Sitting of 14 March 1918

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

  GAS BILLS (STATUTORY PRICE).
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): With reference to the Gas Bills standing on the Order Paper to-day, I propose to set them down for Wednesday next at 8.15 p.m., in the expectation that on that day the President of the Board of Trade will be in a position to state to the House the method in which it is proposed to deal with so much of the Bills as concern the question of statutory price. I do not anticipate that on that day any one of the Bills will be carried to a Second Reading, but I hope that it will be possible to inform the House as to the method in which that part of the Bills is to be dealt with.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: May I ask whether that applies only to the part of the Bills with regard to the question of price, and does not deal with the other points in some of the Bills, and some of a very serious character, and of great importance to the localities—are they to go by the board?
  Mr. WHITLEY: Those Bills which contain other proposals will have to be considered separately, and hon. Members who take exception to those Bills will have their opportunity later on.
  Sir H. HARRIS:Is it intended that a discussion should take place on the Second Reading of the Bills or on Wednesday next?
  Mr. WHITLEY:If the President of the Board of Trade is in a position to make a statement to the House, of course that can be followed by a discussion if desired. It depends on hon. Members.
  Mr. BYRNE: With reference to the last of the Bills on the Order Paper, the Alliance and Dublin Gas Bill, would it not be possible to postpone that, seeing that many Members of the Irish party with not be presens?
  Mr. WHITLEY: I do not think they need be in attendance on Wednesday next. After what I have already said, they will see that it is not proposed to take the Second Reading of that Bill on that occasion.
  Brentford Gas Bill, Cannock Gas Bill, Hampton Court Gas Bill, Liverpool Gas Bill,. Longwood and Slaithwaite Gas Bill, Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill, Cardiff Gas Bill, Commercial Gas Bill, Gas Light and Coke Company Bill, Hastings and St. Leonard's Gas Bill, Maidenhead Gas Bill, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill, Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill, Portsea Island Gas Light Bill, Richmond Gas Bill, Southampton Gas Bill, South Metropolitan Gas Bill, South Shields Gas Bill, South Suburban Gas Bill, Swansea Gas Bill, York Gas Bill, Basingstoke Gas Bill (all by Order),
  Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill,
  Alliance and Dublin Gas Bill,
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next at a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1854 to 1894.
  Copy presented of Twenty-ninth Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHARITY COMMISSION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented of Sixty-fifth Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NEW WRIT.
  For the Borough of Waterford, in the room of John Edward Redmond, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Scanlan.]

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND).
  Accounts ordered "of the Receipts and Payments of the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in

  451
  Ireland in respect of the funds of Suitors in the said Court, including therein funds to the credit of Lunacy Accounts, in the year to the 30th day of September, 1917, together with a Statement of liabilities and assets and particulars of securities in Court on the 30th day of September, 191".—[Mr. Baldwin.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BRITISH MINISTER AT HAGUE (LIEUTENANT J. F. BARKER).
    Major DAVID DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a young man named Harker is now occupying a position under the British Minister at The Hague; whether, before the War, his proper name was Haar-bleicher, which was subsequently changed to Harker; and whether he can state the special qualifications of this man for the position he now holds?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): The hon. Member, no doubt, refers to Lieutenant J. F. Harker, of the Machine Gun Corps. He has been lent by the Army to the Foreign Office while he is unfit for general service. This gallant officer, who enlisted at the outbreak of war, and subsequently obtained a commission, and served for some time in France, is temporarily employed in a subordinate capacity at The Hague, where he is carrying out his work to the entire satisfaction of His Majesty's Minister.

    DEUTSCHE ORIENT BANK, EGYPT.
    Mr. GEORGE FABERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state whether a British Controller has been appointed over the Deutsche Orient Bank in Egypt, and, if so, who, and at what date; and whether the bank has been finally wound up and its premises sold?
    Lord R. CECIL: Mr. R. E. Moore, resident partner in Egypt of the firm of Messrs. Price, Waterhouse and Peat, was appointed Controller in November, 1914. The liquidation of the bank is nearly, if not quite, complete. I understand that the premises have not been sold.
    Mr. FABER: Does he propose to sell them?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I cannot answer that question offhand, but I should be very glad to show to my hon. Friend a lengthy report on the subject which we have received.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    IRELAND (RECRUITING).
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware of the discouragement to recruiting that continues to exist in the larger towns of Ireland owing to the presence of numbers of non-Irish, both Britishers and aliens, of military age who are evading military service by taking refuge in Ireland; is he aware that, without the active co-operation of the Irish Government, it is impossible for the military authorities to deal with this scandal; and what measures does he propose to take?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): A considerable number of men of military age have undoubtedly crossed from Great Britain to Ireland for the purpose of avoiding military service. The police in Ireland have instructions with regard to the matter, and, by report to recruiting officers and the arrest and removal of men who are absentees, they are dealing with all the cases of which they have knowledge.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it possible for the police to take really effective action unless the National Registration Act is extended to Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: I have no doubt the police are taking effective action.
    Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman say what action he is taking, if any, to prevent refugees from Scotland coming over for from three to six weeks and conducting their business in Scotland?
    Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member or anybody else has knowledge of such persons or can put me in possession of the information on the subject, I will take care to see that the steps which I believe at present are being taken shall be made effective in those particular cases.

