaison officers of each of the Allies in Paris who keep in constant touch with the military members and report weekly to the Allied Secretariat here. This is understood fully to meet the needs of the military repre-

        1873
        sentatives at present, but the Naval Council is prepared to meet their wishes in whatever way seems desirable.

        CORDIAL RELATIONS WITH ALLIES.
        While dealing with the unity of effort of the Allies represented on the Allied Naval Council, I would like to testify to the whole-hearted spirit of comradeship and mutual help which is increasingly striking in the relations of ourselves and our Allies in naval matters. Nothing could exceed the cordiality which exists between us all, not only between those who are represented upon the Allied Council, but also those who are not, and I feel sure the House will be interested to learn that the Naval Forces of the Allies in European waters will shortly be augmented by a force of Brazilian war vessels. It is perhaps natural that the co-operation between ourselves and our Allies the United States should be extremely close in naval matters, primarily because the exigencies of the naval situation have dictated that their forces should be based upon British ports, taking alternate turns with their British comrades, and secondly, because there is no language difficulty to overcome. Not only have we the advantage of constant consultation with Vice-Admiral Sims, the Flag Officer Commanding the United States Forces in European waters, who attends our daily Staff Conference at the Admiralty, but we have also American officers working in the various sections of the British Admiralty exactly on the same footing as British officers; indeed, the co-operation between the two Navies is as nearly complete as possible, and I wish, on behalf of myself and my colleagues on the Board of Admiralty, publicly to pay tribute to the whole-hearted and generous devotion to duty and the prosecution of the War which governs the actions of every representative of the United States Navy with whom we come in contact. The personnel of all ranks have the respect and esteem of officers and men of the British Navy. I beg that the House will pardon this digression upon the subject of organisation and other matters before I come to the absorbing question of mercantile tonnage.

        MERCANTILE MARINE LOSSES.
        Hitherto, as the House knows, the Government has taken the view that it was not in the national interest to publish
        1874
        the tonnage figures of mercantile losses or merchant shipbuilding, but as the Leader of the House indicated the other day, that question has been further considered, and we are now in consultation with our Allies on the matter. The House will recollect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Herbert Samuel), in addressing it last week, quoted certain figures of the numbers of British ships lost during recent months, and also during recent weeks, and from these figures he deduced that our losses were pursuing a straight line. He accused me in no indefinite terms of making a reassuring statement which was not in accordance with facts. I am sure that my right hon. Friend criticised my statement on the best information which was available to him, and it is, of course, the responsibility of the Government that he had not the information upon which I had based my statement. I wish, however, that it were possible that before doubts—which, if there is no foundation for them, must do great harm both at home and abroad—are publicly cast upon the bona fides of a statement made by me on this important matter, the views of the right hon. Gentleman could have been discussed between us.
        It is within the recollection of the House that I have emphasised on several occasions the view that in dealing with a question of this kind it is not possible to obtain a proper perception of the course of events by taking the results of isolated short periods. I think that this view has been generally accepted as reasonable. I have stated clearly in this House and elsewhere that the curve of the losses of merchant shipping is continuing in a downward direction. That statement is as true to-day as it was on the occasion when previously made. It is quite true, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, that there have been bad weeks and bad months. February was, in comparison with recent standards, a bad month, but, on the other hand, January was a good one. This fluctuation can be affected both by fortuity and design, the latter both on our part and on the part of the enemy. I have, before making this statement, again examined the curve of the loss of world's tonnage. Only two months of the' current quarter have elapsed, but, assuming the rate of loss in March to be as high as the rate of loss during the bad

        1875
        month of February—and this is a very fair assumption, because February was a bad month—I find that the falling curve to which I have previously referred is continued. I have with me a copy of this diagram—and I trust I am not infringing the Rules of the House in displaying it— from which it will be seen that the angle of depression experienced last year is continued for the first quarter of this year practically unaltered. As I have explained, it is necessary to make an estimate for the month of March in order thus prematurely to show the result on the quarterly diagram previously issued. The black line on the diagram shows the position up to the end of the last quarter. The red attachment is January and February, and adding the third month and assuming it is equally bad as the month of February, the curve is still going down.
        Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does that show the net or the gross loss?
        Sir E. GEDDES: This shows the gross loss of world's tonnage due to enemy action—the gross number of ships that have gone.
        Mr. H. SAMUEL: May I interrupt for one moment? I was dealing with British tonnage, and my figures were based solely upon the published figures of the Admiralty. These arc the only figures we have to go upon.
        Sir E. GEDDES: I said that, but I could have wished that we had talked the matter over before the right hon. Gentleman made his statement. I have dealt throughout with the curve of the world's tonnage, which is really the thing that matters. As illustrating the improvement in the rate of loss, the House will, I feel sure, be interested to learn that if, during the past five months ending the 28th February, the rate of loss had been maintained at the same level as for the immediately preceding quarter—that is, the third quarter of last year—not the second quarter, which was far higher—the shipping of the world would have been nearly 600,000 gross tons less than it is to-day. That shows, as I said, that I was perfectly correct in asserting that the curve is going steadily down. I maintain, and submit to the judgment of the House, that my statement was correct and justifiable. The main point is that the general trend of the figures of loss by enemy action is steadily
        1876
        improving. The loss of world's tonnage during the month of February is little more than half the loss sustained during the month of February last year. During the five months ended the 28th of February, 1918, the loss of world's tonnage is 10 per cent. less than the loss during the corresponding five months ended 28th February, 1917, and the House will remember that during four months of that period unrestricted submarine warfare had not been proclaimed by the enemy. So much for mercantile losses due to enemy action.

        SHIPBUILDING.
        I come now to shipbuilding. When I last addressed the House on this subject I stated that the difficulties which had dogged us during the. first, second, and third quarters of last year in connection with material had been overcome, that we had the material, and that shipbuilding was on a fair way to improvement. I felt then, and I still feel, that I was then entitled to hold this view. A diagram of United Kingdom shipbuilding was published in January last which demonstrated the upward trend of shipbuilding during the fourth quarter of 1917. There is no lack of material in the yards to-day. There are more men and increasing numbers of men in the yards, but whereas the average monthly output of merchant shipbuilding in the fourth quarter of 1917 was roughly 140.000 tons, it only reached 58,000 tons in January. It should have been very much larger. It is true that the weather was exceptionally bad and delays were caused thereby; also that January, due to holiday, is always in peace time a very bad month for output of ships; also that I am departing in this case from my contention that we cannot take one week or month by itself, be it good or bad. I must admit that February is, I think, going to be better; nearly twice the output of January when the figures are complete, but still only two-thirds of what the same yards and fewer men have done in a month. The number of vessels launched and outfitting is higher than usual, and these ships will be in service shortly. We were justified in looking for a steady and substantial rise in output. Men, material, and capacity were all there. Instead of a rise we have had a serious drop. Why is this? Many reasons may be advanced for it. The main fact, however, which is brought out by reports, not only from employers, but

        1877
        from representatives of men and representatives of Departments, is that due to labour unrest, due to strikes, due to difficulties of whatever kind, the men in the yards are not working as if the life of the country depended upon their exertions, nor are they working even as they did in the fourth quarter of last year. Employers also are not, perhaps, doing all that can be done to increase output. The long strain of the War must have its effect on the nerves of some of them as it has on everyone else. Far be it from me to suggest that the vast majority both of employers and of men are not actuated by the call of patriotism, but the serious unrest which existed in January will have its effect on completions in later months, and the January drop cannot be fully accounted for otherwise than that it was caused by unrest in its widest interpretation. I am driven to the conclusion that even at this late date the situation is not fully realised.

        LABOUR UNREST AND STRIKES.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) in this House, on the 26th of last month, appealed to the working men of the country with far greater authority than I can claim to "put their backs into their work." I believe that the individual piece-worker works as hard now as he did last year— when he is actually at work—but he seems more ready to-day to take holidays, and we cannot afford holidays while there are food queues. Any estimate of output for the future must depend almost entirely upon the determination of employers and men in the shipyards and marine engineering establishments. The production of merchant ships in the United Kingdom during January, 1918, even making the most generous allowance for weather difficulties, fell so far below the average per month in the preceding quarter that, if improvement is not speedily made, the point where production balances losses will be postponed to a dangerous extent, and even when that point is reached we shall still have to make good the accumulations of losses of the past. During the critical period that confronts us we must rely in the main upon our own ships and upon ourselves. Our Allies are making every effort to increase the production of ships, but in spite of the glowing reports of representatives of the Press in the United States, and great doubtless as the effort of that country is, there is no doubt
        1878
        —and it is not questioned in official circles in America—that a considerable time must elapse before the desired output is secured. I should like to add here what I know will be a source of satisfaction to the House—that the Canadian Government are prosecuting the shipbuilding programme with the utmost vigour, and will fill berths as they become vacant at existing yards. Satisfactory arrangements have been concluded with the United States authorities for the supply of steel; and everything is being done to push forward the programme of new construction. To reach an ultimate production at the rate of 3,000,000 tons per annum is, I believe, and am advised, well within the present and prospective capacity of our shipyards and marine engineering shops. But I wish to make it perfectly clear that these results cannot be obtained unless maximum output is given in every shipyard and marine engine shop by everyone concerned. If employers hesitate to play their part, or if men anywhere "down tools," or go slow for any reason, they will now do so in the knowledge of the grievous extent to which they arc prejudicing the vital interests and life of the community. The ranks of the skilled men must be enlarged without delay by men and women who at present are unskilled. The unskilled must become skilled, and interchange ability must be pressed on with the good will of employers, foremen, and men, and full time must be worked.
        The Board of Admiralty had hoped that before the end of the second quarter of 1918 the output of world tonnage would have overtaken and passed destruction by the enemy. That is still possible. It can only be attained if we all pull together on the rope. The principle of one front must be recognised in the shipyards just as with the Fleets and in the trenches. Every ship which is launched and fitted out is an addition to the food-carrying resources of the Allies, and the rations which are just being introduced in this country will bring home to us all the urgency of this problem. I am confident—and my colleagues both in the Government and on the Board of Admiralty are convinced—that when the position is fully realised, people of all classes will take this matter seriously to heart and do everything possible to improve it. We are, therefore, arranging to bring home to the employers and workers in every yard, and to all classes

        1879
        who can affect the issue, the tonnage output figures of the United Kingdom from time to time, and to publish output of tonnage not only of this country as a whole, but district by district.

        DESTRUCTION OF GERMAN SUBMARINES.
        I turn now to our measures against the submarine. I expressed the opinion in a previous statement to this House that the submarine menace is held, but is not yet mastered. From the figures at present before me I see no reason to depart from that opinion. The submarine is being destroyed in increasing numbers, and as our methods develop I feel confident that the numbers will still further increase. We know that there is a growing reluctance upon the part of their crews to put to sea. I am referring particularly to those which operate in the North Sea, North Atlantic, and English Channel. I think it would not be an unduly favourable estimate to say that in recent months the chances against a submarine returning from its voyage in these Home waters are about one in four or one in five, and that for some months now we believe that we and the American Forces in Home waters have been sinking submarines as fast as they have been built. In the past the enemy has attributed the decreasing measure of his success to the large reduction in the number of vessels at sea. In my previous statement to the House I showed that this excuse was of no avail. It is still of no avail, as the sailings for February are practically equal to the average for the last six months.
        The efforts of the Royal Navy and our Allies to detect and destroy submarines are being steadily developed. I am pleased to be able to give the assurance that the large programme of anti-submarine craft and devices which the Allied Navies embarked upon is being pushed forward with all possible speed, although the lag in the mercantile shipbuilding is reflected here also. Nevertheless, we and our Allies are now able to devote more of our resources than has hitherto been possible to the Mediterranean, which in the past has been regarded by the North Sea enemy submarine commanders as affording something of a "rest cure" and a happy hunting ground. I hope, however, that the steps which we and our Allies are taking and which I have already mentioned to the House, will
        1880
        alter matters in those waters to the enemy's detriment at no very distant date. I have already referred to the enemy's publication of tonnage sunk which he issued from time to time, and in studying those particulars I have been interested to observe the progressive rate of exaggeration which he has felt obliged to adopt in order to hearten his people. These figures furnish, I think, a further testimony, if it were needed, of the steady decline in value of "Submarine Warfare Stock" on the Berlin market. The House may be interested to note the increases. The rate of exaggeration in the second quarter is twice the first quarter, the third and fourth quarters are roughly three and four times the first quarter's rate of exaggeration, and the month of January more than four and a-half times. In arriving at these rates of increase I have allowed for every damaged ship being reported by the submarine commanders in their returns as a sunken ship. The full exaggeration above actual sinkings is. therefore, much higher.

        CONVOY SYSTEM.
        One of the special means of defence we have adopted to which I would like to refer is the convoy system. This system has been greatly developed, with the result that a very large proportion of our overseas trade is now working in this way, and is a real success. In its development and working the Admiralty wishes to gratefully acknowledge the co-operation and help of Sir Joseph Maclay and his entire department, without which its success would have been impossible. Since this measure of protection was adopted over 35,000 ships have been convoyed, and the losses of vessels in every way, whether by submarine, mine, or surface craft is, as the House knows, very low. It is a result of which I think the Allied Navies, the mercantile marine, and all those employed in arranging and working the convoys may be justly proud.
        But I wish to point out that in addition to the protection afforded by the convoy, additional security is obtained from the fact that whilst in convoy the Admiralty instructions issued for the safety of shipping are closely followed. This adherence to Admiralty instructions is, I regret to say, not systematically followed otherwise. The greatest safety of all shipping, whether convoyed or un-convoyed, rests, I feel sure, in the

        1881
        observance of Admiralty orders, which are issued in the light of most recent information, although probably to the individual master these may at times appear to be courting navigational difficulties. I am aware, of course, that complaints are made at times and have been brought forward in this House that orders given by Admiralty officials are considered to have been stupid or suicidal to the ship. Upon investigation this has been found in most instances not to be the case, but it may occasionally occur that an injudicious order is given. Such mistakes must occur in every large service, especially when it has been greatly expanded under war conditions, but I have no hesitation in saying that on the whole these orders have been of a most useful and practical type, and testimony of this reaches me every day.
        Let me remind the public of what I said in the House when I made my first statement, about the great value of a good look-out, namely, that good eyes are better than good guns, and that successful attacks against shipping when a submarine is seen by the look-out and reported, arc infinitely fewer than when a submarine is not reported. I have now something to add to that appeal. I am very seriously concerned indeed at the returns which I have had before me from time to time showing the increasing number of vessels which are lost at night, not only on moonlight nights, but on nights of complete darkness. I fear the enemy on many occasions has been assisted in his work by negligence. Unless a ship is completely darkened and all navigational lights screened or extinguished in accordance with Admiralty instructions, the darkness of night is no help against the submarine. In fact, the slightest light visible is an excellent target and enables a submarine with her greater surface speed to get into position for attack whilst the blackness of the night is a screen for the protection of the submarine. We know this not only from the unfortunate sinking of ships, but from the reports of our own submarine commanders and coast watchers who have observed how our unconvoyed merchant shipping moves. As instances I would like to quote a report recently received from the commander of one of our own submarines. He says:
        "I was able to keep a satisfactory watch with good visibility during most of the patrol. A large number of steamers burning navigation lights were
        1882
        observed, some with side lights only, others with steaming light also, in many cases at full brilliancy and visible more than lour miles. This was not confined to steamers hugging the coast and there were easy submarine targets on each clear night."
        We have also received a report from an officer who was specially detailed to spend some hours on a prominent point of the coast to watch the movement of vessels up and down one of the frequented highways of our trade. He has reported that in the space of one and a-quarter hours, out of eight ships which he saw pass only one was properly darkened. The lights of the remainder were calculated to be visible from four to ten miles. Is that not simply asking for trouble? I venture to appeal to ship owners and shipmasters to heed these points, and I ask the Press to give prominence to them—
        "Obey Instructions,"
        "Keep a Good Look-out,"
        "Thoroughly Darken Ship."
        One result of the convoy system has been to drive the enemy closer and closer to the shore, thus rendering the open sea considerably safer for navigation. During the first few months of the unrestricted submarine campaign 50 per cent. of the total losses in Home waters occurred outside an area of fifty miles from the land, whilst only 21 per cent. occurred within ten miles of the shore. This percentage, unlike others quoted, relates to the numbers of ships and not to tons. To-day, the losses outside an area of fifty miles from the land have fallen to 1 per cent. of the total whilst the losses close in shore have risen from 21 per cent. to 61 per cent. The transfer of attacks nearer to our coasts is not only giving increasing opportunities of attacking the enemy by patrolling surface and aircraft, but has an indirect advantage in that it is enabling us to salve many vessels which, if they had been attacked in open sea, would have been lost, as assistance by salvage tugs would have been impracticable.

        SALVAGE AND REPAIR OF SHIPS.
        I cannot leave this subject of salvage without reminding the House that improved salvage arrangements entails the repair of larger numbers of damaged vessels, which in turn makes enormous demands upon labour and materials which would otherwise be devoted to new construction. Repairs are to-day occupying more men actually and of the higher skilled grades than is new merchant ship-building. The salving of damaged ships

        1883
        is now so efficient that out of all British-owned ships damaged in 1917 only eight have been abandoned, and these have been included in the published losses. At the present time the shipbuilding Department of the Controller is undertaking repairs to several times—probably four or five times— the number of merchant ships damaged by enemy action that were under repair in June of last year, and we have each month been returning to service an increasing tonnage of ships. Obviously this is to our advantage, as it is far more economical in men and material and time to repair than to build a new.

        FLEET PERSONNEL.
        I fear I have unduly detained the House, but before sitting down I would like to refer to one or two subjects connected with the personnel of the Fleet and the Auxiliary Services, which, I am sure, will be of interest to the House. In the first place, it is a matter of the highest satisfaction to the Admiralty to be able to state that all reports indicate that in the trying and arduous circumstances both officers and men remain cheerful and contented, and their mutual trust and regard for each other remains on as solid a basis as ever. Further, the general health of the Fleet, both at home and abroad, afloat and ashore, has been excellent. The daily percentage of sickness in the Grand Fleet is only.67 per cent., and in the Mediterranean.86 per cent. The greatest credit is due to the medical officers, afloat and ashore, for this continued good health.
        As the House will see from the numbers which are included in Vote A, the provision of personnel to meet the growing requirements of the Fleet has necessitated a continuous increase in the number of officers, particularly in the junior ranks. This has been met by the acceleration of the advance of junior officers to the ranks of lieutenant and sub-lieutenant, and by the extension of the scheme for promotion from the lower deck. The total number of officers in the Naval Service has increased from 10,300 in 1914 to something over 32,000 at the present time. The loss of the usual theoretical training undergone by officers has been carefully considered, and steps taken to mitigate its effect as far as war conditions permit.
        During the War it has not been possible for junior officers to be put through the usual courses of instruction in order to qualify them for promotion to the rank of lieutenant, and a Committee was appointed in 1916 to consider the steps to be taken on the termination of hostilities to provide for cases of officers who had not been able to undergo these courses. In view of the experience gained during the War by these officers, the Committee recommended that those who had completed the full course of training at the Royal Naval Colleges at Osborne and Dartmouth and had undergone some part of the further course of training in the training cruiser, should not be required to undergo courses at the end of the War. This recommendation has been accepted by the Admiralty. In regard to the officers who have not completed the full four years' course at the colleges, the Committee recommended that they should be required to undergo courses on the termination of hostilities, and arrangements will be made to this end.