    LEAFLET (FRODSHAM DISTRICT).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

    453
    whether he has now had time to complete his inquiry into the circumstances in which a private individual caused to be printed and circulated a leaflet among the agricultural labourers of the Frodsham district of Cheshire warning them that, if they even threatened to resist any action on the part of the farmers, they would render themselves liable, if of military age, to be called up immediately for military service; whether he will give the name of the private individual responsible for the publication of this leaflet; and, in view of the fact that this leaflet has caused disaffection amongst certain of His Majesty's subjects, whether it is proposed to take action against this private individual under the Defence of the Realm Acts?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I have now seen a copy of this leaflet, the effect of which is not accurately given in the question. The statement contained in the leaflet referred to men who by strikes or threats hinder the work of agriculture. I find that sixty copies of the leaflet were printed, of which nineteen only were distributed and the rest destroyed. I have no reason to think that it produced any disaffection or had any effect whatever in Cheshire or elsewhere, and I am advised that it is doubtful whether a prosecution would succeed. In view of all the circumstances, I do not propose to take any action.
    Mr. ANDERSON:Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman approves of private individuals using the Military Service Acts, and threats under the Military Service Acts, for their own purposes?
    Sir G. CAVE: I entirely disapprove of it.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. ALDENasked whether the conscientious objector named Eric Fox has been condemned to a fourth term of imprisonment; whether it is intended to keep such men in prison no matter how long the War may last; and whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to take action which will put an end to these long terms of imprisonment, in cases where men have proved themselves to possess genuine convictions?
    Sir G. CAVE: The question whether a man who has served a sentence of imprisonment shall be again called up for military
    454
    service is entirely for the military authorities to determine, and I have no authority to interfere in the matter.
    Mr. ALDEN:Could the right hon. Gentleman not confer with the military authorities to ascertain whether some fixed, definite term could not be arrived at? It seems to me it is time these men were either acquitted or condemned to imprisonment for life.
    Sir G. CAVE:The question should be addressed either to the representative of the War Office or the representative of the Ministry of National Service.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: But was not the statement made in another place on behalf of the Government to the effect that this matter would be considered?

  EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction amongst secondary school teachers in Ireland owing to the unsatisfactory conditions of the proposed rules under which the Special Grant, equivalent to the Fisher Grant in England, is to be disbursed; and whether he would be willing to appoint a Commission or Committee of Inquiry on this matter?
  Mr. DUKE: Yes, Sir; steps are being taken for the appointment of a Committee.
  Mr. LINDSAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that, according to the Official Report, Volume 45, No. 159, of Parliamentary Debates on the Government of Ireland Bill, 9th December, 1912, it was expressly stated by Ministers of the Government that Irish model school teachers were Civil servants under a standard by themselves, and that in case of disturbance in their occupations as such their compensation was to be assessed under Schedule III., Part I., of the Government of Ireland Bill, i.e., as established Civil servants; and whether he will now take steps to have this body of teachers accorded in the matter of war bonuses full rights as Civil servants, so that they may receive in this respect the same treatment as other Civil servants on the establishment?
  Mr. DUKE: Model school teachers are in the direct employment of the Commissioners of National Education, but, otherwise, serve generally on the same