        PROMOTION TO FLAG RANK.
        The promotion of Commodore Tyrwhitt to the acting rank of rear-admiral marked a departure from the previous practice with regard to promotion to flag rank, which has hitherto been governed by seniority, subject to a minimum qualifying period of sea and other service. The principle involved in this promotion has been one upon which, for some centuries, the British Navy has held strong and sometimes very divided opinions. With a preponderance of opinion hitherto in favour of promotion by strict seniority it was with a grave sense of their responsibility that the Board of Admiralty unanimously decided that the conditions of War demanded a change in the procedure, involving a recommendation to the Sovereign that he should on occasion exercise his prerogative for the purpose of special promotion to flag rank. I can assure the House that the Board of Admiralty has safeguarded the power of selection which they have found it necessary to recommend His Majesty to revive, and that every possible step is being taken to guard against injustice to deserving officers, and to eliminate any possibility of favouritism in the process of selection. It is also intended that no officer selected should be confirmed in flag rank until

        1885
        he has proved his undoubted preeminence as a flag officer afloat.
        In order to meet to some extent the increased cost of living, increases of pay have been granted to the junior ranks of officers supplemented by allowances in respect of children. This has enabled us to consider still further the question of promotion from the lower deck, because it is hoped that in many cases it will remove the objection on financial grounds which might prevent men from the lower deck taking commissioned rank, and a Committee is now sitting which will deal with those questions with the object of facilitating such promotion as much as possible. Another Committee is dealing with the question of pay and promotion of warrant officers generally, and it is hoped that it will report shortly.
        The utilisation of available man-power to the best advantage has received the constant attention of the Admiralty. The substitution of lower-grade or physically unfit men in order to release men fit for combatant duties has been carried on to a very great extent. The newly instituted Women's Royal Naval Service is now developing, and it is hoped before long that considerable relief will be felt by the introduction of women for work for which they are suitable.
        I cannot conclude this summary of the work of the Fleet without paying public tribute, as I feel sure the House would wish, to the officers and men of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and Auxiliary Services, and last, but by no means least, to the Mercantile Marine. No work is more trying than theirs, and no body of our fighting men bears a greater strain. By day and night they are called upon to face the risks and dangers of war in addition to the ordinary perils of the sea. To the destroyers and escorting craft in particular a tribute is due because upon them the strain has undoubtedly been the greatest, owing to the submarine war. It is in these craft that our losses are greatest, and it is upon them that the greatest demand for watchfulness is made, and in this work the Fleet gratefully recognises, as I have already done, the assistance of the destroyer and escorting forces of our Allies. Abler tongues than mine have recently paid glowing tributes to the value of the services of the Royal Navy, and if confirmation were needed my recent tour to the Allied European countries and great naval establishments and centres abroad would have afforded
        1886
        it in the daily manifestation of faith, not only of our own people, but of our Allies, in the strength of the British Navy, and in the fitness of the term which has been applied to it, and which was never more true than to-day, that it is "the shield and buckler of the Alliance.''
        Mr. ASQUITH: I am glad to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman once more upon the extreme lucidity and intelligibility of the statement which he has made to the House, and I dissociate myself entirely from any suggestion that he violated any Parliamentary convention. If he did, it is a convention which might well be in abeyance in a time of war so momentous that one should take care beforehand that what he has to say to the House is carefully and deliberately expressed. I confess, at the same time, that I am a little disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not feel it consistent with his duty to give us more detailed particulars upon the main points which interest both the House and the country—first, what is the extent of our losses from submarines and other belligerent methods of the enemy; and, secondly, what is the precise extent of the measures we have, taken and are taking to make them good.
        No one knows better than I do that the problem of how much you should disclose and how much you should keep back is, in time of war, a very great one, and does not admit of being solved by reference to any general, and still less to any universal, rule. But I think, myself, after a good deal of experience, that when you are in doubt about the matter, and when the balance of judgment wavers as between disclosure and reticence, it is better on the whole to come down on the side of disclosure. [Hon. Members: "No, no !"] Certainly. I know very well the arguments on the one side and on the other. I have myself used them very often in bygone days since the War began. On the one hand, it is said that if you disclose too frankly and too candidly, you give information which may afford encouragement to the enemy. On the other hand, it is said that if you are too reticent you depress and discourage not only our Allies, but our own people at home. I must say, from the growing experience of the War, that to the second of these considerations I am disposed to attach diminishing weight. I do not think the temper and spirit of the British people—and when I speak of them I think I can associate with them our

        1887
        Allies—is in the least degree in danger of weakening or discouragement by the fullest possible disclosure. On the contrary, all the experience we have had during over three years of war has, I think, tended to converge in this direction—whether the facts be palatable or unpalatable, whether they indicate for the moment glowing or gloomy prospects— the spirit of our people is more tempered and more stimulated by feeling that it is taken into the confidence of the Government.
        But I agree that every specific case has to be considered upon its own merits, and in the case with which the right hon. Gentleman has had to deal to-day, I imagine, the difficulties which always embarrass the head of a great Department like this very well illustrate the risk, I will not say anything of the dangers, of one policy or the other. Take the question on which public interest, as far as the Navy is concerned, is for the time being concentrated—namely, the extent of the ravages which have been made in our mercantile marine, and thereby in the transport of our forces, and the supplying both of our Army and of our population with the necessaries of the War, and, upon the other hand, the extent of the compensatory provision which is being made to repair those losses and to reinstate the position. In regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the efforts which the Navy are making, and have been making for the last two or three years, to deal with the submarine menace, on what I may call the technical side, he is perfectly right to be reticent. Nobody wants to know, or ought to know —neither ourselves nor the enemy—what scientific, mechanical, and strategic expedients the expert advisers of the Navy have resorted to and are developing, for the purpose of dealing with the submarine as a belligerent. What we are anxious to know, what we are quite prepared to take for granted, and what we know to be the fact, is that the best brains, the most developed technical knowledge, the highest scientific reservoir of research, and the largest practical experience are being, as they have been for years past, devoted to this problem; and if, as I am inclined to gather from what the right hon. Gentleman says, the results in that respect are growingly encouraging and satisfactory, I am quite sure that neither the House nor the country would be dis-
        1888
        posed to press him further, or to ask by what means these results have been obtained. That seems to me to be clearly a case in which reticence is not only expedient, but necessary.
        5.0 p.m.
        I doubt, however, whether the same considerations apply when you are dealing with the figures of losses on the one hand, and new construction on the other. I am quite sure, as far as this country is concerned, that whatever those figures might show the public would be perfectly prepared to receive them, whether they were adverse or favourable, and to accept them with a feeling that they knew what at present they do not know—what is the exact situation. As regards the enemy, does anybody really think that anything that can be told us in regard to these figures of losses or of construction will be news to the enemy? I do not think it would be, but, if it were, I should be perfectly prepared to make them a present of the information. Let me just for a moment go back to our past experience in regard to this vital aspect of the matter. I am not going to use myself figures which are not accessible to the House and to the country generally. But, without using figures at all, I may say that up to the end of the year 1915 all our sea losses—I am speaking now not of the Navy, but of the Mercantile Marine—that was due to hostile belligerent action or to submarine activity had been made good by new construction. At the end of 1915 the balance on the whole was slightly in our favour. I say slightly, because on the whole we had more than made good by new construction the losses which we had then sustained. In the year 1916 the conditions were less favourable. I am speaking from recollection, but I think I am right in saying that at the end of the first nine months of that year, although the situation was less favourable, although the proportion of losses to replacement of losses was more on the side of loss than of replacement, up to the end of the third quarter of 1916 the balance was only very slightly the other way. Already in that time those of us who were acquainted with the facts, and responsible for the conduct of affairs, were well aware that we had to look forward to a large and probably most serious development of the submarine menace. For the last quarter of that year—I am

        1889
        speaking now of the last time when I was responsible for affairs, and I think only up to the beginning of December—for the last quarter of that year the figures were undoubtedly of a much more sinister and, indeed, menacing character. Corresponding efforts were being made and steps taken to increase both the rate and the volume of new construction. I believe it will be found that during the last quarter of that year I do not say that the amount of new construction balanced the amount of loss, but it was very considerably in advance of what it had been in the three preceding quarters. Then we came to the year 1917, when the menace, already serious and indeed dangerous, became with the month of February when the Germans declared universal submarine war, I do not think I am using an exaggerated term when I say it became threatening in the last degree and the Government very properly decided to push on by every means in their power as a supplement to the belligerent steps which were taken to defeat the submarines in their own waters —to press on by every means in their power both in rate and in volume our new construction. My right hon. Friend who has just sat down made a statement upon this subject when he addressed the House for the first time as First Lord of the Admiralty on 13th December in last year. He used this language in December, 1917:
        "If we take the rate of output for the months of October and November—and it, is fair to take them, they are not abnormally high months—as a measure of what we have attained, the merchant tonnage completed is fully at the same rate as the merchant tonnage output of the record year 1913, and the output of all classes of shipping in those two mouths is 18 per cent. higher than the rate of the output for the record year of 1913, that is 1,920,000 tons."
        A little later on, supplementing that statement, he said:
        "I am able to state that assuming the output for December is as good as the output, for November, the actual tonnage in war vessels and merchant vessels combined completed in 1917 will equal the output, of the record year of 1913."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1917, col. 1421, Vol. 100.]
        In the "record" year, as he calls it, the output was 1,920,000 tons of merchant ship ping alone. If naval shipping were added it would be considerably greater, but I am speaking of merchant shipping. I think we may leave out, for the purpose of comparison, naval shipping, because I do not suppose there was any very much larger output of naval shipping in that quarter of 1917.
        Sir E. GEDDES: Very much greater.
        Mr. ASQUITH: I should like to know what it was. It is very difficult to argue without figures; but if it makes up the difference, be it so. The estimate which was given to us in December was that the total output for the year 1917 would equal the record of the year 1913, namely, 1,900,000 tons. The House will be- glad to know whether that anticipation was in fact realised, and if it was not realised, to what extent it was not realised.
        Mr. ROCH: The figures have been given.
        Mr. ASQUITH: I should like to have an explanation, but I am not making these points in any controversial spirit.
        Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps I may explain the matter as I understand it. What I understood my right hon. Friend to say was that taking naval shipbuilding and mercantile shipbuilding together, and putting them on the basis of tonnage and the amount of work required for each, it would reach the record for 1913. As a matter of fact, from the figures before me that is true, within 100,000 tons.
        Mr. ASQUITH: Does that include the naval shipbuilding in 1913?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.
        Mr. ASQUITH: I think not, but I am only repeating what was said.
        Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not going to give the figures, but in this table before me there is an estimate of naval and mercantile shipbuilding for 1913, and in the table for 1917 there are the same figures, and the total difference is less than 100,000 tons in the calculations.
        Mr. ASQUITH: I am very glad to have that statement.
        Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, we should be glad to show the figures to the right hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. ASQUITH: I know, but I think it is very desirable these figures should be published. I cannot see what harm would be done to the country or to the Allied cause, or what information would be given to the enemy of the least value if these figures were published. I am speaking of the mercantile shipbuilding—I do not refer to the naval.
        Mr. ROCH: They have been given.
        Mr. ASQUITH: We do not know the total I cannot see any reason whatever why the mercantile figures should not be published. I believe they would give great reassurance to the public, and in dealing with the real point to which I am now coming I think they are of the greatest value. After all, what has happened in the past is of comparative unimportance. The really important thing is what we are doing now. I only refer to all this as leading up to the real point. We have been told in the most solemn and emphatic language by responsible Ministers that since the month of December, 1917, there has been a serious downfall in the amount of production. I do not ask for the exact figures, but I suppose in the months of November and December it reached a higher point of production in regard to mercantile tonnage—again I leave out naval shipping—than we have ever reached, at any rate, since the War began. I rather gather from what my right hon. Friend says that as high an average rate of production per month as even in the year before the War was reached in the months of November and December. I am speaking of what is common knowledge; and may I say here parenthetically, it is not very generous, it is not very just, to blame my right hon. Friend (Mr. Herbert Samuel) who sits beside me for having argued, as he was obliged to argue, only upon the figures that were published.
        Sir E. GEDDES: I said that, I said it was the responsibility of the Government that he had no other figures.
        Mr. ASQUITH: They were the only figures that were accessible to him, which do not include foreign shipbuilding, a most important item in this matter, for we cannot take British shipbuilding alone. We must take, for the purpose of estimating, what is the available mercantile tonnage of the world, not only what is produced here, but in other countries other than enemy countries. My right hon. Friend had only one set of figures. He used those, and he was quite justified in doing so. But this is the point upon which I think the House unanimously, if it can at this moment, should make its judgment felt in the country. Though that high rate of production is reached—and I am glad it was reached—in the months of October, November, and December of 1917, in January it fell down. I do not know how February compares with January
        The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Nearly double.
        Mr. ASQUITH: But still it is bad.
        Sir ERIC GEDDES: No !
        Mr. ASQUITH: The Member for Black-friars (Mr. Barnes) said it was as bad, but I am glad to hear it was not. Whether it was as bad as January or not, it was not good, and that is the point I want to make, and what I want the whole House to realise. It was not good. I hoped we should have done better in the year 1917 than we did. It would be melancholy, discreditable, calamitous—I do not think I am going too far if I said it would be disgraceful—if in this crisis of the War, and in the matter of resources which we know from the actual experience of the last quarter of last year we could bring into being and make effective for the purpose of supplying that which at this moment is the one primary and essential element needed for the Allied success, namely, the continued and increased production of shipping, if we were to have a line of declension and decline at this stage of the War we should prove false to what is the paramount necessity. That is the real object. I do not go—not because they are unimportant —into all the other points my right hon. Friend raised about organisation. They are good things, and I wish him God speed in all the efforts he is making to increase the efficiency of the great organisation over which he has the honour to preside, and where I am sure he will fulfil his function as a patriot and a man. But that is not the point.
        The point to impress upon this House, and upon the country, is that you must have more ships, you must have them in larger volume, you must have them at a more rapid rate of construction. It is not a question merely of munitions, not a question of equipping the Army with guns and with all that is necessary to supply it, it is a question of making the whole Allied organisation alert, alive, effective for the prosecution of the great cause in which we are engaged. It is a question of enabling the population of these Islands, and the populations of the Allied countries to be put in a position in which each man, in the different sphere of life and activity to which he is allotted, can do his duty to his country and to his cause. It is not desirable to try to allot praise or blame or responsibility, or say whether the defect

        1893
        is due to this cause or to that. At this moment the less we say about that point the better, but we want to bring home to the minds of all those who, in greater or lesser degrees of responsibility, are concerned in this matter, that the greatest service, the most essential service, that can be rendered by this country at the present moment in the cause which we do not intend to desert—and which, whether the weather be fair or foul, we shall ultimately bring to triumph—is to bring to bear, and to concentrate upon this supreme necessity all the energies and all the efforts which we as a country can.
        Commander BELLAIRS: I am sure that all parties and all sections of this House emphatically agree with the concluding part of the speech of the Leader of the Liberal party. Shipping is the sinews of war for all the Allies by which they stand or fall, and for that reason I cannot help regretting that so important a question as shipbuilding should have been piled upon the Admiralty, bringing an atmosphere of material into a Department which has to bend all its best energies to the conduct of the War. It could have been much better done by a separate Department altogether. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has made a speech which everyone will agree reflects great credit on himself personally, as also does the general success of his administration. There are some directions, one of which I have just hinted at—the conduct of the War—which still stand in some need of improvement. I would like to ask whether a state of affairs still exists as that which happened in November, 1016, when a great military Council took place which was to decide the future offensive of the Allies? Could such a conference again be held now without a responsible naval adviser taking part in it? At that conference, referred to in Sir Douglas Haig's dispatch, one of the alternatives in regard to any future offensive was the driving away of the enemy from the submarine bases of Zeebrugge and Ostend, and had a naval adviser been present I feel sure that the departure from the original plan in February, 1917, to which Sir Douglas Haig refers, might never have been taken, and we might now have those two great submarine bases in our hands. I want to make sure in connection with the Versailles Council and the Inter-Allied Naval Council that there is such co-ordination,
        1894
        and that responsible military decisions are not taken without the highest naval advice at the same time.
        The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Naval Council itself. I would like that Naval Council to be not merely a deliberative body which prepares evidence for the various chiefs of the Naval Staffs, but a body which gives executive decisions and on which the leading voice shall be that of the very best British admiral. If we can get that, then I think the right hon. Gentleman's naval arrangements will take a decided turn for the improvement. He mentioned the Mediterranean, and said that it was under a French officer. He also said that the Adriatic was under an Italian officer. That French officer gets his directions from the French Admiralty. We have no single control, dictating all the naval movements throughout this War. The result is that you get unfortunate incidents like the raid of the "Goeben" the other day, when she sank two monitors. That incident would not have occurred if there had been single naval control. My right hon. Friend spoke of his visit to the Mediterranean. He had no need to explain that visit. Everybody in this House, except a very few, agrees that the First Lord of the Admiralty should make himself familiar with all the naval arrangements, and it is very essential that he should visit the Mediterranean. In a House of 670 Members, of course a question may be asked by one or two Members. We have that sort of thing asked all along the line. The great bulk of the House, possibly 660 Members out of 670, agree that the First Lord of the Admiralty was doing a great public service in visiting the Mediterranean. The only question I would like to ask him about the visit is whether he was accompanied by one of his naval advisers on the War Staff and on the Board of Admiralty? Could I have an answer now?
        Sir E. GEDDES:I was accompanied by the Naval Secretary.
        Commander BELLAIRS: By your Naval Secretary?
        Sir E. GEDDES: Yes.
        Commander BELLAIRS: It would have been much better if my right hon. Friend had followed the old precedents of First Lords of the Admiralty and had been accompanied by one of his War Staff, or by one of the members of the Board responsible under the War Staff. The

        1895
        First Lord of the Admiralty, a civilian member, should have with him a member of his Board who has the responsibility of giving executive decisions. Strictly speaking, according to the constitution of the Board, the right hon. Gentleman could not have transmitted a single order from the Mediterranean, because an order has to be given by at least two members of the Board. It used to be three members, but now it is two. Therefore, both on constitutional grounds and on the grounds of efficiency, he ought to- have been accompanied by a naval officer belonging to the Board. I do not know that he was.
        Sir E. GEDDES: At the Conference at which we took a vital decision, a member of the Board was present, but I had with me my naval secretary, a gentleman of great experience.
        Commander BELLAIRS: I am glad to have that statement. There has been a demand made by the Leader of the Opposition that there should be less secrecy in the future, and that more information should be given. I emphatically agree. We never get dispatches with regard to naval actions. In the case of the Jutland Battle it was only after a long interval and much passing to and from the Board of Admiralty and the Grand Fleet that the dispatch was published. We never got any dispatches with regard to the Dardanelles. We never get any dispatches with regard to various incidents. We simply have Admiralty statements, and they leave very much to be desired. I will take, for instance, the statement that we have had in regard to the loss of the first Norwegian convoy. The Admiralty statement was that both in going and coming the enemy took advantage of the long nights to pass our patrols. Everybody is aware that in a journey of about 500 miles out and 500 miles back again no vessel on earth can steam at such a speed that she will not have to go through considerable areas by daylight. That is one incident. Later on we had an incident in the Cattegat. The Admiralty statement referred to the Cattegat as "enemy waters." Surely my right hon. Friend would not call the waters lying between Denmark and Sweden enemy waters. Yet that is the way these Admiralty statements are framed. I take another incident. On 22nd December we lost three destroyers. The German morning papers of 24th December had the news, but our news-
        1896
        papers never got it until 29th December, and I can say from my knowledge of the facts, on which I have, got to maintain secrecy, that we never got the whole of the facts in regard to the loss of those three destroyers. I do not mean that there were any more vessels lost, but we had information and there was bad co-ordination in passing that information on. If it had been passed on, I doubt whether those three destroyers would have been lost.
        I now come to an incident into which I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman inquired when he visited the Mediterranean. I refer to the recent "Goeben" sortie. I differ altogether when the right hon. Gentleman says that the loss of the "Breslau" amply compensated us for the loss of the two monitors and the submarine. Can my right hon. Friend say, in regard to the no less than live or six Admiralty statements on this incident, that they give a picture which any naval historian can use in the future if history is to be based on facts? I doubt it. The "Goeben" and the "Breslau" came out from the Dardanelles, so my information goes, and found no mine-field blocking them in. They found no scouting to detect their presence. They came out, and they found two monitors at anchor seven miles out, utterly unprepared. The monitors never fired a gun. They were taken by surprise, and they were sunk in two salvoes. The newspapers give an account of aeroplanes being used and forcing the "Goeben" and "Breslau" on to a minefield. You will not get a single naval officer in this world to believe in such an absurdity as an aeroplane forcing a ship with an armoured deck on to a mine-field. What happened was that the "Breslau" got on to a mine-field which was laid over two years ago, and which everybody believed had been blown away by gales. That caused the loss of the "Breslau." They had accomplished their mission. Then the "Goeben" returned. I do not think the First Lord of the Admiralty himself thinks that she herself ever hit a mine. Yet we are informed that the "Goeben" did hit a mine. She ran aground inside the Dardanelles. Then arose the question how to destroy her? Nothing was ready. There were two submarines, but they had not got enough oil. By emptying the oil from one submarine to the other they got enough oil for one to go up the Dardanelles, and she was lost on a mine-field. The "Goeben" was aground for several

        1897
        days, and there was nothing to attack her. What can aeroplanes do against a battleship with armoured decks? There was a British battleship forty miles away. She ought to have had steam in an hour. It was some hours before she had steam. Then she went off in another direction to join a battleship 150 miles from the Dardanelles. The result was that the "Goeben" got away altogether.
        There does appear to be a necessity for some great strategical brain controlling all the movements of the great fleets of the Allies, so that we are not faced with these incidents again. Had the "Goeben" been destroyed out of this War, who can tell what would have been the effect upon Turkey? My right hon. Friend, on his visit to the Mediterranean, must have visibly felt the necessity of even greater co-ordination than he has succeeded in achieving. I did hear that Admiral Calthorpe was appointed some eight months ago, and that he was going to control the whole anti-submarine operations. Now we know that he has only just been put in control of the whole of the anti-submarine operations. Why cannot we say to the French, "We give you a virtual ascendancy on shore by giving the control of the reserves to General Foch. We have the experience and preponderating power at sea; let us control all the naval operations at sea, so as to bring about co-ordination." Then let the control be exercised through an Inter-Allied Naval Staff under a British admiral. If you cannot do that, then say so to America. I know America would welcome it with open arms, only they would ask, as they have the right to do, that their distinguished officers should be leading members of your War Staff, of course, under a supreme British officer. So far from finding fault with my right hon. Friend for going on an inspection tour, I may say that I myself urged him once before that he should get the best men he possibly could to act as inspectors in different directions. However efficient I believe the Navy to be, it is not purely a naval question, but also a port question. There is scarcely a direction in which an improvement cannot be brought about if you send the right men to inspect the different submarine control areas and bases and the different naval and mercantile ports. You have not got unity of direction at those ports. I hope that you will have. There are the transport officers, and the naval officers, and the preponder-
        1898
        ating voice in the movement of shipping is military. I do not know what is the case to-day, but I know that, when. I spoke last, in the East we were still carrying on the War as if that were a war area. Ports were closed at night, ships had to wait outside swept channels, and a vast delay of shipping took place. What has the East to do in this War? There was the visit of the "Emden," and there was one raider which laid mines off Bombay. Since the "Emden" was cleared out in the early part of the War, that has been the extent of any operations in the East. It seems to me you are doing simply what the enemy wants you to do, which you ought never to do, namely, close up your ports at night and keep the shipping waiting outside when the port is right outside the war area. I do not know whether that state of affairs has been improved since, but I feel sure that my right hon. Friend, who has shown such a progressive spirit in his administration, has only to investigate these matters to order a change to be brought about.
        The Mediterranean, as he said, is responsible for 30 per cent of our losses. There is a necessity, as I have urged again and again in this House, for a "Safety first" campaign in the mercantile marine, such as my right hon. Friend knows an American railway carries out. It is no good writing Admiralty Memoranda to the various mercantile captains. What you want is to have a face-to-face talk with them and try to teach them what to do. I know that something of that sort has been done since I spoke about it in the House about two years ago, but it has only touched the fringe of the subject. My right hon. Friend speaks, for instance, about the exhibition of lights. That is a case in point. You have issued Memoranda which have not been attended to. You should send naval officers, men who are good comrades and who will not lecture the men, to have a face-to-face talk with them and point out the dangers. This loss does not always occur because of the action of the mercantile marine officer. It is.sometimes ordered by the naval officer. Ships in convoy have sometimes been ordered to show their lights in the Mediterranean, to my knowledge. In some cases the transport captains have been the first to protest. If the showing of lights is necessary to enable the convoy to watch the ships, surely you could show screened lights towards the convoy. Ship after ship has been torpedoed off St. Catherine's

        1899
        Point. Has it not been ordered that ships should show their lights off St. Catherine's Point, and is that not the reason why ships have been torpedoed at night off the Isle of Wight? Another point is that no merchant ship ought to be abandoned until she is known to be sinking. Merchant ships have been ordered to be abandoned. There are at this moment derelicts floating about the Mediterranean because the ships were abandoned. There is one point in regard to the Mediterranean to which the House should have its attention drawn. I will not mention the name of the ship, because the Admiralty object to it, although I see no objection. It was a ship built in 1913, of 13 knots. It was a brand new ship, attached to a convoy only capable of doing 7 knots. It was torpedoed. That ship came into my mind because she is one of the ships no one ever saw sink. The officer in charge ordered her to be abandoned. A very large ship was torpedoed 20 miles off Malta. It took three torpedoes to sink her. Surely the defence resources of the port could provide that ships should be escorted, at any rate, more than 20 miles off Malta, which is a natural converging point for ships coming in and going out? But she was not escorted.
        I come to the question of losses which was raised by the Leader of the Liberal party. It is not necessary to violate any confidence when I mention what our losses were in 1917. If the American account is true, it says that the United States and the United Kingdom between them built just over 2,000,000 tons in 1917. The account went on to say that our losses, British, Allied and neutral, were three times as great. That would make them coincide with a private estimate given to me—not a confidential estimate, but one made by a private individual who has every claim to be relied on—that the losses for the British, Allied and neutrals were 6,250,000 tons for 1917. That fact was revealed in the American newspapers. If you add your navigation losses of 500,000 tons for British, Allied and neutrals, you have total losses of 6,700,000 tons for 1917. Leaving out navigation losses, it works out at a loss of 120,000 tons a week. Such estimates as can be made by private persons show that British, Allied and neutral losses during January have been at the rate of 70,000 tons a week. It went up in February to 80,000 tons. It is right to draw atten-
        1900
        tion to the shipbuilding effort. The official answer given in this House has been that our shipbuilding effort was 56,000 tons for January. That compares with a total British, Allied and neutral loss of 70,000 tons a week—that is to say, the British shipbuilding effort for January is far below the total loss of British, Allies and neutrals for a single week. Therefore, this question of building becomes of overwhelming importance. Supposing the average British, Allied and neutral losses amount to 75,000 tons a week, which is the average of January and February combined, we shall have lost at the end of the year 3.900,000 tons of British, Allied and neutral shipping. Add to that 500,000 tons of navigation losses, leaving out all repairs, and you have a total of 4,400,000 tons. The publication of figures like that and their use throughout America and this country would most certainly stimulate the men to increased exertions; it would shame them into increased exertions if they are not doing all they possibly can.
        My right hon. Friend has exhibited a diagram in this House. In the past he has often spoken of that diagram. I should like to paraphrase the saying of Thucydides, "War is the last thing in all the world to go according to diagram." I would venture to say to him that his diagram is misleading. The losses are inflicted on a constantly diminishing quantity of shipping. The. Admiralty has told us that practically our British shipping available for cargoes has diminished by 20 per cent. in a year It is perfectly certain that neutral losses are greater than our own. I do not know about the Allied losses. We are quite safe in saying that the losses in January and February were inflicted on 20 per cent. less aggregate of shipping. Therefore that correction ought necessarily to be applied to the. diagram. There is also this limiting consideration to be named: I know that my right hon. Friend and the Shipping Controller are great believers in convoys. I, too, believe in convoys as a temporary measure, but not as a permanent measure. The risk to convoys is an increasing one. As some proof of that, I take the statement which the First Lord of the Admiralty made on 1st November that we lost in convoys one in two hundred. Since then we have drawn from the Shipping Controller in this House the statement that the losses in convoys arriving in September and October were six in two hundred—that is,

        1901
        six times as many —and in November four in two hundred. That points to an increasing loss. I believe that only last week, in the Irish Sea alone, we lost six vessels in one day.
        The truth of the matter is that the advantages of convoys are considerable. You get absolute secrecy as to route; you also get the fact that if a submarine shows and torpedoes one ship the rest can spread, and the chances are they escape. But it was always certain, from what the Germans did in past years, that in the month of February they would try new methods and try to torpedo convoys, and the indications are —I have only outside evidence —that their new efforts are in the direction of large submarines for the ocean routes, armed with 6-inch guns — which do not appear, so far, to have scored any conspicuous success unless it be in the Mediterranean, if they are there — and using the submarines in groups of six or seven. It might go very hard indeed with a convoy if a submarine group of six or seven turned up and started letting loose torpedoes among them. The convoy system was undoubtedly better than the system which existed before. Of course, in making a comparison between the present time and the months of January, February, and March of last year, my right hon. Friend is making a comparison with the Navy which existed under the patrol system, which is hardly fair. There is no doubt a gain by adopting the convoy system as against the patrol system, but I think we are going to make a greater gain still by means of the more offensive barrage system, which my right hon. Friend has seen to be a success in the Straits of Dover, as he told the House to-day.
        I was responsible to some extent, with others, for drawing attention to the Norwegian convoy losses. I wish to disclaim the idea that they were of any intrinsic importance in themselves, as I had no opportunity of saying so. It was only in so far as they were symptomatic of future attacks on convoys that they had any importance. In fact, so little importance had they by themselves, that if the losses which I gave just now of four in 200 —the official figure for convoys generally in November —had been inflicted on the Norwegian convoys they would have lost 104 vessels in a year. They have only lost fifteen in those two attacks. The Norwegian convoys have been extremely well run with the forces at the Grand Fleet's.
        1902
        disposal. The tonnage loss in those two attacks to which we drew attention was only 16,000. They were small vessels, probably altogether equivalent to one 10,000-ton ship; therefore, the things were of no intrinsic importance in themselves unless they were symptomatic, and that was my fear, of future attacks on convoys, and that we had to face the possibility in the future of devising a still better system, more based on the offensive, such as the barrage system which has been adopted at Dover. In fact, I think had my right hon. Friend not taken the measures which he took in regard to Dover our losses from submarine attacks on commerce would have been very much greater to-day than they have been. I very much welcomed the announcement that we were going to have revelations in regard to loss of tonnage, because every day's delay is bad. I should like to ask, Is the delay due to the fact that we have to get the permission of our Allies?
        Sir E. GEDDES: It is. We have made representations.
        Commander BELLAIRS: Can my right hon. Friend say we shall get a decision from them within a very short period of time, because the question is so absolutely acute?
        Sir E. GEDDES: Certainly I hope so. We have referred it to them.
        Commander BELLAIRS: If that comes soon it will be very satisfactory, because I am perfectly sure it would cure the situation in regard to shipbuilding. My right hon. Friend very truly said that numbers of submarines went through the Straits of Dover. That was not the view of the Admiralty during the last summer and autumn, because some of us were pressing on them that the evidence appeared to be that numbers of submarines went through the Straits of Dover. I will not refer now to the knowledge which has come into the possession of many hon. Members that submarines did go through the Straits of Dover to a very considerable extent, probably at the rate of at least ten a week, and that that has now been stopped. We are dealing with a situation in which no good can be got out of recriminations about the past, so I will not refer to the matter any further, but I wish to emphasise that what has been done on a small scale with a barrage —I have not the least idea as to its length, but, say, twenty to thirty miles —can be done on a large scale. The difficulty with regard

        1903
        to the naval mind in this War has been to get it to think on a big scale, partly because they have never had a really great War Staff. My right hon. Friend has formed a War Staff. I think he will have to have one more change, and get in still more ability among the junior officers of that Staff. He will have to reinforce it from time to time, and I think he has hampered his chances of complete success, as I said before, by bringing in all that material question of shipbuilding under one Board. There ought to be two distinct Boards, one dealing with the conduct of the War, and the other with material. We have got the body of a War Staff, we have got the soul of a War Staff in the offensive spirit of the officers, and all we have to do now is to perfect the brain, and when they come to think on a big scale I am certain they will see no impossibility in laying down barrages, extending, perhaps, for hundreds of miles, blocking the North Sea exits altogether, blocking the Baltic exits, and blocking the Adriatic and the Dardanelles. When that is done, with barrages well patrolled, I feel confident that the forecast which Lord Jellicoe gave the other day, that the submarine menace will be completely killed by August, will be realised.
        I should like to add one word in regard to the prevailing pessimism about the situation in Europe. I can see no grounds whatever for pessimism in regard to the Allied Armies in Europe at all. Let me add this: Even if all the. Allies were to drop out of this War, and we had to fight Germany alone, this country could carry the War to a successful conclusion. It might be, of course, that Germany, trading with a large number of adjoining neutrals, would be able to feed herself, and we could no longer look to starving her, but she would carry on her trade under such disadvantages that the rate of exchange would mount up and up against her, and the prevailing discontent in Germany with the prolongation of the War would rise and rise, and bring it to a successful conclusion from our point of view. We ourselves, withdrawing all the great expense to which we have gone for the sake of our own and the Allied Armies in Europe, would wage the War infinitely cheaper with the Navy alone.
        Mr. FRANCE: The hon. Gentleman concluded his speech with a picture of this country waging war alone. I think he
        1904
        should have added that that would only be possible if the Government can keep always in their minds, in the very front place, the sea as the foundation and the basis of all successes in this War, and merchant shipping as the very centre of the life of this country and the first of all elements in the fighting force of this country. The First Lord, in his interesting survey, gave us to understand that he hoped he would soon be able to issue figures of tonnage, and that we were trying to obtain the consent of our Allies to this course, but I would point out, in a spirit of friendly criticism, that the effect of the interesting charts which he from time to time displays to us is all to try to show us, and through the Press the public, that, after all, this evil is not quite so great as we thought it was, and the diminishing curve which we are constantly having impressed upon us ought to be considered in relation to all the facts of the case. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Commander Bellairs) has referred to one but I think there is another. We do not know whether it is a curve of gross losses or whether anything is taken into account in its preparation of increases either from building or from enemy ships.
        Sir E. GEDDES: Gross losses —enemy action and marine risk. Everything we have lost.
        Mr. FRANCE: That only clears up one point. In considering that curve it ought to be borne in mind that neutral ships, which are included, are now less and less going into the war zone, and by arrangement are being deliberately kept out of the war zone. They all, therefore, have their effect on the diminishing curve, just as the fact which the hen. and gallant Gentleman mentioned was in that direction. But my point is that the presentation of these curves suggests that things are very much better and are improving, whereas in the latter part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman impressed upon the country the very grave and serious position in which we are placed. With regard to the disclosing of facts and figures with regard to tonnage losses, it is sometimes urged that they will help or encourage the enemy, but the First Lord told us to-day that the enemy are constantly exaggerating the losses, and month by month give their own people figures which are grossly incorrect on the exaggerated side. Surely to give the correct figures would be to correct the

        1905
        impression in enemy countries and bring it more into accord with what is really the fact. The one thing to my mind which will help the enemy more than anything else is that we should close our eyes to facts, and everything which helps us to open them is not in the enemy's interest, but all against the enemy. I am glad to hear that the convoy system has proved successful. In offering any criticism to-day I should be excused if I referred to the fact that. I very strongly urged that the convoy system should be prepared for in this very Debate a year ago, and my right hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara), who in all the trials and changes of this mortal life continues to shed his effulgence from that bench as the representative of the Admiralty, told me that it was not a practical suggestion. I am very glad to think, whatever weight was attached to my words, that in a few months that suggestion was carried into effect and good has resulted.
        6.0 p.m.
        But in my opinion the words of warning which have been spoken to-day by the Leader of the Opposition do not go to the root of the matter. I cannot expect the First Lord to agree with what I am going to say. I can hardly even expect that he will take a note of it, and convey it to the Prime Minister or to any member of the War Cabinet. Therefore I must trust, though it is rather a forlorn hope, that some member of the War Cabinet will read the point I very strongly wish to make with regard to merchant shipbuilding. To my mind this is a question as vital for to-day as the question of munitions was two years ago. It is a question which could only be solved by the Prime Minister himself giving the whole of his driving force and energy to the reconstruction of the Department which deals with the whole question of this shipbuilding programme. Last year the Prime Minister made speeches which fully demonstrated to the country that he regarded this question of shipbuilding as one of the most vital necessities of the War, and yet since then the programme has not been carried out as he expected or as any of us expected, and we have these disappointing results in January and February. There is some difficulty in quite reconciling the figures for January and February. I do not say this in any spirit of carping criticism but simply with a desire to ask what are the facts. We were told in a very serious speech a few days ago by the Minister of Labour that
        1906
        only half the estimated quantity of tonnage for January and February has been realised. January and February-were equalised in, that statement. We are told to-day that January realized 58,000 tons. These figures are very alarming. They are not only alarming from the point of view of work; but from the point of view of estimate, because if twice the 58,000 was the estimate made for that month, I think the House will realise that even that estimate is far below the necessities of the case. To my mind, and I think in the opinion of many others who have considered this subject of merchant shipbuilding, the whole trouble arose when the merchant shipbuilding of this country was placed entirely under the control of the Admiralty. The Admiralty, as the hon. Member who has just sat down said, do not seem to be fitted in their organisation or experience to manage the merchant shipbuilding of this country. I should have much preferred to see this programme left in the hands of the capable Shipping Controller who has managed so well the control of shipping itself, and that a Department should have been organised with some such head and manned with those who really understand from practical experience the needs of the tramp shipping business of this country. What is the Department of the Admiralty? We have the First Lord, whose time is taken up with all the responsibilities of the great office of which he is at present the civil head, and under him we have as the head of this Department a gentleman with great experience in liner business, who has done very useful work during the War, but who is experienced in the ownership and management of liners, and who has no practical experience in regard to tramp steamers. We have under him, as the second, a gentleman who has been very energetic in his experiments during the War, a gentleman I think of railway experience, who has initiated a very interesting experiment on one coast, and is now said to be very interested and very much concerned in a great vast undertaking of national shipbuilding yards on the other coast. How much of his energy is really directed towards the needs of the shipbuilding programme of the moment when he is thinking a great deal about the shipbuilding programme of two years hence, a programme which will probably only materialise when the War is over or

        1907
        settled, is a point which those who know this subject best will be able to decide; but this Department of the Admiralty, presided over by these two gentlemen, who have neither of them any practical experience of merchant shipbuildng, does not appear to me to be the way in which this vital problem should be tackled. I, therefore, appeal with all the strength that I can command, to the Prime Minister to look at this problem as he looked at the munitions problem in 1915, to consider the men and material, to see if the ridiculously small number of men engaged in merchant shipbuilding in this country, not only skilled but unskilled, cannot be increased, and to put that as the first item in the programme of manpower. The First Lord has made the burden of his speech upon it, and it lies at the root of all military effort.
        Sometimes people are apt to say that naval shipbuilding is very important, the provision of men for the Army is very important, munitions are very important, and then as a last thought in their minds they think of merchant shipping as being necessary for the food of this country. They do not remember, and I am afraid that even the Government sometimes seem to forget, that merchant shipping is a most important fighting force in this War, and that without merchant ships one of three things must happen in this War. We should come to that point and that line below which there is disaster for us, either with regard to food or with regard to raw material for this country, or with regard to the fighting force of this country. When we go below that line one of these great efforts of the country will have to be withdrawn to some extent. I leave it to the House to realise what it would mean if we have to go any lower with regard to the food question in this country, and whether the temper of the country and whether the working capacity of the people would be likely to stand any great reduction in the matter of food, or in the supply of industry both for war and civil purposes to keep the life of the nation going. Therefore a third factor must come into operation, and that is that if the quantity of ships is not increased the fighting force of the nation is reduced by the withdrawal of military effort.
        I can hardly expect the First Lord of the Admrialty to listen very sympatheti-
        1908
        cally to an appeal which would cause him to advocate that his Department should no longer be responsible for this work, but I do very strongly urge, and I know I am not only speaking my own opinion, but the opinion of many others who have considered this question of shipbuilding, that the Admiralty would do much better to be concerned with the duties and matters which have hitherto appertained to them, and in regard to which I wish to pay an honest and sincere tribute to them, and that this great and vital matter of shipbuilding should be put into the charge of a special department, into which should be brought men of practical and active experience, not merely as a consultative committee whose opinion may or may not be accepted, but as a vital control in the heads and officials of the Department. I would ask the House and the First Lord of the Admiralty not to blame the-workers too much, not to blame the employers too much, not to blame the weather too much, but to look within and see, after all, if, as business men, they are absolutely satisfied with the organisation of this Department as a business effort; and I would ask the War Cabinet and the Prime Minister to look at this Department in that way, and with that searching gaze to see whether or not the Department is of sufficient intrinsic merit in itself to produce the result which the whole House regards as a vital and essential part of the conduct of the War.
        We do not want to blame the Navy or the men or the employers or the weather, and least of all the Navy, because I think we all wish to pay to those in the Navy our tribute of admiration for the efforts that are being made in all branches of the Service to fight the submarines and other devices of the enemy. But I think we should not forget in this discussion the man who has done so much to prepare for, and to arrange for, the devices which are at the present moment fighting the submarine —the man who handled the Fleet from the very first moment of war, who protected it when there was very little protection for it in any base, who protected it from enemy destruction and device and organised it into an effective and great fighting force; who has been working constantly throughout the War in every branch and capacity of service; who has been responsible for devising many methods of attack against the submarine and who has constantly, in and out of season, warned the Gov-