  455
  conditions as teachers of ordinary national schools. They do not hold Civil Service certificates, and are not entitled to pensions as provided for Civil servants under the Superannuation Acts, but contribute out of their salaries towards a pension payable out of the Teachers' Pension Fund. The war bonus is paid to the teachers of model schools at the same rates and on the same conditions as to teachers of ordinary national schools.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it has been definitely decided to set up separate Committees to deal with questions affecting primary and intermediate teachers in Ireland; if he will say what the constitution of the Committees will be; and whether, seeing that it has been decided to set up these Committees, the Government intended to suspend the White Paper provisions and distribute the money now available by way of a bonus to all teachers in the service?
  Mr. DUKE: I believe the general sense of those most interested in the subject to be in favour of separate Committee, and with the help of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Ireland I am proceeding to deal with the matter on that footing. The constitution of the Committees will be announced as soon as possible. The answer to the last inquiry in the question is in the negative. What is proposed would merely introduce confusion and delay. Any Commission or Committee which may have to deal with the future position of the schools and the teachers will, of course, be in no way bound by the distribution of this year's additional Grant, or by the arrangements connected therewith which are contained in the Paper to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. BYRNE: Will the teachers themselves have representation on these Committees—will the right hon. Gentleman see that they will?
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member may be quite sure that is a subject which is not lost sight of. The task is a very difficult task of deciding between a great many things. I do not want to pledge myself in any way at the moment as to the constitution of the Committees, but, with the help of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and other advisers, I shall try to take care that the Committees are competent to deal with a most difficult matter in the most effective way.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will take steps to secure the introduction into Ireland of the system whereby talented boys and girls may win the right to free places in the secondary schools?
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is prepared to advise an increase of the Exchequer Grants for Irish secondary education, that the salaries of secondary teachers should be made a first charge on the funds of Irish secondary education, and that lay secondary teachers be declared entitled to the same security of tenure as primary teachers?
  Mr. DUKE: The points raised in these questions are such as will necessarily be dealt with by the proposed Committee on the subject.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to inspire himself with the example of his colleague who represents British education and prepare a large scheme, and also take note of the conditions of life of teachers, which become more and more difficult in Ireland?
  Mr. DUKE: Those are considerations which cannot be ignored. They are on the surface of the question.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    LAND CULTIVATION (IRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary if he will take steps to fix the rent to be charged for land for food production in Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: I would refer the hon. Member to an answer I gave to a question by the hon. Member for North Kildare on 21st January. In view of the importance of the matter, I would add that the tillage Regulations now in force have rendered very large areas of land subject compulsorily to cultivation, and that in all cases when the full powers of the tillage scheme are put in operation the lands in question are let at prices fixed at auction or decided by the Department of Agriculture.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is it not the fact that the rent charged by the landowner is largely responsible for the increased food prices?
    Mr. DUKE: That is rather a long shot. It is my impression that that is not the fact, but I am aware there is a tendency

    457
    in some quarters to increase prices, but I do not think that is so general as the hon. Member suggests, and it is corrected, moreover, by the determination of some people in Ireland, who are well aware of the value of land, not to pay more than a proper price.

    TILLAGE ORDER (IRELAND).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any instances have been brought to his notice of cases where landlords in county Clare have not compiled with the Tillage Regulations; and, if so, whether any steps have been taken in such cases to secure observance of the law?
    Mr. DUKE: I assume the question to refer to landlords who are "occupiers" of their land. On that assumption the answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. I would further refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his question on Monday last.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state, even approximately, the number of acres in county Clare now used for cattle ranches and which could be made avail able for tillage if divided between the uneconomic holders?
    Mr. DUKE: I am not in a, position to furnish even an approximate estimate of the kind suggested in the question. Perhaps I may say I assume the question to refer to grazing lands. It is a little misleading to describe them as cattle ranches.
    Mr. LYNCH: Even on that assumption, has it been brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend that there are thousands of acres available which could be made productive for food, and that that is really one cause of the unrest which prevails in county Clare and elsewhere in Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: No, Sir. Every means that can. be legitimately taken by the Executive in Ireland has been taken to bring an unprecedented quantity of arable land into cultivation. My hon. Friend refers to unrest. There has developed in Ireland in the course of the last three or four weeks a criminal conspiracy for interfering with the ownership and occupation of land, and I cannot discuss any question of unrest in face of a combination of this kind.
    Mr. LYNCH: I will raise that question later.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether cases have been brought to his notice where owners of land are prevented from complying with the Tillage Order owing to their being boycotted and their workmen intimidated from continuing in their employment by men who desire to get possession of the land to cultivate in conacre themselves; that then, owing to their being unable in the specified time to comply with such Tillage Order, inspectors of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) enter on the land, take it from the owner under a Defence of the Realm Regulation, and divide it out for cultivation in conacre, possibly to the parties who themselves imposed the boycott and intimidated the workmen; and, if so, will he take steps to deal drastically with this procedure?
    Mr. DUKE: Several cases have occurred in which occupiers of land have claimed that they were prevented from complying with the Tillage Regulations owing to boycotting. If, as a result of inquiry, 'the Department of Agriculture are satisfied that the statements made by the occupiers are well-founded, the lands are not entered upon, and the procedure suggested in the hon. and gallant Member's question is not adopted. It is impracticable to carry out the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Regulations in connection with lands which are definitely boycotted.
    Major NEWMAN: Might I send the right hon. Gentleman a case in point?
    Mr. DUKE: Certainly.