        1909
        ernment that the mercantile marine was at the base and at the bottom of naval and military effort. This is the man who has been relieved of two important posts, and who is at the moment under a cloud —a cloud which time and fresh air will, I believe, disperse, and which consists, I am sorry to say, partly of the miasma of poisonous gases, concocted in secret and personal safety by certain sections of the Press —a man whom I am quite sure this House and the public will always hold in great regard and admiration. They will always remember the name of Jellicoe as one who has done in his person more than any other, perhaps, to secure the safety and guardianship of these shores.
        I would like to say one word about the personnel of the mercantile marine. The First Lord paid a great tribute to them to-day, but no more than they deserved. Before the War an admiral whose words have often been recorded made three prophecies. Sir Percy Scott prophesied that the submarine would beat the "Dreadnought" That prophecy was not true. He made another prophecy, that the enemy would use the submarine against merchant vessels. That prophecy has proved true. He made a third prophecy, that if the enemy did use the submarine against the merchant vessels, in less than three weeks the food supply of this country would be held up, and we should be beaten. He went on to say that "trade is timid" In that, much as he may have known about the Navy and Naval Service, he did injustice to the great merchant service of this country. Trade has not been timid in that respect. The merchant seaman has never failed in the test which has been put upon him, and we owe more than this House could possibly say or recognise to the bravery and gallantry of the merchant seamen. A book has been published lately giving an account of the adventures and exploits of merchant seamen in this War, and, if I may be allowed to do so, I would like to read a few lines from the introduction to that book, which sums up the position of the merchant seaman better than anything I have ever read:
        "When war was declared it was the duty of the merchant seaman to carry supplies of men and munitions across the sea. Upon his faithful discharge of that duty all depended. The merchant seaman must sail at the hazard of a deadly peril, which might come unawares, and against which he was at first utterly defenceless. He must navigate unlighted channe's, amid unlighted ships. He must steer new courses and learn the
        1910
        art of war. He never failed nor flinched; but, beginning unarmed and helpless, stumbling over mines, attacked by raiding cruisers, torpedoed or shot to pieces by submarines, sent adrift to go mad, or drown in open boats, still sturdily going undaunted about his business and gradually becoming a wary and valorous fighting man. He is the same merchant seaman who-but three years since was the drudge of commerce, and who now in his own right is entered of the chivalry of the seas"
        We owe much to the merchant service-Its existence is a vital necessity, and at the base and foundation of the success of the Allies in this War, and I appeal to the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet to see to it that this matter is put in the forefront of all their work and of all their interests, and that they should regard it as seriously as any matter over which they have control at the present moment.
        Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "the rates of separation allowances now payable to wives and dependants of petty officers and men of the Royal Navy and to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Royal Marines should be so readjusted as to equal the rates in force for the wives and dependants of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Army"
        The object of the Motion which stands in my name is to ensure that the allowance to the wives and children and dependants of petty officers and men of the Royal Navy, and the corresponding ranks of the Royal Marines, shall be raised to the same level as that of the allowances provided already for the wives, children, and dependants of men of similar rank in the Army. I know that I shall have the whole-hearted sympathy of this House in seeing to it that this House gives the fullest and amplest reward in its power for the immeasurable services which have been rendered in this War by the Royal Navy. It would be impertinent of me, after the most interesting and reassuring speech which we heard this afternoon from the First Lord, to attempt to describe or emphasise the debt which this country owes to these brave men. When we speak of men of the Royal Navy we do well to remember that, great as the perils of naval warfare are and always have been, those perils have in this War been intensified tenfold by the unrestricted use of those new deadly inventions of mines, submarines, and aircraft, and when we speak of the men of the Royal Navy and

        1911
        their heroism and gallantry I add my tribute most gladly to that which was uttered this afternoon by the First Lord of the Admiralty to the officers and men of the mercantile marine. The last speaker referred to them in eloquent terms and paid a tribute which I am confident no one in the country would say was too high or in any way undeserved. Let us realise, both now and when the War is over, that had it not been for the officers and men of the mercantile marine we should long since have been starved into absolute submission and humiliation. The work of the Navy is to a large extent secret and removed from the public eye. Every now and then the veil, or a corner of the veil, is lifted, and we read of deeds of unsurpassed gallantry and heroism of the men of the Navy and mercantile marine. But even so we do not hear anything but an insignificant fraction of the services which these men have rendered, and we may rest assured that if it had not been for the work of the Navy in this War, supported as it has been by the heroism of the mercantile marine, we could not have borne the strain of this War for a single month and this country would now be lying prostrate and bleeding under Germany's heel.
        With regard to the subject of my Resolution, there are two broad outstanding facts, undeniable and undenied. The first is that the scale of the allowances for the petty officers and men of the Royal Navy and Marines is substantially lower than the scale of allowances which has been conceded to men of corresponding rank in the Army. The second outstanding fact is that there is a marked difference between the allotments of pay which are required from the sailor to secure those allowances and the allotments of pay which are required from the soldier to secure those allowances. Up to quite recently, as a condition of his wife and dependants receiving the allowances, the soldier had to allot out of his pay 3s. 6d. a week, and the man in the Navy had to allot 5s. Now, as a result of a recent concession, this 3s. 6d. has been taken over by the State and the soldier has to allot nothing at all out of his pay in order that the allowance should be granted, while the sailor has to allot a minimum of 1s. 6d. a week out of his pay. I will give a few illustrations of the differences between soldiers and sailors with respect to this matter. Take, first, the case of the ordinary seaman in the Navy, on the one hand, and the corresponding
        1912
        rank, private, in the Army, on the other. If there, is a wife only, the wife of the soldier gets 12s. 6d. a week, and the wife of the man in the Navy only gets 9s. 6d. If there are a wife and two children, the wife of the soldier gets 24s. 6d., and the wife of the man in the Navy only 20s.
        Take another case, that of the petty officer in the Navy, on the one hand, and the corresponding rank, namely, sergeant, in the Army, on the other. If there is a wife only she receives in the case of the soldier 15s. 6d. a week, and in the case of the sailor only 10s. 6d. a week. If there are a wife and two children, the allowance is 27s. in the case of the soldier, and in the case of the sailor only 20s. The last illustration which I w ill give —because there are many illustrations which could be given, but the same difference runs throughout the whole scale —is that of a chief petty officer of the Navy and the corresponding rank, namely, colour-sergeant, in the Army. If there is a wife only, the soldier's wife gets 16s. 6d. per week, and the sailor's wife only gets 11s. 6d. If there are a wife and two children, the allowance in the case of the soldier is 27s., and in the case of the sailor no more than 20s. That is a difference which, on the face of it, it is very difficult to explain or understand. If you look into the question of dependants the inequalities appear to be very marked there also, because you find that in the case of dependants, such as the father, mother, or sister of a soldier, the dependant's scale is the amount of the dependency which existed previously to the man joining, while in the case of the sailor the dependants get only a sum dependent upon the amount of allotment, and never get more than half the total amount of dependency. Upon that point my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Reading (Colonel L. Wilson), who has taken a deep interest in this subject, will give further details. I have given the figures as regards the soldier and the sailor, but the figure as regards the soldier and the Marine show similar inequalities. What justification is there for these undoubtedly serious inequalities?
        I hold in my hand a paper which was issued by the Admiralty in September, 1914, in which they candidly admit, as they were bound to admit, the inequalities and seek to justify them. The main ground on which they seek to justify them is this: They suggest that, speaking generally—they do not even make it of universal application —the seaman is in a

        1913
        better position financially than the soldier of corresponding rank. I have studied this paper with some care, and I confess that the result of my study has not been to convert me to the View of the Admiralty. There may be better reasons than those given on the paper. I have not heard them, but if the reasons given on this paper are all that the Admiraly can say to justify these inequalities, then I submit that those reasons are totally inadequate, and do not justify this very serious differentiation. Again, upon this subject, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Reading will speak somewhat more fully. But I may say this generally, that this differentiation is something which is beyond the comprehension of the persons primarily concerned. It has been incapable of being understood by them, and it naturally creates, or is calculated to create, considerable discontent and dissatisfaction.
        Take the case of the wife of a soldier and the wife of a sailor living in the same street, or, it may be, in the same house. How is the wife of the sailor to understand why she should get so substantially less a sum of weekly allowance than the wife of the soldier? Their husbands are both fighting, both risking their lives, both, it may be, doing great acts of gallantry from day to day, yet the wife of the sailor finds herself in this position, that she gets something like 20s., it may be, very often, as compared with the wife of the soldier who is getting 27s. That is a position which must inevitably create discontent among all those who are concerned. I suppose that no one would suggest that the allowances now made to the wife, children and dependants of the soldier are in any way excessive. These allowances from time to time have been increased, with the full approbation of this House and of the outside public, and it may very well be, if the cost of food increases, that those allowances will require further revision in future. What I suggest is that we have a differentiation between the allowances given to the wives and dependants of soldiers and sailors which ought never to have been made. But having been made it should be remedied as soon as possible. I beg the House now to do an act of justice, and to bring the allowances in the case of the sailor up to the same standard as now exists in the case of the soldier.
        Colonel LESLIE WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
        1914
        My hon. and learned Friend has dealt with this question from the broad stand-point. I do not wish to delay the House, and I shall deal with some rather technical details in connection with this question. As the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) knows, it is a question in which I have taken a very considerable interest, but it is also one on which I have disagreed thoroughly with the Admiralty point of view. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, it does seem extremely difficult to justify the state of affairs which exists at the present time. When you have soldiers' and sailors' wives and dependants living in the same street, and possibly in the same house, and the sailors' wives and dependants are receiving considerably less than the wives and dependants of the soldiers, one naturally asks the representative of the Admiralty what is the justification for this position. I desire to put this case absolutely fairly and honestly. I feel myself that the case is so strong and so overwhelming in favour of the Motion that it only needs to be stated clearly to carry conviction. It has been acknowledged in the House several times lately, when the matter of the separation allowance has been brought forward, that it is none too large at the present time, and it has been suggested by several hon. Members that it should be increased. If that be true of the soldiers, then, where a considerably loss allowance-is given to the sailors, obviously the case of the latter must have considerably more weight The first point which I wish the House to clearly understand arises on the question of allotment. Until the recent concession the sailor had to pay 5s. a week out of his pay, but now, under the advanced pay concession, 3s. 6d. a week is granted, though the sailor has still to pay at least 1s. 6d. a week out of his own money, while his wife and dependants receive considerably less than the wife or dependants of the soldier. My hon. and learned Friend has quoted certain figures comparing the allowances as between the Army and the Navy, and the Admiralty has accepted those figures as correct. I am dealing with the case of the dependants, because the majority of cases arc those of men called up from civil life. When a man joins the Navy, he leaves behind him his wife and dependants, and it was always the intention of Parliament, where men are taken from their homes, that the amount of the separation and dependency allowance should be such that

        1915
        the wife and dependants should be no worse off because one of the bread-winners had been taken from that home. That is the ground on which the dependency allowance was granted, but that view of it has never been carried into effect.
        The question is a complicated one. In the first place, the Admiralty have decided that there shall be two separate rates, one for short-service men and one for long-service men. For some inscrutable reason the long-service men, under the arrangements which have been made, are far worse off than the short-service men. The short-service man is enrolled for the period of hostilities, and the long-service man for twenty-two years. To take an example, let me assume that the Pensions Committee have assessed the amount of the allowance at 15s. a week for the dependants when a man is called to the service of the Navy. The Regulations under which this has been done are certainly not in the White Paper, to which allusion been made. The Admiralty laid down certain Regulations, and in regard to the separation allowance to dependants, in the case of a short service man, he will contribute,an equal amount with the Admiralty, 7s. 6d. each a week. Then there is the concession of the 3s. 6d. out of the 7s. 6d. recently paid by the Stats, and the consequence is that the man has to contribute 4s. before his borne gets the 15s. which it lost by his being called up. I would point out that whereas in the Navy a man has to pay 4s., in the case of a man in the Army the whole 15s. is paid for him, and he does not himself pay one penny. Take the long-service man in the Navy. The Admiralty only gives half the amount of the dependency allowance, and limits what it does by not giving more than half the amount of the allotment. What is the result? Take the case of an ordinary seaman whose home has lost to the extent of 15s. That man has to pay out of his pay at least 11s. 6d. before the Admiralty gives 7s. 6d. The man has 1s. 3d. a day, and he has to pay 11s. 6d. out of his pay. It is impossible. Of course, the, home never can receive the full amount of the dependency allowance, which was assessed by the Ministry of Pensions, and agreed upon by the Admiralty. Take the case of the Royal Marines. They partly come under the Army Regulations and partly under the Navy Regulations.
        1916
        A recruit who enlists in the Royal Marines comes under the Army Regulation allowance; he then goes on the ship's books, which is a very expansive term, and as soon as he gets on the ship's books he comes under the separation allowance of the Navy, with the result that his home finds itself suddenly reduced several shillings a week, for no reason that the dependents can understand. After all, the man gets no more pay.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: He has his afloat allowance.
        Colonel WILSON: He has the afloat allowance after three years' service, and therefore is not better off when he goes to sea; at any rate, the separation allowance was a dependency allowance, the intention of which was that the home should receive what it had lost by one of the breadwinners being called to the-Service. As I said, the result is that when this reduced amount is received, the people do not understand, and cannot understand. There is confusion of thought in every home and in all Government offices. I submit that it is absolutely impossible to defend the situation. I shall deal with the justification of the right hon. Gentleman as put forward in the White Paper, issued in 1914, of the differentiation in the rates of separation allowance as between the Army and Navy. In the second paragraph of the White Paper the Admiralty proceed to give their reasons for the separation allowance fixed for the wife, and children of the seamen. I take it that this Paper will be used by the right hon. Gentleman in the defence he may be going to set up in regard to this matter. The document states that, in the first place, the seamen is, "generally speaking, in a better position financially than the soldier of corresponding rank" The men who join the Navy in the lower ranks —and it is the lower ranks that are interested in these Regulations as drawn up —are mostly for the period of the War. It is the men in the lower ranks who are interested in the separation allowance, and far from their being better off than corresponding ranks in the Army, they are worse off. At the present time the pay of the private in the Army is 1s. 6d a day. The ordinary seaman who joins the Navy gets 1s. 3d., and the Royal Marine 1s. 2d., so that after all these men get less pay than the soldier. We

        1917
        then come to the case of the man after six months' service. The soldier gets 1s. 9d. a day, and I take it that the ordinary seaman, as is generally the case after six months' service, is advanced to the rank of able seaman, and gets 1s. 10d. a day, a penny better than the soldier, and the Royal Marine 1s. 9d. a day. The ordinary seaman who joins the lower ranks receives lower pay than the man of corresponding rank in the Army, and it is only after he has reached one certain rank that his pay is a penny better than the soldier receives. Then there is the subject of non-substantive pay in the Navy —torpedo pay, gunnery and signalling; but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is non-substantive pay also in the Army, where it is paid just as in the Navy. The Army Service Corps, and various other Services, get non-substantive pay, and there is no justification for bringing forward non substantive pay in the Navy in regard to this question of pay to seamen, when non-substantive pay equally exists in the Army at the same time. A further paragraph of the White Paper states that the seaman has "open to him a better prospect of promotion at higher ratings than the soldier" That may be, and probably is, or was, true before the War. At the present time, however, owing to casualties and other causes, the prospects of promotion in the Army are very good, and I do not think there is any justification for saying that the opportunities of promotion are better in any way in the Navy than they are in the Army. A further paragraph of the White Paper deals entirely with the question of allowances. It says:
        "Then, in considering the question of granting separation allowances, it is appropriate to take into account the fact that the great majority of married men already send their wives, under a long-established system, regular allotments or remittances from their pay month by month. Ordinary seamen, of whom there are in the Fleet between 6,000 and 7,000, and who are in the main single young men of about nineteen years of age, are entitled out of pay to allot to dependent relatives up to a maximum of 25s. a month"
        But it is their own money; surely they are entitled to do what they like with their own money, and what is set forth in this paragraph can be no justification why the Admiralty should not give them separation allowance, because it allots a certain amount out of their pay. I quite agree that the men of the Navy and Royal Marines do allot a very large amount out
        1918
        of their pay; they have had to do it in the past, and I suppose they have to do it in order to keep their homes going. The right hon. Gentleman says, also, that a very large majority of the seamen make regular allotments or remittances ranging up to about 10s. a week —I think that is the sum. I do not accept the figure, though it may be somewhere near it —but I submit that it is impossible, out of pay amounting to 8s. 9d. a week, to allot anything like approximately 10s. a week. The White Paper also sets forth that no hardship is involved in the suggestion that seamen of the rating of A. B. should continue to make monthly allotments which work out at about 10s. per week, but I would point out that this sum of 10s. would leave the seaman exactly with 1s. 8d. a weak. It is surely not the intention that such a man should be left with 1s. 8d. per week with all the hardships he has to endure. It does not afford the possibility of any luxuries, and although the life, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, has moments of excitement, yet it has many days, if not months, of considerable boredom. The remainder of this document lays down the rates for wives, but those have been considerably altered. It did not deal in any way at all with the question of dependency.
        I have tried to put the question of dependency in order that the House might recognise how very badly, at least in my opinion, the dependants of the sailors and marines are treated. I do not consider that it was the intention of Parliament when it granted the separation allowance for the Navy that the will of Parliament should have been interpreted by the Admiralty in the way in which it has been. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will say that the Board is responsible, but, as a matter of fact, it is not, because it could not deal with individual cases of this description. The Department which is responsible is the Accountant-General Branch of the Navy, which acts as judge and jury in each of these cases, and if the wife or dependants appeal it is the Accountant-General's Branch which acts as a court of appeal. Surely that cannot be satisfactory, since it is not going to take up the position of saying that its own decision is wrong. I do think it would be very advisable that there should be some other court of appeal to which cases of the kind could be taken. As my hon. and learned Friend who preceded me said, it is an act of justice that this should be

        1919
        done —tardy justice, no doubt, and that the separation allowance should be equalised for the Navy and the Army. I have had no opportunity of exactly ascertaining what the cost of this suggestion would be. I recognise that the cost to the State would be large, and from the materials I have at my disposal I have tried to work it out, and, roughly, I believe it would be somewhere between two and three million pounds. I am not one of those who think that at the present time we can talk lightly of millions, and I am of opinion that every shilling should be looked after, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is a case which is felt very strongly right throughout the whole Navy and the Royal Marines. They recognise that their wives and dependants are not being treated on an equal basis of those with soldiers, and they see no reason why they should not. They are not getting better pay than soldiers, and they maintain that they have every right to get the same amount of separation allowance which is granted to the soldier. I hope it will not be necessary to speak on this subject again, and that the right hon. Gentleman will do everything he possibly can to impress the case on the Treasury, in order that it shall be accepted. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has always done everything he could for the benefit of the lower deck, and if he uses his influence and his many years of experience in this matter for the benefit of the seamen and Marines he will be doing an act of justice and will, at the same time, be adding to that high reputation which I know he appreciates very particularly.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: The request which now confronts us creates in me the sense of embarrassment which I always feel when asked to do more for the men of the Fleet and their dependants than we are doing. We are responsible for the men of the Fleet, and when people like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Reading (Colonel Leslie Wilson), pressing the matter with such zeal and earnestness, deliberately say, "You ought to do more," it is not easy for us to say "No," and if we must say "No" we must have complete justification. With these general observations, let me look in detail at the facts. It is quite true that the Navy separation allowances both for wives and children
        1920
        have from the very beginning been fixed at a lower rate than those for the Army. Prior to the 1st October, 1914, there was no separation allowance at all in the Navy, and the men maintained their wives and children out of their pay, and so far as the sailors are concerned I have never tired of paying a tribute to the loyal and devoted way they have always met the obligation resting upon them in respect of those who are dependent upon them. The allowance was fixed as from the 1st October, 1914, at a lower level for the Navy than for the Army for two reasons: First, because the sailor is generally better paid than the soldier. That has been challenged, and I shall show presently that it is true that the sailor generally is paid more than the soldier. Secondly, because he has open to him now, and he certainly had before the War —that is not challenged -greater opportunities of promotion than the soldier. I may say at once that whilst in the Army only 15 per cent. of the men are above the rank, or relative rank, of private, the percentage of men above the relative ran of private in our case is over 30 per cent.
        Moreover, it is the fact that in addition to the ordinary pay the sailor can, and many do, earn non-substantive pay in addition to their ordinary pay. I may say that, roughly, about 85 per cent of our leading seamen and 66 per cent. of our able seamen are, in fact, in receipt of non-substantive pay. In the Army, for the great bulk of the Service, there is no such thing as non-substantive pay. It is quite true that the Army Service Corps, the Army Ordnance Corps, and the Artillery get corps pay, and that the Engineers get engineers' pay, but for the great bulk —that is to say, the Infantry —nonsubstantive pay is unknown. The House will remember that we took that fact into-consideration, of course, in the concessions which came into operation on the 1st of October last year The Navy separation allowance was fixed at a lower level than the Army, as I say, because, generally, of the higher pay and greater opportunities of promotion.
        Colonel WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the figures I quoted about the sailors are incorrect?
        Dr. MACNAMARA: The case has been put forward with such force and enthusiasm that I do not wish to question any particular point. A. Parliamentary Paper was published and issued on the

        1921
        22nd September, 1914, justifying for what it is worth the lower separation allowance. Let us compare the lowest ranks of the two Services; that is, ordinary seamen, able seamen, and leading seamen in the Navy and that of the private and corporal in the Army. I do not think we need go higher than that, because by common consent the pinch of differentiation, if any, would be found in the lower ranks. In the first place, the allowance to the wife of an ordinary seaman, able seaman, leading seaman, is 3s. per week less than to the wife of a private or corporal in the Army. The minimum allotment in the Navy out of pay is 5s. — I mean before the concession —and in the Army 3s. 6d. That wipes out half the difference.
        Colonel WILSON: That belongs to the man.
        7.0 p.m.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: Since the 1st October last year the State has shouldered 3s. 6d. of the allotment. I do not wish to touch that in this connection at all, because, of course, a man may reduce his allotment by that amount, and if he does the differentiation remains, and, for the purposes of this discussion, it would not be fair to assume that the man continues his present allotment, giving his wife the benefit of the additional 3s. 6d. As regards children, the first child in the case of a Navy family gets a shilling a week less and the second child in the case of the Navy family sixpence per week less, and for the third child the amount is the same in the Army and Navy, and for the fourth child the Navy child gets a shilling a week less than the fourth Army child. Thus, for the classes I am discussing, a Navy wife with four children would get 5s. 6d. a week less in separation allowance than an Army wife with four children. These differentiations, as I have said, were considered to be equitable, mainly because of the higher pay in the Navy. Just let me point this out to the House: It was first stated in the House quite frankly and fully —as, of course, it ought to be —on the 22nd September, 1914, in a Parliamentary Paper. It was again issued in a Parliamentary Paper —the original White Paper —on 9th November, 1914. That second Paper was fully discussed by the House on the 18th November, 1914. It was referred, with the other matters in it, to a Select Committee, of which the Prime Minister was chairman, and the present Leader of the House, the Chancellor
        1922
        of the Exchequer, was a member — a very strong Select Committee. That Select Committee, in its First and Special Reports, recommended that the children's allowances made under the first White Paper should be increased both for the Army and the Navy as from the 1st March, 1915. That Committee, however, made no comment whatever about this differentiation as between the Army and the Navy. The Select Committee's Report was accepted by the House after a full Debate, which I very well remember, on the 18th May, 1915. Again and again the various matters in the Report have been the subject of discussion in this House, as both my hon. Friends know, and, so far as I remember, in these discussions, this particular question which they are now raising, and as to which I make no complaint, has never been raised. Mr. BUTCHER: Has not the matter been very fundamentally altered since the soldier's pay was raised to 1s. 6d.? Does not that make the inequality more pronounced?
        Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the differentiation between the allowance of the two Services, to which both my hon. Friends object, has not been the subject of criticism or discussion during all this long time. What has happened is this: There have been thirteen or fourteen questions on this point in the course of the War, and the great bulk were asked by my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. MacCallum Scott), whose anxiety had particular reference to the case of the ordinary seaman and the man in the Royal Naval Division, and if he were here he would admit that we have done our best to meet his contention. There have been three or four questions on the general question of the differentiation now raised. One, I remember, was by Lord Beresford, one by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Billing), one by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), and one by my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King). That is all. I put those facts for what they are worth. So far as State allowance, plus minimum allotment, is concerned, this is the position: The wife of a man in the lower ranks of the Navy is 1s. 6d. a week down if without a child; 2s. 6d., if with one child; 3s., if with two children; 3s., if with three children; and 4s., if with four children. As against that, take the pay. The ordinary seaman gets 8s. 9d. a week. If

        1923
        he is in the permanent Navy he is, as a rule, a young fellow under nineteen, single as a rule, and with every prospect of being rated up to able seaman after about eight months' service. I really do not think there is any hardship in the case of the single young fellow in the Navy who joined to make the Navy his career, because he can be rated up after eight months, but I admit there have been during the War a great many older men who have joined the Navy for hostilities only —men with families —and in their case there is the pinch of the differentiation. Now it is very hard for them, I admit at once, to make the 5s. allotment out of their pay of 8s. 9d. particularly with canteen prices what they are now; but by increasing the messing allowance as from 1st October, 1917, and by the State shouldering 3s. 6d. of the allotment, that point has been met so far as the man is concerned. But, so far as his wife and children are concerned, they would still remain with 1s. 6d. on the credit side, and on the other side 3s., 4s., 4s. 6d., or 5s. 6d., according to the number of members of the family. Having admitted that the case of the ordinary seaman, married, is a hard one, we could not, of course, leave it there, and what did we do? We made special provision by arranging that the local pensions committee, out of public funds —of course, out of no charity —should be empowered by the Pensions Ministry, through its Special Grants Committee, to make additional allowances in these cases to bring them up to the soldier's allowance, and therefore in that case the differentiation does not exist.
        Colonel WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that is a direct Instruction to the Pensions Committee, and that they are bound in every case to do it?
        Dr. MACNAMARA: If any ordinary seaman's wife came and said it left her 3s., 4s., 4s. 6d., or 5s. 6d. down, they are; empowered —I do not want to carry it too far, but the hon. and gallant Member had better put a question as to whether they are not compelled to bring it up to the level of the soldier's allowance, and, if I do not say it is so at the moment, it is not because I think it ought not to be so — but undoubtedly it is our desire certainly that the differentiation should be wiped out in that respect from public grant, through the local committee. As regards
        1924
        the able seaman, his minimum substantive pay is 12s. 10d. a week, but he has open to him, and the Infantryman has not, the opportunity for earning non-substantive pay. He may earn 1s. 9d. a week for seaman-gunner or torpedo-man and 3s. 6d. a week for gunlayer or leading torpedo-man. He may, therefore, make his 12s. 10d a week 18s. 1d. a week. That is not true of all of them, but two out of three of the able seamen do earn some non-substantive pay, and, if they do, I hope I do not put it too high when I say they could fairly do more for their wives and children than a private in the Army without that pay at all. If such a man cannot, then again the local pensions committee is empowered to make further allowances for his wife and children from public funds administered by the Special Grants Committee of the Ministry of Pensions. The leading seaman's minimum substantive pay is 16s. 11d. a week, but he, again, may, with non-substantive pay, bring his total to 28s. a week. As I have said, 85 per cent. of leading seamen do earn some non-substantive pay. The corporal's pay is 14s. a week, and, therefore, I think, I may reasonably suggest that the leading seaman can do more than a corporal. I do not carry the matter higher in rank than that, because, by common agreement, the effect of differentiation, if it does exist, does not exist there.
        As regards the Royal Marines, in point of fact, if the Marine is on shore strength he does get separation allowance on the Army scale, and, therefore, no question arises here. He gets separation allowance on the Navy scale when on ship's books, but in the latter case the generally earns more pay than when borne on shore strength. I will give the pay of a private and corporal, Royal Marines, on ship's books and on shore strength when they are paid at Army rates. The Army separation allowances for a private is 8s. 2d. to Us. 1d. a week. Now, the same man on shore pay —with ship's books —gets 9s. 4d. to 12s. 10d., with Navy separation allowance. A corporal, Royal Marine Light Infantry, on shore strength, has 16s. 11d. a week, with Army separation allowance, and on ship's books 16s. 11d. to 19s. 3d. a week, with Navy separation allowance. For a corporal, Royal Marine Artillery, it is 22s. 2d. a week on shore strength and 22s. 2d. to 24s. 6d. on ship's books.
        Colonel WILSON: After three years?
        Dr. MACNAMARA: When I say to 12s. 10d. to 19s. 3d. and to 24s. 6d. it is quite true they would not get it until after three years. The afloat allowance is 3d. a day for a private and 4d. a day for a corporal, but it is not paid, I agree, to Royal Marines going afloat unless they have been three years in the Service. But here again the local pensions committee is empowered —to take the case of a private, Royal Marines —to bring the allowance up to Army allowance if it is below that. Therefore it comes to this: In the lowest grades of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, where the higher pay does not fully counterbalance the reduced allowance, the local pensions committee is fully entitled to make up the difference from public funds. I will endeavour to get the point cleared up as to whether this is a matter of discretion, or whether they must make up the balance. So much for the wives and children. I am sorry to be so long, but it is only fair to my hon. Friends opposite, and those for whom they are pleading, that this matter should be fairly and fully handled. Now as regards the other dependant relatives —which is the case, I think, to which my hon. and gallant Friend mainly devoted himself —here again our system is different from the Army, and for the same reasons I have already indicated. Allowances to other dependant relatives are restricted by the amount of dependence; by the amount of the allotment, and by the amount of allowance that could be granted upon the wives' and children's scale to a household consisting of a like number of persons.
        As regards the permanent Navy, the allowance is fixed at no more than half the amount of the allotment —my hon. Friend was very strong upon that — whereas for Reservists and men entered for hostilities only, the allowance, subject to the other restrictions, may equal the full amount of the allotment. The principle underlying the differentiation here is this: that whereas the Reservists and hostilities men had completely to alter and break up their method of living upon joining the Service, the man in the permanent Navy was simply continuing the life he had marked out for himself as a professional career. That is the scheme. But I go this far: I think that the scheme, particularly as regards the permanent men, might me looked at again. I think I have taken up all the points which have been raised. My hon. Friends will have gathered that we cannot concur in the plea
        1926
        which they put forward. That may seem ungracious on the part of a representative of the Board of Admiralty —for, after all, it is the Board's duty, and privilege, to take care of the interests of the men, and of their wives and children. But I do not really think we can go further, because I think that in practice —whatever may be the theory —the differentiation is already wiped out where it would press hardly, if at all, by the authorisation which has been given by the Pensions Ministry to the local pensions committees.
        Still, I do not want to turn this down unless assurance is doubly assured that in every respect justice and equity is satisfied. I, therefore, make this suggestion: There has been at work, during the late summer and autumn months, a very strong Committee —I hope I may be allowed to say that although I was a member of it myself —under the presidency of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), which has patiently examined matters relevant to these issues, and very sympathetically indeed. Their decisions have been placed before the War Cabinet. Without giving any undertaking of any sort, simply that another hand shall be upon the matter, and that we should not be the judges of our own cause too completely, but that someone else will look at it to see that matters arc fair and just, I should like to suggest that this, without prejudice, should be referred to that Committee. Part of my speech may now have prejudiced the case, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University will be very glad indeed, I doubt not, to continue his services as chairman, if the War Cabinet think well, for the purpose of examining the proposition now before the House. I do not know whether that meets my hon. and gallant Friend and my hon. and learned Friend, but I suggest that they might take that undertaking for what it is worth, and allow this Amendment to be negatived. Then we can get the Motion carried, "That Mr. Speaker leave the Chair"; then on Votes A and 1 we can take up in Committee the general discussion on the whole question of the Navy.
        Mr. BUTCHER: In view of the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman has now given, and which I understand means that all these facts which have been brought before this House shall be referred

        1927
        to the Committee he suggests for consideration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Main Question again proposed.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I think we all listened this afternoon with very considerable interest to the statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty. It was a very clear and a very lucid statement. So far as possible, it gave the policy of the Government concerning very vital and very important matters connected with our sea warfare. I do not think it would be proper to endeavour to criticise the general policy which was put forward this afternoon, but I should like to say a word or two with regard to the labour problem. The First Lord of the Admiralty made the confession, which, I think, was, in the interests of the country, a most unfortunate confession to have to make, namely, that some 50 per cent., or nearly 50 per cent., of the output of ships which it was anticipated would take place last month had not so taken place, the reason being because labour did not come up to the scratch. Owing to strikes and various other matters connected therewith, labour had not done its duty. This is a most unfortunate and a most regrettable fact. I sincerely trust that the Government will take every opportunity to bring home to the skilled men of this country the necessity of doing everything they possibly can to increase the output of our shipping. On that output being increased rests the question of the supply of food for this country, of food for the Armies at the front, and on all the fronts, and rests also the supply of men for all the fronts. In a word, upon that output really rests the question of victory or failure. I sincerely beg the Government to use every means in their power to instil into the minds of these men the necessity of further strain and stress in their work. I am sure if the facts are brought home to them, and they are made to recognise the real crucial points of the whole question, they will do the best they can, and show us next month that they intend to repair this disastrous state of affairs.
        I would like to refer to one or two points connected with the interests of the lower deck, points with which I feel the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Macnamara) is quite familiar. I have
        1928
        no doubt that he will be able to answer them. The first point I should like to put before him is the question of the naval schoolmasters. I am very much obliged to him on their behalf —I have represented their cause on more than one occasion in Committee and in the House —for the concession that after six months' satisfactory service, provided they are recommended for advancement, they get it. That is a distinct gain. Unfortunately, this change of status is not accompanied by increase of pay. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that in many cases improved position means a loss. That is a fact in civil life. So it is in naval life. A warrant officer must incur more expense than a chief petty officer. Moreover, the increase of pay is only reasonable because to-day the naval schoolmasters are becoming more and more responsible for the conduct of the ships' schools. I do not know that I need press the point any further, except to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make some representation to their Lordships, and endeavour to see if he cannot obtain for these naval schoolmasters some further addition to their present emoluments.
        I come to my second point. Upon this point we have had many conferences. I refer to the question of the naval writers. It is a question which raises some difficulty for the Admiralty. Still, it cannot be denied that the policy which is now pursued by the Admiralty with regard to naval writers is raising, and has raised, considerable dissatisfaction amongst the lower-deck ratings. In this War we have heard a good deal about promotion from the lower deck. If I remember rightly, the First Lord this afternoon himself took credit to the Admiralty for all they had done in regard to the promotion of officers from the lower deck. But what about the promotion of naval writers? What has been done in their case? That is the point to which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give his attention. Their complaint —and it is perfectly justifiable —is that men are entered from shore as commissioned officers whereas they have no chance of becoming commissioned officers. These men who are entered from the shore are trained by petty officers and trained to perform the duties of naval writers. Yet the petty officers themselves are not eligible for promotion, even to warrant rank. I will come to that presently, but, as I think, the right hon. Gentleman will

        1929
        have something to say on that point I will endeavour to anticipate. Doubtless he will say that it is because the petty officers are active Service ratings, and that they would be in excessive numbers after the War. That is not a sufficient answer. Let us go a little further into this point. Over a thousand commissions as assistant-paymaster R.N.V.R. have been given to outside men up to the present time. These assistant-paymasters have had to be trained by the naval writers themselves. You very often find an efficient naval writer training an inefficient officer, and that an inefficient man is responsible for the books being kept correctly while the efficient man is performing the work. Surely that is not the right principle to go upon. I remember the right hon. Gentleman telling me that ten more writers had been promoted to warrant rank. That is so, but the age of the youngest man is forty-one, and it is not possible for these ten men to enjoy the same benefits as those which are enjoyed by the other classes who have obtained promotion at the average age of thirty, seeing that the conditions as regards pensions are precisely the same in all cases. It is, in fact, the question of pensions which is mainly at stake, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give that point his very serious attention. It is no use saying that the Board of Admiralty has promoted ten more writers to warrant rank if they are not going to have any considerable benefit from that promotion. Let us consider the number of ten. In order to allow a reasonable chance to obtain promotion, the number should not be ten, but forty.
        Then there is the question of hospital stoppages. I have often argued this question in the House, and I was very pleased to hear that they were to be done away with; in fact the whole country was gratified with that announcement from the Front Bench. But what do we find? Not that hospital stoppages have been done away with. Nothing of the kind. We find that they are only to be suspended or done away with during the period of the War. Why this restriction? Surely everyone in the Government is against hospital stoppages. Everyone from the top to the bottom in the Navy, from the highest to the lowest rung of the ladder is opposed to hospital stoppages, and yet the Financial Secretary told me in answer to a question a few months ago that these hospital stoppages, instead of being done
        1930
        away with once and for all, were only to be done away with for the period of the War. That is not what the country asked for or what was intended, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to represent to their Lordships the point that I have made.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: To the War Cabinet?
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The right hon. Gentleman is correct, he had better ask the War Cabinet, if they cannot see their way to do an action at once generous and liberal, and do away at once and for all with this illegal system of hospital stoppages. Then there is the question of equivalent ratings. This may not appear a very important subject, but it raises a very important principle. Three pence per day was given after three years' service to able seamen, stokers, and privates in the Royal Marines. We were all very grateful for that, and very pleased, but everyone expected that it would be extended to equivalent ratings such as third writers, cooks' mates, carpenters' crew and coopers' crew; but these men are not included. I submit that the only fair way of dealing with this matter is to give the 3d. a day to all equivalent ratings to that of able seamen after three years' service. I do not want the equivalent ratings to receive, more pay or be placed in a better position than the able seamen. I ask that they should be placed on the same equality, and that there should be no difference between one and the other. That is a very small request, but it will please a very considerable section of men of the lower deck if it is granted.
        I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the question of the concession granted last October in the matter of additional instructors of cookery. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was waiting for the reports. I would like to know whether those reports have come in, and if so, when the the names of the men selected will be announced. I think it is a long time from October to February to consider the question of selection, and I would like to press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer on that point. I asked the other day whether the First Lord was aware that if a man became an officer in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve or obtained a temporary commission in the Royal Marines and meets his death on the battlefield, that man's relatives receive no gratuity, as is the case with officers

        1931
        who enter the Army from the Territorials or those who have undergone cadet training. I do not think it is necessary to lay stress upon a matter of this kind, for it must be ever present to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. In this case I was told that the matter was being considered
        Dr. MACNAMARA: How long ago was that?
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: About three or four weeks ago. I was then told that the matter would be put forward without delay, and I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman would like to take this opportunity of saying whether he has put it forward, and assure the House that what he said three or four weeks ago has been carried into effect. Perhaps he will press the Treasury and the Admiralty to carry out the wish which he expressed three weeks ago so earnestly. It seems to me to be almost unnecessary to pursue the subject, and I may remind him of the point in order that he may put both Forces on the same footing in this respect. Another question which seems to me to need a little attention is the subject of the good conduct medal, which is only given after fifteen years of continuous very good conduct, and they must be consecutive years. In the war men unfortunately are killed. Casualties occur every day, and you find a man who would have been eligible for the good conduct medal had he lived only six months or three months longer is struck out altogether from obtaining that medal. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to recommend to the Admiralty the advisability of reconsidering the question of the good conduct medal, so that if a man dies within a few months of completing fifteen years' service, that medal shall be given, together with the emoluments attached to it, to his widow or children?
        Then there is the question of the naval ratings and Royal Marines who are prisoners of war. The right hon. Gentleman said that question was considered early in the year, and it was decided that the matter should stand over until the end of the War. This question affects not only these men, but also their wives and dependants. The right hon. Gentleman tells me that the advancement of boys to man's rating on reaching the age of eighteen is permitted, but that is not sufficient. I want the right hon. Gentleman to go
        1932
        further, and do what I ask, that is to say whether he will reconsider the decision recently given with regard to naval ratings and Royal Ma lines being deferred until after the War. The reason I ask for this is because the decision penalises the wives and dependants of prisoners of war. I was somewhat surprised to notice that the First Lord of the Admiralty to-day was careful to avoid all questions connected with the Royal dockyards, and why he did so I am utterly unable to understand. It is a fact that no mention was made in the interesting speech of the First Lord of the Royal dockyards. We heard nothing about torpedoed ships being repaired in a wonderful shortness of time and ships being built there very rapidly. Nothing was said about the men working day and night and the employment of women in the dockyards. We heard nothing about the very large amount of labour working daily and hourly in the Royal dockyards. I think that was a mistake and was not intended, but it is casting a slur upon the work of the Royal dockyards, and no doubt the First Lord presumed that the Financial Secretary would deal sympathetically with the desires and wishes of the men employed in the dockyard.
        I want to bring before the right hon. Gentleman the case of the charge men of trades. The duties of these men are highly responsible; they require to possess considerable technical knowledge, and yet their remuneration, including allowances for an apprentice, is only two shillings a week above that paid to hired mechanics, while the men they supervise receive about 20 per cent. in wages more than they do. This is an anomaly which I can hardly suppose the Financial Secretary is aware of. It does seem absurd that men who have to look after other men and have to superintend their work, to deal with them from day to day, should receive a lower payment than those whose work they supervise.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: They get charge pay.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Yes, but the charge pay does not amount to the sum which the men of whom they have charge are receiving from the Government. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that when charge men were introduced the pay of the mechanics was 30s., and the charge pay was fixed at one-fifth of that amount,

        1933
        or 20 per cent. of a mechanic's pay. But since that time the pay of the mechanics has nearly doubled, but the charge pay, except in the case of those who participate in the extra 3s., remains the same. No doubt a number of charge men do participate in the extra 3s., but it works out at only 33.3 per cent. The figures are very instructive, and if the right hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of considering them I think he will agree there is a good case for granting an advance to those charge men. I suggest that, instead of the present weekly payment of 6s., with the additional 3s. in certain cases, charge men, after working continuously for three years, should advance automatically by annual increments of £5 until the maximum in their respective classes is reached. I have every reason to know that if this concession is granted it will give the charge men the status they desire, and will satisfy them entirely, because it will enable them to maintain their position in the yards. After all, it must be the desire of the Admiralty to see satisfaction in the dockyards among all classes and all ratings.
        Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me anything about yard-craft rates, and whether a further increment becomes due after three years? That is another matter which the right hon. Gentleman said he had under consideration. He said that two months ago, but still we have no information on the point. Meanwhile we have had information with regard to carpenters in the Royal Navy, and I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he has given them. For a long time I have endeavoured to urge on him the necessity of altering the name "carpenter" and giving the rating, and I was grateful for the statement he made a few years ago to another hon. Member that both these concessions had been made. I have only one other point, and that deals more particularly with the Treasury. But the Treasury cannot move unless they are inspired by the Admiralty. The question I refer to is that of dockyard pensioners. This matter affects a great number of men, a great number of families, and a great many other people who are dependent on pensioners. It must be pushed further than it has been up to the present time. The only answer I have been able hitherto to obtain from the Financial Secretary is that it is a matter entirely for the Treasury, and that it would in-
        1934
        volve a very considerable expenditure of public money, because, if the concession were made to the dockyard pensioners, it would have to be made to other pensioners in the Civil Service. But let me ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that bonuses are now being given up to 75 per cent. in many cases of civil employment, and why are they given? Because of the extra cost of living. What is the basis of pensions? They are based on the wages earned by the man when he was in the yard, and these wages are based also on the cost of living at that time; consequently, you find that the pensioner with £1 or 10s. a week is now being compelled to live upon 10s. or 5s. weekly, providing he has no other work, and many men are too old or too infirm to undertake other work. I think it is a scandal that men should have to live on 5s. a week —men who have helped to build the ships which are now being used for the defence of our country, and for securing our War aims. Yet it is a fact which cannot be denied, that men are receiving pensions which, at the current value, are not worth more than 5s. or 10s. weekly. We may be told by the Treasury that they can make no change in this matter. I, however, would remind them that they have made a change in the case of old age pensioners to whom they have given a half-crown bonus, and if that can be done in the case of the old age pensioner, why should not the dockyard pensioner be also granted a similar bonus? It is only a question of degree, and I do suggest that in all cases of pensions of £50 a year a bonus should be granted for the period of the War. The cost is really not a matter which is worth considering in view of the enormous expenditure now being indulged in. It is absolutely necessary to give higher pensions in these cases. All I ask for is that pensioners whose pensions only amount to £l a week, or £50 a year, should be given an additional sum by way of war bonus.
        There is another matter with regard to these pensions. If a dockyard pensioner obtains work, and if his wages, combined with his pension, exceed the amount he was earning when his pension was granted, he is compelled, for some reason or other, to suffer a proportionate reduction from his pension. There might have been some argument for this policy in prewar days, but it altogether falls to the ground now that we are at war. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why there

        1935
        should be a distinction made between dockyard pensioners and naval pensioners? No deduction is made from the naval pension, why should any be made from the dockyard pension? Again, if the deduction is to be based on the pay of the rating on which the man was engaged when he obtained his pension, surely if you are going to deduct the pension from the man's present wage the basis ought to be the present rate of wages paid to the rating in which he was engaged when he left the yard! If that were done there would be no question arising with regard to the deduction, because the man would be earning three or four times what he was when he left the yard and the position would be altogether different. My own opinion is that there should be no deduction from a man's pension. The time has come when deductions from dockyard pensions should be abolished altogether. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when the question of pensions arising during the present War was under consideration the point was made in this House, and I myself pressed it, that no deduction whatever should be made in a man's pension if he had earned it, and the Government took credit to themselves for their action in the matter. They said, quite properly, in regard to pensions in the present War, whatever wages a man might get in any employment after he had got his pension no deduction should be made from that pension, and I submit for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman that if this is done, and it is done quite rightly in regard to pensioners in the present War, it should also be done with regard to dockyard pensioners. I would like to conclude by citing one example of this iniquitous system. I call it iniquitous because it is a system which falls very hardly on the men. Only the other day a dockyard pensioner came to me and told me —
        Dr. MACNAMARA: Is not this the case in which I have admitted there is a hardship?
        8.0 p.m.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I know the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to anticipate me, but I intend to take advantage of this opportunity of making the case public. A dockyard pensioner came to me —he was an old man —and he said "Look here, Sir. Here am I, an old man, unable to do
        1936
        any manual work, but an employer here says, 'Well I am doing war work. I am very hard pressed for a man to superintend my labour. Will you come in and help me with the work?'" The man said, "I am not able to do much manual labour" The employer replied, "I only want help to superintend my labour'' The man replied, "All right; I will join on" That man, from purely patriotic motives, undertook that work, and what happened? His pension of a few pounds a year was taken away, deducted; when he went to the Dockyard Paymaster he was told, ''You cannot have it; you are earning too much money" This man was in very unfortunate circumstances, because he had had two serious operations and was suffering from an infirmity which necessitated his spending practically £10 a year for medicinal purposes. This was known, or should have been known, to the Paymaster, and yet it was necessary for this man to approach the Admiralty, and, hearing nothing from the Admiralty, to approach me, and for me to write to the Admiralty. After all that was done, as the right hon. Gentleman said when he interrupted me, the Admiralty made a great and glorious concession, and they said the whole thing was a mistake.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: So it was!
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I grant you it was a mistake, but that mistake could not have possibly occurred except for the fact that this iniquitous principle is in force. The man who made the mistake naturally supposed that this was the same thing as he had always had, that the man's pension had to be deducted. It was a mistake; I am very glad it was; and in one respect it was a good one because it has enabled me to bring the case before the House, to show how the Admiralty deal with an old dockyard pensioner, how they cut off his pension on every possible occasion if —whatever the work the man may be engaged in, war work, work in the dockyard, or any work whatsoever —he is earning more than when he left the yard. It is a very wrong principle, and it is a very great scandal. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, with all the force I can, to see if it is not possible at the earliest moment to do away with this scandal, and to give the dockyard pensioner the possibility of earning as much money as he can without having deductions made from his pension.
        Mr. WATT: There is only one point I desire to bring before the right hon. Gentleman, and I will seek to do so as speedily as I can. It is the point I have raised before in the form of question and answer, and, unhappily, the answer was not as satisfactory as I desired. In pursuance of the policy of the Admiralty, enormous contracts are placed for shipbuilding, and a large proportion of these shipbuilding contracts are, of course, placed upon the Clyde. It follows necessarily from the size of these contracts placed with shipbuilders there that they sub-contract for a large part of the work that has to be done. A Committee dealing with wages was appointed by the right hon. Gentleman to go into that question and to find out whether advances should be paid to the workers generally in the shipbuilding yards and sub-contractors places, and that Committee came to the conclusion that advances should be paid to the workers notwithstanding that contract prices were largely arranged, not only with the shipbuilders but with the sub-contractors. These advances had, of course, to be paid. They were paid to the workers in the shipbuilding yards, and they were also paid to the workers in the sub-contractors places. The shipbuilding yards had no difficulty whatever in getting the advanced prices paid to the workers from the Admiralty, but the sub-contractors, with whom the Admiralty have no direct dealing, have had enormous difficulty in getting repaid to them the money that was paid, on the instructions of the Committee, in advance of what has been paid.
        The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, understands the question quite well. The Admiralty, having no relations with the sub-contractors, could not deal with them direct, and the sub-contractors were instructed to go to the contractors, the shipbuilders, and to ask them to pass on to the Admiralty this demand. The shipbuilders are refusing to do that on behalf of the sub-contractors. They say they have nothing to do with these sub-contractors' advances, and will not carry to the Admiralty the demand for the money. That is the serious disadvantage which the sub-contractors are under at present. On the instructions of the Department of the right hon. Gentleman they paid their workers the advances, and are now in the position of being out of pocket to the extent of the money which they have paid to their workers. I am not aware whether the higher prices paid by the Admiralty
        1938
        to the shipbuilders are now in the shipbuilders' pockets, but in the meantime all the sub-contractors working for the right hon. Gentleman's Department are in that position of not being able, by reason of the fact that the shipbuilders will not carry the matter to the Department, to get the money. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take measures of some sort or another whereby these demands will find their way to his Department because I think that if they do they will be met as demands usually are in this Department. He is cognisant of the point, and I hope ho will indicate some means by which the sub-contractors may get the money to which they are entitled.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: The first point raised by the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) was with regard to naval schoolmasters, and in regard to that I have to say that we took steps in October, 1917, to improve the status of this class, and acting warrant rank without pay —which was the point made by the hon. Gentleman —was granted for the duration of the War to all naval school masters, permanent and temporary, on completion of six months' satisfactory service. The whole scheme is quite temporary, and the future of the branch is under consideration at the present time. As regards the writer class —which is the next point to which the hon. Gentleman referred —there again he objected to the fact that we have given direct commissions to so many accountants and others outside to the prejudice of this class. We had no alternative with the expansion of the Navy but to avail ourselves of the services of these Gentlemen, because if it had been possible to promote the writer class to these commissions we should have been in a position of having a hopeless block in promotion at the close of hostilities, and the only way to have met that would have been to have disrated persons to whom we had given commissions for the time being, and that would be a very objectionable policy to pursue. I do not know that I need go over the whole ground of the writer class, but promotion to warrant rank was established by Order in Council of the 18th of October, 1909, to commissioned warrant rank by Order in Council of the 12th August, 1915, and to commissioned rank of paymaster and staff paymaster by Order in Council of the 14th of April and the 13th of June, 1917 —the promotion to staff paymaster being automatic after eight years' service

        1939
        as paymaster. At the beginning of the War there were fifteen posts as warrant writer open to the writer class —fifteen posts of warrant rank. At the end of 1914 twelve additional posts were created, which made twenty-seven in all. In 1915 five promotions were made to the then established rank of commissioned writers, and at the same time the number of warrant writers had increased to thirty-five, which number in May, 1916, was further increased to forty- seven, and since the institution of commissioned rank six promotions to paymaster have been made, and an additional promotion is to be made annually until the establishment reaches ten. Finally, in November last, one commissioned writer and ten warrant writers were added, and there are at present six paymasters, six commissioned writers, and fifty-one warrant writers, as compared with fifteen warrant writers at the beginning of the War. I ought also to explain: that there is a Committee now sitting on the whole question of the pay and pro motion of warrant officers, and, of course, any proposals which would affect warrant officers would affect the writers so far as they are warrant officers. I do not think I can carry the matter further than that at the present time. As regards hospital stoppages, the hon. Gentleman, not for the first time —and I make no complaint of that —called attention to the fact that that concession was for the period of the War. That is true of all the concessions which came into operation on the 1st of October, 1917, both as regards the Army and the Navy, and that is not singular. It is the decision of the Government, and of course it is not for me—
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It was not in the Prime Minister's letter.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: That is perfectly true; it was not in the Prime Minister's letter to the Press, but I think the hon. Gentleman may take it from me that it was the decision of the War Cabinet. I cannot, of course, give any undertaking about the matter, but obviously the situation as regards this and other matters would naturally have to be reviewed at the close of hostilities, and we cannot but imagine that it would be reviewed as regards these men —Army and Navy —with sympathy. I am certainly entitled to say that, although I have no right to give any undertaking as to what will become after the War of these various concessions —I
        1940
        give no undertaking, of course —which are, as the hon. Gentleman says, for the period of the War. As regards equivalent ratings, as the hon. Gentleman says, the concession was 3d. a day extra to able seamen after three years. Before that it had been after six years. The hon. Gentleman asked why the equivalent ratings have not got it. So far as they are equivalent ratings they have got it. The equivalent ratings in question to the A.B. are the signalmen, the telegraphists, and the first-class stokers.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Three-pence writers, cooks' mate—
        Dr. MACNAMARA: I think I am right in saying that the original 3d. a day to able seamen was granted after six years. The equivalent ratings at that time were those I have stated —the signalmen, telegraphists, and first-class stokers —and when we came on the 1st of October, 1917, to give 3d. a day after three years instead of after six years, the same equivalent ratings got it as got it in the original case. If my hon. Friend thinks there are others who ought to be included, he will remember that it is an extension of the original equivalent ratings which were set forth when the concession was made. He spoke of the need of additional instructors in cookery, and he said that he had been promised that a report about the matter would be forthcoming. At the end of last year we increased the establishment to ten. I do not know whether he remembers that fact. Before that the establishment was only three. At the same time we introduced a commissioned warrant rank, and three of them have been instituted. The pay of the instructors in cookery was raised to 7s. per day, 8s. after five years, and 9s. after ten years. I am not quite sure, but I think that is the report to which he said that I promised consideration.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: You told me that there were reports coining in, and that selections would be made.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: I have told my hon. Friend what we have done. Up to the end of last year we had increased the establishment of cookery instructors to ten, and we had introduced a commissioned warrant rank with the title Commissioned Instructors in Cookery. The pay to these on promotion is 10s. per day, 10s. 6d. after two years, 11s. after four years, 11s. 6d. after six years, and 12s. after eight years.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: All that is very interesting, but the right hon. Gentleman told me three weeks ago that certain reports were coming in and that selections were being made. What is being done? I do not want to know what was done up to the end of last year, but what has been done during the last few weeks.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not think my hon. Friend knew what I have just told him, but, as I understand it, he was promised three weeks ago that some steps should be taken on some reports?
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I think it-was about three weeks ago, but I may be wrong.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: I would advise my hon. Friend to put another question down. I have told him what had been done up to the end of last year, and so far as I know that is all for the moment; but if he will put another question down, I will see how the matter stands. He referred to the question of gratuities to temporary officers. There are gratuities to temporary officers in the Army, but not in the Navy. The matter has been under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty. I think my hon. Friend was one of those who raised the matter by -way of question in this House.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Yes.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: It is now a matter of consideration between ourselves and the Treasury. I cannot carry the matter beyond that. All I can say is that we have not delayed in examining the problem since the date when I told him we had taken it under consideration. It would not be right to say what the proposal may be. My hon. Friend suggested that great hardship was caused to a man who did not get a Good Conduct Medal because he failed to satisfy the Regulations by a few years.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No; by a few months.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member said years.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I said three to six months.
        The CIVIL LORD to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Pretyman): He said "years"
        Dr. MACNAMARA: At any rate, I understand the hon. Member's point. You have really got to draw the line somewhere, and wherever you draw it there are bound to be cases of hardship.
        1942
        I cannot hold out any hope that we shall grant this medal in any case where the qualification has not been satisfied. If you depart from the qualification laid down, I do not know where you will end.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me—
        Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member has really exhausted his right to speak.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid that we must stick to the Regulations. We cannot treat it as if it were an elastic affair. He referred to naval ratings who may be prisoners of war, and pointed out that they do not get promotion during their imprisonment. That is true. It is the same rule as for the Army, but I think I am right in saying that the War Office at the present time are giving some consideration to the problem. I cannot say, but they may take a fresh decision. I will certainly keep the matter before me, and if there is any modification by the Army Council the hon. Member may be certain that our Board will take it under their consideration as regards its application to the Navy. He said the First Lord of the Admiralty had not made any reference to the Royal Dockyards. That is true, but the omission was obviously quite inadvertent, and my right hon Friend would be only too glad to say, what I now say on behalf of the Board, that during the War our employeés in the Royal Dockyards have borne the strain of war with the greatest loyalty and with the greatest devotion. I seize the opportunity of thanking them in the name of the Board fox the way in which they have supported us. They know how fully we appreciate the way that they have performed the task that the War has placed upon them. My hon. Friend said that cases arise where even with his charge pay the charge hand is not getting as much money as the operative on piece-work. Such a case might arise. Chargemen, of course, get charge pay. My hon. Friend suggests that they should have automatic increases so as ultimately to bring them up to the minimum of inspectors of trades. I will have the matter looked into. I cannot give, any undertaking, but I am fully seised of the point, which has not been put for the first time to-night, and I will consider it. My hon. Friend must not imagine that, as a result, it will be agreed to. He called attention to certain questions concerning the yard

        1943
        craftmen. There are certain questions affecting the yard craftmen being discussed, and if he will put down a question or speak to me about any matter affecting the conditions of the yard craftmen serving in the Royal Dockyards, I will see exactly how the matter stands. He also called attention to the question of dockyard pensioners. He said the pension was very small, and that the value of it was not now what it was. He asked whether we could not add something to the pension in the same way as has been done with regard to old age pensions It is not a matter for us, as he knows We have represented the views of the Dockyard Committee, of which my hon. Friend is Secretary, and I am not quite sure that we did not commend it to the Treasury for their consideration. I rather think that we did. He knows that the Treasury have taken the view that if you add to the pensions of Civil employés under the Superannuation Act you really open a very large question indeed. There, I am afraid, the matter must be left. But. I will say this: Some of the men to whom ray hon. Friend refers are able to engage in work outside. My hon. Friend him self some time ago drew a picture of, I think he said, hundreds walking about the streets of Devonport.
        Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Not Devon port, but in all dockyard towns.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, well in all the dockyard towns. I accept all the hon. Member says. Even taking the lot together, I think it is rather an exaggeration to say that there are hundreds of ex-dockyard established men on pension who are walking about dockyard towns in a state of penury. I do not think it is so. Many of them are able to engage in work. The last word of the Treasury is that this increase or war bonus to established servants who are now superannuated, if granted, could not be confined to the Royal dockyards merely, because there are vast numbers of other employés who would have to be considered. The Treasury, as my hon. Friend knows, are not prepared to give consideration to the matter. He also referred to deductions of pay of the re- employed dockyard pensioners. That, again, is not a matter for us, but for the Treasury. We have gone into it very fully, and we have stated cases to the Treasury very fully. The course generally followed, both with regard to them
        1944
        and to those who are receiving compensation for injury, is that no more can be paid than would bring the workman's present earnings up to his earnings prior to his leaving or receiving the injury. With regard to superannuation, that is under the Superannuation Act, and with regard to a man who is receiving an injury allowance, again the Treasury is the final arbiter. That, I think, covers all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport. My hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) raised a complaint about sub-contractors not being able to get back from us certain payments which they had made to their men in respect of increased wages. Perhaps I can best meet his case by explaining to him fully and completely how that matter stands, because I do not think I need detain the House with regard to it. If it is a case where any hardship appears to have arisen, I will have the case gone into very fully. I think that now I might ask the House to give us the Motion and to go into Committee.
        Question put, and agreed to.

      SUPPLY. —NAVY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.
      Considered in Committee.
      [Mr. WHITLEY in the chair.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 450,000 Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919"
      Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again" [Dr. Macnamara], put, and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
      Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-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 Half after Eight o'clock.

WAR.
  MAN-POWER.
  MAN-POWER.
  BANK AMALGAMATIONS (COMMITTEE).
  BANK AMALGAMATIONS (COMMITTEE).
  RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS (TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS).
  RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS (TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  INDUSTRIAL CENTRES (WORK).
  INDUSTRIAL CENTRES (WORK).
  EXPORTS (IRELAND).
  EXPORTS (IRELAND).
  WEIGHBRIDGES.
  WEIGHBRIDGES.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  RATION PAPERS.
  RATION PAPERS.
  RATIONING SCHEME.
  RATIONING SCHEME.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  EGGS.
  EGGS.
  MEAT.
  MEAT.
  JAM-MAKING.
  JAM-MAKING.
  TILLAGE (IRELAND).
  TILLAGE (IRELAND).
  BEET CULTIVATION.
  BEET CULTIVATION.
  CATTLE AND PIGS (IRELAND).
  CATTLE AND PIGS (IRELAND).
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  USE OF EXPLOSIVES (TRAINING).
  USE OF EXPLOSIVES (TRAINING).
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.
  RUSSIAN WARSHIPS.
  RUSSIAN WARSHIPS.
  ALLIED NAVAL COUNCIL.
  ALLIED NAVAL COUNCIL.
ROYAL NAVY.
  ARTISAN RATINGS (STATUS AND PAY).
  ARTISAN RATINGS (STATUS AND PAY).
  GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL.
  GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  WOOLWICH DOCKYARD (WOMEN WORKERS).
  WOOLWICH DOCKYARD (WOMEN WORKERS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SHIPBUILDING (SKILLED LABOUR).
  SHIPBUILDING (SKILLED LABOUR).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  ECCLES TRADES AND LABOUR COUNCIL.
  ECCLES TRADES AND LABOUR COUNCIL.
MUNITIONS.
  TIME-WORKERS' BONUS.
  TIME-WORKERS' BONUS.
  POST OFFICE GIRL MESSENGERS.
  POST OFFICE GIRL MESSENGERS.
  EAST BOLDRE POST OFFICE.
  EAST BOLDRE POST OFFICE.
  SCOTTISH WAR MEMORIAL.
  SCOTTISH WAR MEMORIAL.
  PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.
  PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.
  GERMANY AND UKRAINIA.
  GERMANY AND UKRAINIA.
  JAPAN AND RUSSIA.
  JAPAN AND RUSSIA.
  CIVILIAN PRISONERS OF WAR REPATRIATED.
  CIVILIAN PRISONERS OF WAR REPATRIATED.
  Mortality Statistics.
  Mortality Statistics.
  Cattle Disease.
  Cattle Disease.
  EVICTED TENANT, VENTRY ESTATE, DINGLE.
  EVICTED TENANT, VENTRY ESTATE, DINGLE.
  Scottish Prisons Service (Scotland).
  Scottish Prisons Service (Scotland).
VISCOUNT FURNESS.
Baron Furness, having been created Viscount Furness of Grantley, in the West Riding of the county of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

ST. OLAVE'S CHURCH, SOUTHWARK, BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF KINTORE): My Lords, I have to make a formal Motion that the St. Olave's Church, Southwark, Bill be now read a second time. I can do so in almost a sentence, for into the questions of policy with regard to the altered conditions of City churches to-day it is not my province to enter. Nor, my Lords, if there was any opposition to the passage of the Bill would I be moving its Second Reading. So far from its being opposed, the preamble recites that the Prime Minister, on behalf of His Majesty (who is patron of the living), the Lord Bishop of the diocese, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the present rector of the parish all consent to the provisions of the Bill. The circumstances of the Bill are practically identical with the circumstances dealt with in, and its terms closely follow the terms of, several Acts of the same kind which I could mention.
The main purpose of the Bill is to give a power of sale of the old church of St. Olave, Southwark, and its site, as well as the burial ground and any foreshore rights belonging to the church, also the site of the old rectory and the existing rectory and its site, to the trustees whom the Bill names and appoints, to merge the existing parish into adjacent parishes, and to apply all moneys received from the sale of land, materials, and other properties under the Bill—subject, of course, to the necessary expenses—in the purchase of a site and in the building of a new church and rectory elsewhere in the diocese, subject to the Bishop's approval and consent, and in providing for an endowment of the new church and an increase of the emoluments of the rector and vicar of the parishes into which the parish of St. Olave is to be merged.
220
The trustees are to pay to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the net proceeds of the rates levied by them under Acts of Parliament, and the Bill sets out the objects to which all such proceeds are to be applied. The right of patronage and presentation to the new church is vested in His Majesty. I think that is a fair summary of the contents of the Bill.
With regard to the notice given by the noble Viscount below the gangway of his intention to move an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, I venture to make two observations. The first is that I think this House is usually reluctant to fetter its Committees with Instructions, which tie their hands in considering a Bill on its merits; and the second is that if Lord Bryce's proposed Instruction be carried in its present form it would, I think, go a considerable way to defeat the purposes of the Bill. The churchyard in question is small—only some 634 square yards in extent—but its site is a very valuable one, to say nothing of the foreshore rights. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Kintore.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I rise to move that the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill be adjourned, and I suggest that a convenient day to which to adjourn it would be Thursday week. I make the suggestion for this reason. Those who are interested in the passage of the Bill are very desirous to enter upon reasonable negotiations with those concerned in the Instruction placed on the Paper by my noble friend Lord Bryce. It is quite true, as has been stated, that if that Instruction were made it would probably lead to the loss of the whole Bill, because the sum which might possibly be derived from the sale of the vacant site could not be obtained if the most important portion of that site—namely, the portion fronting on the river—were taken away under the conditions proposed. But I do not desire to pursue the matter further this afternoon, because I hope that negotiations will he carried forward, and perhaps the matter may be settled if your Lordships will allow the debate to be adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned—(Lord Parmoor.)
VISCOUNT BRYCE VISCOUNT BRYCE had given notice of his intention to move, after the Second Reading—
That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill shall be referred, to amend the Bill so as to provide that the disused burial ground, described as the churchyard, attached to the church (together with any foreshore of the River Thames attached or belonging thereto), shall be preserved unbuilt upon in compliance with Section 3 of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, with a view to its enjoyment by the public as an Open space, under the provisions of the Open Spaces Act, 1906 and to preserve access thereto from Tooley-street across the church site.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to say that there is no wish on the part of those at whose instance I put down this Instruction, or on my own, to defeat the Bill, but that we regard the matter as being one of considerable importance. This is an attempt to over-ride, by a private Bill, the provisions of a public Statute passed as far back as the year 1884, amended in 1887, and confirmed by another public Act in 1906, under which these open spaces, arising from disused churchyards, have been kept for the enjoyment of the public, to the great benefit of the public, especially in crowded places. I have to observe, further, that the London County Council has petitioned against the Bill, and that the Bermondsey Borough Council has petitioned against it upon the same grounds as those which are set out in the Instruction standing in my name. We consider that a question of public policy of great gravity and magnitude is raised by this Bill, and that the point covered by the Instruction well deserves to be considered by your Lordships' House. I am perfectly ready to agree to the postponement suggested, and I hope on the day fixed to have an opportunity of stating at full length to your Lordships why, in the opinion of those who are most interested in the welfare of the people of London, the Instruction should be passed.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, may I venture to enforce the appeal which my two noble friends have made for the adjournment of this debate? The London County Council, as the noble Viscount has just told the House, has petitioned against
222
the Bill, not exactly or only on the grounds contained in my noble friend's Instruction, but on somewhat wider grounds. I need not go into that at this moment, but I think, in the absence of the Lord Bishop of Southwark, and also of the most rev. Primate, who is naturally interested, it would be somewhat futile to proceed at this moment with the debate. I hope, therefore, that it will be deferred until the date that my noble friend suggests.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I do not intend to go into this subject at length, because I agree that it is far better to adjourn the debate. At the same time I should like, as representing in this House for the moment three of the open spaces societies of London, to say that I do not think we can quite agree with all that the Lord Chairman has said with regard to the advantages of the Bill. We think that it would be a very great pity indeed to override the Act of Parliament, especially in a district so crowded as Bermondsey; also, as the particular site is one on the river, we shall never be able to get it again, and it is the only site in Bermondsey or in that part of London which looks upon the river. I reserve what I have to say until later, when the Bill comes on again.
On Question, debate adjourned until Thursday, March 14.

THE SITUATION IN IRELAND.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' leave, before public business is proceeded with, to refer, as some interest has been taken in it, to a Motion standing in my name in respect of Ireland, which was originally fixed to be taken on Thursday next—
To move to resolve, That as the present situation in Ireland has become a danger to the Empire and a menace to the successful prosecution of the war and to the security of life and property, it is incumbent on His Majesty's Government to enforce the law in that country.
I have ventured to postpone this Motion until Tuesday next, at the request of the Leader of the House. He signified to me that it would be more convenient for the Government if it was taken on Tuesday, and as there will probably be on that day, more time for your Lordships to consider the matter thoroughly, I have, I need not

223
say, complied with his request. Therefore the Motion stands for Tuesday, March 12, of for next Thursday.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): I am much obliged to the noble Marquess.

SOLICITORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, this Bill, for which I ask your favourable consideration, is identical in terms with the one which passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House last session. I hope that your Lordships will not think that in again inviting your attention to this subject I am asking you unprofitably to employ your time. It is quite true that during the last session the Government were unable to adopt this measure, or to grant facilities for its passage in another place. But I think that your Lordships will all recognise that conditions have considerably altered since the time when I introduced this Bill last year. In the interval an event has happened which at that time was only dimly seen upon the horizon, but which, I think every one will agree, has materially altered the atmosphere in which this Bill will find itself. Six millions of women have now been entrusted with the right of electing representatives to Parliament; and while last year there was behind this Bill, as I verily believe, the united opinion of the large bulk of women, that opinion had no means whatever of finding effective Parliamentary voice. At this hour there will be massed in support of this measure the feeling of those 6,000,000 of voters, who know better than any one the relentlessness of the struggle in which any woman finds herself who has to try and obtain her living by honourable means.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships again by a long discussion as to the circumstances which have rendered the introduction of this Bill necessary; but perhaps you will forgive me if I recall to your attention the peculiar circumstances in which the solicitors' profession stands. At this present moment admission to the ranks of solicitors is regulated by an Act of Parliament which provides that, after articles have been granted and certain examinations have been passed, the person
224
who is successful may be entered by the Master of the Rolls on the Roll of Solicitors. That Statute, although it is couched in general language, has received a judicial interpretation which excludes from the generality of its words the whole of the female sex; and the consequence is that, in a profession that has for centuries been controlled by Statute, you find that, by Statute, women are excluded from any opportunity of entering into it and of practising its work.
The result of this is certainly very startling. Women are now fully qualified to discharge in a solicitor's office all legal business, with the possible exception of an appearance in the County Court—about which I am not so certain—and the administration of oaths, which is regulated by the grant of a licence by the Lord Chancellor, and which constitutes a solicitor a commissioner. Subject to those two comparatively trifling exceptions, I can think of no work in a solicitor's office which cannot at present be discharged by a woman, provided only that the woman is not doing it for her own profit. If she is doing it as the paid servant of a solicitor she can discharge it, and in certain instances she is discharging it efficiently and satisfactorily. If she attempts to discharge it in her own right and for her own profit, she commits a penal offence and can be sent to gaol. I find myself unable to think of any other occupation that is subject to such an extraordinary safeguard; and I ask your Lordships by this Bill to say that a woman who has qualified herself by study to practise the calling of a solicitor shall be able to do it on her own responsibility, for her own good, and for her own profit, and shall not be compelled, as she is to-day, always to work in it in a subordinate position.
On the last occasion when this Bill was before your Lordships, I referred to one or two striking instances which had come to my knowledge of women who to-day were, in fact, performing the work to which I have referred. Since then an instance has been placed before me of which I think your Lordships would be glad to hear. A solicitor wrote to me saying that he had begun very humbly, but had made his own way in the world and established a large and lucrative practice in a big manufacturing town. He had no sons, and in his work he was assisted by his daughter, who had been trained up to do the work just as he would have trained a boy. He said to me—and I think the

225
appeal will make itself felt in the minds of your Lordships—"When I go, the whole goodwill of my business vanishes. Why is it that my daughter should be prevented from carrying it on?" I see no answer to that. Why is it? The woman has proved that she can do the work; what is the reason why she should be unable to carry on this work, and honourably to discharge the duty under the sanction of tint law?
I noticed in The Times of yesterday that a statement was made that questions had been put to me with regard to this matter. They had not been put to me excepting through the paper; but as I gather that they represent the organised opinion of certain legal societies upon this point, perhaps I may read what they say. It is said—
"The law societies in Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham have indicated reasons why the Bill should not be proceeded with at the present time. They recognise that this and other highly important questions affecting the industrial and economic position of women will have to be dealt with after the war, but argue that they should not be dealt with in sections."
Then is put the following question—
"If, in the opinion of the distinguished lawyer who has introduced the Bill, women should be admitted to one branch of the profession, why not to the branch of the profession of which he is a member, and why exclude them consequentially from the Bench and from the numerous public appointments open only to members of the Bar?"
I will deal with that question in the inverse order in which it is put, and say a few words upon the latter part first. On the former occasion—if any of your Lordships who are present now were present then and have done me the honour of remembering anything that I said—your Lordships will remember that I pointed out that at the present moment there was nothing whatever on the Statute Book to prevent a woman from becoming a barrister; that there is nothing to prevent a woman from being admitted to one of the Inns of Court to-morrow if the Benchers chose to permit her entrance; and that though up to the present it is true that the Benchers have not granted that permission, there is nothing, as the law stands, to prevent its being done; and as, I think, only two cases have arisen in which the matter has been under their consideration, I am not sure that at the moment legislative interference is necessary to compel their action. But I pointed out then, and I desire to repeat now with all the emphasis that I
226
can command, that I see no reason whatever why women should not be admitted to the Bar, and I believe that the passage of this Bill is the surest and the most certain way of effecting that reform. It will be impossible, in my opinion, if once this Bill is passed and becomes operative and women begin to work under it, for the Benchers of the Inns to continue the attitude they have hitherto adopted, and prevent their entrance. If they do, then it may be a matter for consideration whether legislative interference—which I trust will be unnecessary—should compel them to act.
The questions that are suggested here, similar to those suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the occasion when this Bill was last before the House, do not appal me in the least. If, in fact, a woman is by her quality preeminently fitted to discharge any public duty, and is better fitted for that purpose than any male competitor, I should like to know why, in the public interest, she should not be allowed to discharge it. We may, as men, flatter ourselves that they never will be in the position in which they will do it better than we, but if there were a woman who, by her outstanding qualities, could discharge judicial duties, or any other duties, better than a man, I cannot understand why the public should be deprived of her work. It seems to me that the suggestions that a woman might be eligible for this, or might be eligible for that, but that she has never hitherto occupied the position, and therefore that she never can—those suggestions appear to me to be nothing but bogies with which you frighten children. They do not seem to me to have any reality whatever in them; and I say quite sincerely that I believe there are members of your Lordships' House who are accustomed to discharge the important duties—duties which are too often underrated—associated with the position of a magistrate who could point among your own immediate personal acquaintanceship to women whom you would be glad to see associated with you in the discharge of your magisterial duties. There are numbers of eases affecting young girls which appear with lamentable frequency before the magisterial Benches, in which I am certain that the view of a wise experienced woman would be of immense assistance in helping in the discharge of the painful and difficult duties cast upon the Bench. The point of this Bill is that women should be allowed to

227
try, that is all. If they fail, they have had their opportunity. and they will no longer be able to say that they have been shut out from a chance which they had of winning their way in the world by the operation of the Statute which appears to them, as it appears to me, to be harsh and unreasonable.
The rest of the suggestion is that this Bill ought to be dealt with, with other highly important questions affecting the industrial and economic position of women, after the war. What connection has a Bill of this kind with the industrial and economic position of women, outside the particular class of operations to which the Bill relates? How far does it affect the right of women to work in factories and workshops, and all those employments which are included in the general phrase "industrial and economic position of women"? There is no other certain occupation of which I can think where the entrance is rigidly defined by Act of Parliament. In every case, whatever woman's difficulties may be, they are not due to the existence of a Statute, and the whole purpose of this Bill is to remove the statutory difficulty placed in a woman's way through her being unable to obtain, on terms of equality with men, admission to this profession which the Statute safeguards. I can understand that anybody who did not want the Bill to pass might very well suggest that it should be associated with a number of other difficult and complicated questions, but in truth this is an isolated question and stands by itself, and I trust that your Lordships will regard it as wholly distinct in considering whether or not this Bill should be read a second time.
I remember also that on the last occasion the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was a little uneasy about this Bill for something of the same reasons as those which are referred to in this extract that I have read; but he had anxieties which do not appear here. I remember his mentioning the fact that if women were admitted under this Bill, and entrance to the Bar become possible, it would result that they would have to eat their dinners in company with men, and that appeared to strike him with awe. My Lords, I would like to ask you to consider just for a moment all that it means. In a large public hall—some of the biggest and finest halls in London—some girl who will be uneasy and probably not a little shy will find herself associated with some forty or fifty and maybe eighty men, who, what-
228
I ever their defects may be, have always prided themselves on belonging to a profession of gentlemen, with whom she would eat a humble dinner under the eyes of some ten or twenty Benchers at the upper table. What is it that appals and frightens the Lord Chancellor in this prospect? After all, men and women do eat dinners together at the present moment without any very terrible consequences ensuing. Why this particular form of extremely uninteresting dinner should be assumed to have these dire results I am unable to understand. Whatever other associations with women may be productive of disaster, I should have thought that this public and dietetic intercourse was harmless.
The only argument which was really an argument used on the last occasion was that although this may be a very good measure, now is not the right moment for its introduction. One asks why? The answer is, of course, that a number of men connected with the profession are nobly and honourably discharging their duties away from England. I realise this; but I pointed out on the last occasion, and I trust your Lordships will forgive me if I repeat it, that if the Bill passes it will take a minimum of three years, and in the ordinary course five years, before any woman can become competent to practise, and therefore she cannot be brought into competition with the people who are away. I believe, however, that when these young men come back they will come back with a very much wider outlook on life than that with which they left England, and that they will be unwilling to stand in the way of women to whose services and devotion they owe so much. But, in truth, if any one is opposed to any particular measure, now is always the worst possible moment for its introduction. If anybody desires a measure to pass, now is the best possible moment for its introduction. I submit to your Lordships that now is the moment when this Bill should go through, and I trust that your Lordships will once more give it the honour of your favourable consideration, and that it will be possible to attribute to the action of your Lordships' House the tardy act of justice which this Bill will effect.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Buckmoster.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

PRISONERS OF WAR IN GERMANY.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD rose to call attention to the barbarous treatment of prisoners of war in Germany employed in factories, mines, and chemical works; and to move a Resolution. The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice the barbarous treatment by the Germans of our prisoners in Germany. The question has been before your Lordships' House several times before, but only in regard to the prisons. I want to speak with regard to the munition factories, the chemical works, and the mines. I believe there are altogether about 3.000,000 prisoners in Germany. I am not entitled to say what number of these are British, but there are a good number; and neutral visitors are not entitled to pay any visits either to the mines, the factories, or to the chemical works, although they are allowed to visit the prisons, the claim of the Germans being that, it is necessary for military reasons that they should not visit factories, chemical works, and mines.
From the information which I have received, there is a deliberate system of torture going on in these places which are not visited. Take the system of men being put into tanks of cold water, forty or fifty at a time, or the system by which cold water is dropped on their heads, causing tremendous agony, the men after a number of hours being allowed out to recover and then returned to the tanks. Then I believe there are some of these places where the punishment lasts for twelve hours. Another system of punishment is by steam cages, where they are sometimes kept twenty-four hours. If they faint they are taken out and beaten. One man's arm was broken in defending himself against the club with which he was beaten. They are made to stand in front of the ovens and look into the furnace, and in these cases, too, if they are faint they are beaten. There is the case of one man being put in a room with a savage dog, and warned that if he killed the dog he would be shot.
I believe the whole of what, I am describing is against. International Law. There is a system of payment. There is a German foreman with two workmen. When 30 marks are paid, the German foreman would get 20 marks and each of the British prisoners 5. There is the case of men being driven into a river 400 at a time. They
230
were kept there at the point of the bayonet for from six to eight hours. On one occasion seven died and thirty-two went to hospital. Afterwards several died from frost-bite, and a good number contracted tuberculosis. Men have been made to stand in the cold, in the snow, bareheaded, barefooted, and without jackets, and at intervals a hose has been turned on them. If their output of work does not come up to the standard which the Germans think right, they are subjected to these tortures, and if they have extra shifts they get no pay. A good many of our men have died from swellings of the hands and feet and faces, shortage of food, and overwork.
I must refer to the repulsive and barbarous manner in which the Red Gross women of Germany have treated our prisoners. They have pulled off their bandages, given them water after spitting in it, and committed every atrocious and bestial act they could commit. I think it wise, my Lords, to bring these things before the public. The public ought to know how our men are being treated in Germany, when we are allowing aliens of every class to be loose in this country, and are feeding the German prisoners better than our own population.
A NOBLE LORD: No, no.
LORD BERESFORD: Some one says "No, no," but it is a fact. Perhaps the noble Lord will answer me afterwards. I can give proof of it. A great number of these prisoners are worked to death. The German thinks the British workman is with him, because we are told that this war is against bureaucracy and against the governing power, not against the nation. I say the whole nation is responsible for these brutalities. The people need not commit them even if they are ordered to do so, but they commit them on every occasion they can. I should like to give the case of Corporal Rogers, of the Essex Regiment, who was captured on April 14, 1917. A letter from him while he was a prisoner at Antwerp has been received. He states that he has been practically in solitary confinement for nine months, with not a soul to speak to, and his opportunities for conversation have been only now and then a few words in French. He is always cold and hungry, and without a pair of socks for his feet. He is unable to wash his shirt, and his food consists of one small piece of bread and a little soup daily. I do

231
not want to refer to the prisoners at Ruhleben, because I think my noble friend Lord Devonport is to bring their case forward this week.
To make it clear that what I have said is not hearsay, I will give the names of the coal mines where the men are working. I am not sure that my German is correct, but the names are Gladbach, Thyssins, Stiemes, Herveret, Dorsten, and Lohberg. The factories are Wanheim and Mulheim, and the chemical works Recklingen and Spandau. There are some other places for which I cannot vouch, but I can vouch for these. I should like also to refer to our prisoners in Turkey, with regard to whose case I gave my noble friend warning. I received a letter the other day from an officer. It was sent by a man who lost his arm and was made prisoner at Suez. It is dated November 14, 1917. He states that of these prisoners 95 per cent. of the British have died through deliberate cruelty and neglect. Whether this is true or not I do not know, but it is in the letter. The places where our prisoners are in Turkey are Kastamuni, Angora, and Yozgad. They get no fire and no food except once a day, and they bribe the guards for bread. The country does not know of these horrors, and it ought to know how our men are being treated, not only in the memory of those who have died for us, but because of those who are suffering for us now. We seem to be forgetting in this country what these men have done for us, and I think it right and proper that these cases should be brought before the country as often as they can be.
Then I take up the paper and read of Members of Parliament speaking of "our German friends" and "our German comrades." It makes any Service man's blood boil to read such expressions as these when we know how our men are suffering abroad. One more thing I should like to say. I hope the Government will let the commandants of these places know that their deeds are known, that they are logged, that there is documentary evidence of them, and that this country intends that the men who commit these barbarities shall be punished when the war is over.
LORD FORESTER: My Lords, I ask your indulgence on the first occasion on which I venture to address your Lordships' House. I do so in support of the noble Lord who has just sat down, for two reasons.
232
The first reason is that as an officer of His Majesty's Army, I think it is my duty to do all I can to further the interests of any of the men whom I have trained and who may be out there under the conditions which the noble Lord has described. The second reason is that I have recently had an opportunity of an interview with a British medical officer who has just been repatriated from Germany. He brought me a message from a friend of mine who is interned in the same camp in which he was interned. He also took me down to see some of the men who have been recently repatriated and who are at present at the King George's Hospital. Any noble Lord who wishes for confirmation can go and ask these men, and he will get it. I asked these men myself. I saw one poor man who had been compelled to work for months standing in water sometimes up to his knees, and sometimes up to his waist. He is now paralysed. He has been repatriated paralysed. His chum has not been quite so fortunate. His chum was taken with that terrible complaint tuberculosis, and was still compelled to go on working in all kinds of weathers. One day he felt absolutely unfit to do anything. He begged to see the German doctor and to be allowed to go sick, but he was told, "No; you must go out and work." He was driven out, but had not the strength to raise a pick or wield a shovel. What do you think they did, my Lords? They tied him to a post in the rain, and the next day he was dead. Any one who wants to verify these facts can go to King George's Hospital and he will be able to do so.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships long, but I would like to give you one or two examples of what this British medical officer told me. He volunteered to go to work in one of these camps in the mining district of Minister in Westphalia. He went there. The men are sent to these districts, or kommandos. They are sent under a German officer, who is not only in the pay of the German Government as a non-commissioned officer, but who is also paid by the mine owners to whom the men are hired out in proportion to the amount of work he can drive out of them. His, my Lords, is piece work; the work of the men is not. The men are paid for work underground 90 pfennigs per day, about 9d., and for work above ground 30 pfennigs per day, or about 3d. This is for a twelve-hour shift, according to my information first-hand from this medical

233
officer. But, in addition, every seven days they are forced to do an extension of twenty-four hours' work. The food given them is absolutely unfit for human consumption. It consists, for breakfast, of one litre of coffee, made out of the seeds of sunflowers, about 1½ pints, and for dinner they get soup made out of fertilisers or decomposed shell fish. For supper they get the same kind of watery soup. In addition to this, they are allowed 200 grammes of black bread per day. Consequently very few men who do not get parcels from home survive to tell the tale.
According to my information those men who do survive for six or eight months invariably inflict injuries on themselves to get out of it. They either drive a pick through their foot, put their hands between railway trucks in order to get them crushed, or make incisions upon themselves in order to get out of this horrible nightmare because they can stand it no longer. I do not wish to weary yon with any more details. There are plenty more of the same kind, but I desire to support the noble and gallant Lord, and I hope the Government will see their way, however distasteful it may be and however much they dislike it, to do something to mitigate the sufferings of these non who have fought for this country and have stood between it and the fate that has overtaken Belgium, Serbia, and other countries where the Hun has placed his foot.
THE ASSISTANT UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord opposite, who has brought this Motion forward, expressed the opinion that it was extremely useful that information of this character should be given to the public from time to time, and therefore he felt himself amply justified in bringing these cases before the notice of the Government. I cannot help thinking that information of this kind would be very much more valuable if there were more precision about it, and if there were less irrelevancy in the noble Lord's statements. The noble and gallant Lord puts a Motion on the Paper relating to the employment of prisoners in mines and factories, and, I think, in chemical works. In the course of his remarks he introduced the treatment of prisoners by women belonging to the German Red Cross, and adduced the experiences of Corporal Rogers since his
234
capture three years or more, ago, and then went on to ask for explanations with regard to the treatment of our prisoners in Turkey. We are accustomed to considerable latitude in this House, but I venture to think that this is an almost abnormal instance.
I would like to point out that it is not very easy to make a detailed reply to the noble Lord, because the names of the places which he mentioned are not, in some cases, names of places at all. They are names of individuals. For instance, there is the name of Stiemes; that is the name of a German financial magnate. There is also the name Thyssins; that also is the name of a German commercial magnate. Unless the noble Lord will supply me with the names of the mines which these proper names denote, I am afraid I cannot supply him with the information he requires.
With regard to those places he did mention, I am able to give him some information. One of the places was Recklingen. That is a chemical work, and was visited in November of last year by the Dutch; at that time there were only two British prisoners employed there. Mulheim was visited on December 7. There were nineteen men in hospital, and sixty-two men were working there, and the Dutch report was that the conditions were satisfactory. I think another place mentioned was Wanheim. There are two Wanheims, and they were both visited in September last. Another place, I think, mentioned was Herveret. There were seventy-six men employed at Herveret on agricultural work, and the Dutch report was that the conditions were good. Lohberg, another place mentioned by the noble Lord, we have no information about. Spandau was visited some time ago, but we will take steps to have it visited again. Speaking generally, my Lords, it is perfectly true that the conditions, more especially in the coal mines, are very often absolutely deplorable, and the noble Lord who spoke last was justified in much of what he said, although it would have been better had he furnished me with some names and places.
LORD FORESTER: I said Münster.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, but Münster is what is called a Standlager—a central camp containing thousands and thousands of men. No doubt what the noble Lord had in mind was a small working camp, probably a coal mine, in which only a few men are em-

235
ployed. I do not know whether he realises that there are thousands and thousands of these working camps spread over Germany, and in a few cases only are few men employed. That makes the difficulty all the greater.
LORD FORESTER: They are sent free, Münster to these kommandos.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, it is an Arbeiter command, and if the noble Lord will give me the name of the working kommando where these events have taken place I shall be quite ready to inquire into it. It is evident that the circumstances lend themselves to these men being treated in many cases with great brutality. They are spread about all over the place, possibly only supervised by a non-commissioned officer, and are handed over to a contractor who no doubt in many cases treats them very badly.
The noble Lord mentioned the long hours of work and the small rate of pay. As regards the rate of pay, I do not suppose that the pay received by the German military prisoners here is any higher than that received by our men in Germany, speaking generally; and as to the hours of work, I am prepared to admit—in fact, I know it to be the case—that in many instances they are very often greatly overworked. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the hours of labour, generally speaking, are much longer than they are in this country, and whenever we make the complaint that the British prisoners are unduly hard worked the reply is that they are not made to work any harder than German civilians.
In many of these places the conditions are no doubt deplorable. I hope that they are not so bad as they are represented by the noble Lord. If he can give me chapter and verse and the names of the men who suffered and the places where they suffered, those cases shall be inquired into. But however bad the conditions may be in those particular instances, I admit that they are absolutely deplorable in many places. It not unfrequently happens that the big companies to whom these men are handed over, occasionally—I do not say very often—do their best for the men, and make their existence as little disagreeable as is possible in the case of a prisoner of war. At best the lot of a prisoner of war cannot be a happy one, but it would be dishonest on
236
my part were I not to admit that pretty frequently German civilian employers have done what they could to mitigate the hardships of British prisoners.
All I desire to say, in replying generally to the noble Lord opposite, is that whenever we hear of a case in which we have reason to believe that a British prisoner has been improperly treated we invariably make representations at Berlin, and we endeavour—and almost always succeed—in securing a visit of inspection from the Dutch representatives; but, as the House will easily understand, it is almost a physical impossibility for these Dutch representatives to visit every single small working camp in the country. I believe that these gentlemen do their best, and I have often myself wished that I was at liberty to publish their reports, because, after all, the reports by the protecting Power ought to constitute the basis of our information with regard to the condition of prisoners generally. If the noble Lord opposite or any one else chooses to bring forward the names of any men who have been improperly treated, or will give me the name of any place where a man has been wrongly treated, we will certainly make inquiries. I think that I can take upon myself to say with a certain amount of assurance that he will find that in almost every case his wishes have been anticipated, and that these representations have been made already. I have proposed a solution of this question myself which seems to be more satisfactory than visits, or retaliation, or anything of that kind—namely, that both Governments should agree not to employ men underground. I cannot help thinking that if we could arrive at an agreement upon that point it would be much more beneficial to prisoners and everybody else concerned than if we were to engage in perpetual recrimination with each other, and eventually wore forced to adopt retaliatory measures.
Before I conclude, I will allude to what the noble Lord said with regard to Kut prisoners. I am not prepared to make a statement upon that in reply to what were mostly rumours from the noble Lord. As the noble Lord knows, I was not so very long ago occupied—and it took me a very considerable time—in negotiating an agreement with the Turks with regard to the exchange and the general treatment of our prisoners. That agreement, I regret to say, has not yet been ratified, and we cannot expect any substantial improvement in the

237
treatment of our prisoners in Turkey until that agreement has been ratified and is in process of being carried out. As soon as it is ratified, I shall be most happy to give the noble Lord and everybody else all the information that is within my power. At the same time I rather deprecate the somewhat vague statements which are made, I am convinced, by the noble Lord in good faith, but really without knowledge of the circumstances. They lead to a somewhat mistaken view as to what the conditions actually are, not only in Turkey, but also frequently in Germany.
LORD SYDENHAM: Can the noble Lord state what is the pay of a German prisoner working above ground in this country?
LORD NEWTON: No; I cannot tell the noble Lord. That really is a question for the War Office; but he may take it from me that the rates of pay approximate in the two countries.
TEE EARL OF ANCASTER: Is not the rate of pay here for an agricultural labourer 5d. per hour?
LORD NEWTON: The noble Earl is probably speaking of civilian prisoners.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No, German prisoners of war. There is a leaflet which gives the rate of pay at 5d. an hour.
LORD NEWTON: That is not my affair. It is settled by the War Office.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord alluded to a case where I think there were nineteen prisoners in hospital and sixty at work. That seems to me to be a high proportion of prisoners in hospital, and to suggest that the treatment meted out to the English prisoners in Germany, at any rate in some cases, is not what it ought to be. I have had experience of many camps of ours where German prisoners are, and I have been startled by the lack of illness among German prisoners in British camps behind the lines in France. If I may do so, I will allude to just one case. I went into a German camp where there were between 350 and 400 prisoners. I saw them all at work in their different occupations, and I went into their camp hospital and found in the hospital only two out of the 380 men at work in the camp. I asked
238
what the two in hospital were suffering from. One told me that he had a slight attack of diarrhœa, and the other that he had toothache. That speaks very highly indeed for the way in which German prisoners in France are looked after by our authorities, and it does seem to me that something must be lacking in Germany when you get nineteen in hospital out of sixty employed.
LORD NEWTON: I think I can explain those figures. I am speaking on supposition, but I have little doubt that at the place where I mentioned, Mulheim, there were nineteen in hospital. I did not mean nineteen out of the sixty employed there. This is most likely a central hospital to which sick cases would be brought from the neighbouring working camps.
LORD GAINFORD: Did not the noble Lord say that there were nineteen in hospital out of sixty at work?
LORD NEWTON: Yes; but Mulheim itself probably is a hospital to which men are brought from surrounding places where they are employed.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I am very disappointed with my noble friend's reply, especially in view of the way that he himself has worked in the interest of these prisoners. He charged me with bringing forward a series of undigested statements, Ix something to that effect. My statements are bona fide, for I got them from the men themselves. The noble Lord wants me to give him further information. Why does he not go down himself, or send some one down from the Government, to the hospital to see these men and get the information from them? He said that I had made certain statements about Stiemes and Thyssins. These are chemical works, and are called by the names of the people who own them, and I was perfectly justified in bringing them forward.
LORD NEWTON: Where are they?
LORD BERESFORD: I cannot tell the noble Lord where they are, but I can tell him where he can see the man who knows where they are. They are in Germany.
LORD NEWTON: Exactly.
LORD BERESFORD: That is where our prisoners are, and that is where they have to be looked after better than they

239
are at this moment. I spoke about the prisoner at Antwerp. I think that I was justified in bringing forward his case. I had a letter only two days ago about this man. Had I known about it earlier I would have informed the noble Lord that I was going to mention the name. With regard to the Turkish prisoners, I wrote to my noble friend and told him that I was going to bring up the question of the Turkish prisoners. I think if my noble friend looks into the case of the pay he will find that he is entirely wrong. The hours are much longer in Germany than they are here; the pay, I think he will find, is double here; and at any rate the food is good here and the food is not good there, and the German prisoners are not tortured and treated brutally as the English prisoners are in Germany. I will look up the question again and bring it before your Lordships on another occasion. I do not think my noble friend's reply was at all sympathetic. I expected him to be much stronger on the question of these brutalities which our men are suffering, and I still think I was right to bring the question before your Lordships' House and the country, and to let the people know how these men are suffering who have fought for us in this war.

GRANT TO LADY MAUDE.
The King's Message of February 28 taken into consideration (according to Order).
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I rise to move—
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to return the thanks of this House for his most gracious Message informing this House that His Majesty, having taken into consideration 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, and being desirous, in recognition of such services, of conferring some signal mark of his favour upon his widow, recommends to the House of Lords that they should concur in granting Lady Maude the sum of £25,000; and to assure His Majesty that this House will cheerfully concur in enabling him to make such provision."
240
But few words are, I am convinced, required from me to ensure the eager acceptance by your Lordships of the Motion which I have just read.
The late General Maude was a man who was destined, not merely by birth but by natural inclination, to a soldier's career. The son of an eminent General who himself wore the Victoria Cross, an Eton boy, a Guardsman, he had served in many capacities in this country and abroad, in Canada, in South Africa, in Egypt, and at the War Office, before his opportunity came. War is a great leveller of distinctions, but it is also a supreme discoverer of merit; and it is not too much to say that General Maude was one of the discoveries, although to none of his friends was he one of the surprises, of the present war. At the beginning of the war he was only a Lieutenant-Colonel. In 1914 he was given a Brigade, and went to France. He took part in the Battle of Mons, and was wounded in the retreat upon Paris. In 1915 he was sent in command of a Division to the Dardanelles, and there, in command of his force—known locally, I believe, as the "Iron Legion"—he shared not merely in the perils and privations, but also in the glories, of that momentous and fateful campaign. He was, indeed, almost the last British officer to leave the peninsula when evacuation took place. And I have been told that had the Turkish forces shown anything like the alertness which might have been expected, they might have materially altered the course of future events and themselves captured on the beaches the future conqueror of Baghdad.
In 1916, General Maude was sent with his Division to Mesopotamia, where he took part in the arduous operations that were then in course of being carried out for the relief of the beleaguered garrison of Kut. As your Lordships will remember, that place fell after a heroic defence by General Townshend and his brave men; and in August of that year General Maude succeeded Sir Percy Lake as Commander-in-Chief of the British Expeditionary Force in Mesopotamia. It was a dark moment in the history of the war; it was a critical moment in the fortunes of Great Britain in the East. The issues of the conflict themselves trembled in the balance, and the prestige of the British Empire may be described not unfairly as having been at stake. General Maude had to deal with an enemy flushed with victory, entrenched in

241
a position of exceptional strength, provided with all the scientific military resources which he had received from his European ally. The advance upon Baghdad in the month of December, 1916, the dramatic crossing of the Tigris, the forced evacuation of Kut by the Turks, the disorderly retreat of the fleeing enemy upon Baghdad, the rapid pursuit by General Maude and his men constituted a military achievement of no mean order.
But General Maude was by no means content with his initial victory; he was not the kind of man to rest upon his laurels. Following the Turks with great speed up the Dialah River in one direction, up the Tigris in another, and, at a later date, up the waters of the Euphrates, he inflicted upon them a series of crushing defeats which rendered them incapable of any further sustained military effort. He lifted the danger which overhung the Persian border, and which might, unless arrested, have reacted, through Persia, upon Afghanistan, and upon India itself, and he occupied the whole of the Baghdad vilayet. And be it remembered that he carried out the series of operations which I have described, labouring under a sense of bitter disappointment at the failure of our Russian Allies, who were at that time in the North-western parts of Persia, to extend to him the support which he had reason to expect.
The last few months of General Maude's life were devoted to the task of organising and administering the territories which he had won; and there in November, 1917, in an act of unthinking courtesy, he contracted that fatal pestilence which always broods behind the atmosphere of the East, and in a few hours had passed away. Thus in a few months of time it was given to General Maude to achieve what many military commanders do not attain in a lifetime. He retrieved a great disaster; he won a resounding victory; he recovered a province—almost a country—once one of the gardens of the East, which had mouldered for centuries under the blight of Turkish misrule. Nay, more. By a single stroke, or series of strokes, he may be said to have altered the history of the world. For it is surely inconceivable that the inhabitants of those fair regions can ever be thrust back into the servitude from which General Maude and his forces succeeded in emancipating them. And then in the hour of his triumph the General was stricken down, not, indeed, on the battlefield, but, as I
242
have pointed out, by a death not less honourable, and infinitely more pathetic.
My Lords, if we turn from the contemplation of the soldier to that of the man, there is a consensus of opinion among those who knew General Maude well—of whom, unfortunately, I was not one—that not merely did he possess the genius of a military commander, but that he had many qualities of personal character which endeared him to all those with whom he was associated. The soul of chivalry, he was not less strict in the discipline that he applied to himself than he was in that which he applied to others. A non-smoker, almost a total abstainer, he set an example of conscientious abnegation and self-control which profoundly affected the conduct of those whom he either commanded or who served with him. At the same time, he was kind and thoughtful to a degree to his soldiers, and, as abundant testimony confirms, he was exceptionally considerate to the native inhabitants of the countries that had passed under his sway. Thus I think we may say of the departed General that in manifold respects he fulfilled the ideal of the Happy Warrior which was drawn for us in such moving terms by one of the greatest of our poets more thin n a century ago.
Fate has deprived us of the opportunity of crowning with glory the victorious survivor and hero of this memorable campaign; and the only tribute, other than that of words, to his memory that we can now offer is the provision recommended by His Majesty for the widow and family whom he has left without the means to sustain the position which the head of the family had won. Your Lordships will, I am sure, be proud to join in that tribute of sorrowing sympathy and profound respect. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to return the thanks of this House for his most gracious Message informing this House that His Majesty, having taken into consideration 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, and being desirous, in recognition of such services, of conferring some signal mark of his favour upon his widow, recommends to the House of Lords that they should concur in granting Lady Maude the sum of £25,000;

243
and to assure His Majesty that this House will cheerfully concur in enabling him to make such provision.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, this Motion is so sure of receiving the universal assent of your Lordships' House that it is really more for my own satisfaction as a very old friend of General Maude—having known him in the days when he was a subaltern in the Coldstream Guards—that I rise to say a word in its support, although, indeed, that is not necessary after the eloquent statement which has been made by the noble Earl who leads the House.
General Maude was a man who was always greatly regarded and beloved by his friends. He was a quiet and dignified man even in his younger days. He had the reputation of being a most excellent regimental officer, and he also became a careful student at the Staff College. I know very well that the senior officers of that day always looked upon him as a man who, if the time of test came, would prove himself to be in all respects an admirable soldier. How the test would come, and how severe it would be, of course nobody in those days could foretell; but that it was met not merely with the gallantry which everybody would have expected of General Maude, but also with a degree of military skill which was to a great degree the reward of the hard work that he had exercised in his younger days, will not be denied by anybody.
As the noble Earl has stated, the circumstances of General Maude's death were singularly pathetic. He knew, of course, the admiration which his conduct and that of his troops had won from his fellow-countrymen, but he was not spared to receive at home those tributes of respect and affection which would have been lavished on him had he returned here. We all, I am certain, feel that this small tribute is the least that the country can pay to his memory. General Maude was a poor man, the son of a younger son; but had his life been spared he would have no doubt filled for many years high positions of great military trust which would have been reward to at any rate an adequate extent. I feel that even the most churlish of those who profess to object on principle to pecuniary grants for military services could not desire—at least it seems
244
incredible that they could—that to the heavy loss which his widow and family have sustained should be added the anxieties of narrow means. I am certain that the whole country will approve the action which your Lordships and the other House have taken.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I should like to be permitted to add a few words about one whom I knew very well, and with whom I was at one time closely associated. The noble Earl the Leader of the House felicitously referred to General Maude as a discovery but not a surprise in his pre-eminence. To me I can scarcely say that he was a discovery, because I had an opportunity of seeing these qualities very early in his career. At the time when the Territorial Forces Act passed, and when it was very doubtful whether men and officers could be got to come forward, it was necessary to make personal efforts, and night after night, afternoon after afternoon, General Maude—who was the General Staff officer attached to the Territorial Forces organisation at the War Office—used to set off with me sometimes to distant parts to stir up enthusiasm. Mine was the ornamental part, but his was the difficult business of explaining away all difficulties and of showing how things could be accomplished. This he did with supreme ability. He then showed the great quality, which I think was distinctive of him afterwards, of visualising clearly and distinctly what was the object which he had in view, and at the same time of being conscious almost by intuition of the means by which to attain that object. That was a distinctive characteristic of him and the secret of his success in those much humbler days in his life. Later when he became the commander of a Brigade, and again of a Division, and again of a Corps, and finally when he become a Commander-in-Chief, he always visualised with the utmost distinctness what he was aiming at, and he always knew how to get at his object.
Shortly before his death I had a long letter from him in which he told me that he considered he had turned himself completely into an administrator. He knew what he meant to do, and was concentrating upon that very necessary grasp of the material facts and resources which a great General always has and always insists upon in himself before he sets out to the attainment of a new object. From the personal experience and intimacy which I

245
was privileged to have at one time, I am able to testify, as noble Lords who have spoken have already done, to General Maude's great qualities, to his personal charm, and to his supreme combination of the two kinds of military gift. His death is a great loss to the nation. We can ill do without him. The least we can render now in the way of tribute is to support this Motion, which will at least do something for those whom he has left behind.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: The said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons, That they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to their on the 27th ultimo—namely, "That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present session
246
be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."
Moved, That a Committee of Five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present session.
That the Lords following be named of the Committee—

E. Loreburn.

L. Wrenbury.

L. Sanderson.

L. Muir Mackenzie.

L. Parmoor.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint five members of that House to join with the said Committee, to which has been referred the Income. Tax Bill [H.L.].
House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.