    BREAD.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what increase, if any, has taken place in the daily consumption of bread in the month of February, 1918, as compared with the month of September, 1917; whether the stocks of wheat in this country and anticipated arrivals of wheat are likely to be sufficient to meet this rate of consumption until the new cereal year; if not, whether it is proposed to ration the consumption of breadstuffs; and, if so, at what date?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): The returns from bakers and retailers show that the consumption of bread and flour, comparing the four weeks. ending 13th October and the four weeks ending

    459
    2nd March, has risen in the ratio of 96 to 100¼ Last year it rose in the ratio of 95½ to 102½. It should be added that the consumption during the most recent period, that is, the period ending 2nd March, is slightly lower than that in the period ending 2nd February. This is substantiated by the figures showing the deliveries of flour from the mills. The stocks, despite the low imports of recent months, compare favourably with those held at this time last year, and, as I said last Tuesday, it is hoped that if great care is exercised and all waste avoided the rationing of bread and flour may be indefinitely postponed.
    Mr. JONES: Arising out of that, can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to proceed any further with the dilution of the loaf?
    Mr. CLYNES: Not further than the point which we have reached at present.

    BACON FACTORIES, TRALEE.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the regulations regarding the sale of pigs will, if enforced, have the effect of closing the two bacon factories in Tralee, which employ over 200 men; whether he is aware that this is practically the only industry in the town; and whether he will take steps to secure that every facility will be given to these factories to remain open?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am informed that both the bacon factories in Tralee have been allotted supplies of pigs, and that there will be no necessity for either to close down.

    FLOUR.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has inquired into the conduct of the Northshore Mills, Liverpool, in refusing to sell flour to merchants in the West of Ireland because of the disturbed state of the country; whether it is intended to prosecute them for this refusal; and whether they will be allowed to exercise such prejudice in trade in the future?
    Mr. CLYNES: I find that the North-shore Mill Company have not refused to sell flour to merchants in the West of Ireland, but owing to the disturbed state of
    460
    the country and the difficulty of getting their money, the company decided to insist on cash before delivery. In spite of this, their actual deliveries in Ireland for 1917 were considerably greater than in the previous year.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether Messrs. Spiller and Baker will be prosecuted for the freights they charged on flour brought by their own boats from Cardiff to Cork; and whether they will be compelled to return to traders whom they supplied in Kerry the overcharges which they made?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I am not aware that the firm referred to has been guilty of any breach of regulation. I recently informed my hon. Friend that the matter of freights involved was having the attention of the Shipping Controller. I am now able to tell him that a maximum freight for flour to Irish ports was established on 1st March.

    RESTAURANT AND HOTEL PRICES.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the prices charged by hotel proprietors to commercial men is often far in excess of the value of the food supplied; and whether he will take steps to prevent this practice?
    Mr. CLYNES:Complaints of overcharge in restaurants and hotels have been received from time to time. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield last Monday, the Food Survey Board are considering whether any and what action can usefully be taken.

    FISH.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the. Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will see that Irish interests are considered when fixing the price of fish; if he will say whether any Irish representatives of salmon-fishing industries were or will be consulted before the price is fixed; and if he will see that nothing is done that will interfere with production?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second, that the Fishery Department for Ireland was consulted before the prices were fixed; and to the third, that

    461
    the greatest care has been taken to secure that prices are not fixed so low as to discourage production.
    Mr. JOYCE: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether any committee has been set up in Ireland to deal with this question of the price of salmon, and, if so, would he recommend that some Irish representative be placed on such committee?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am not aware of the establishment of any separate committee, but, as my reply states, the Fisheries Department for Ireland has been consulted. If my hon. Friend has any particular information bearing on the question, I shall be glad to receive it from him.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the report of the Fishmongers' Company that their fish-meters seized and condemned at Billingsgate Market in the month of February 100 tons 15 cwts. of fish as unfit for food; and that this quantity was nearly double what was condemned in February, 1917; and whether he will take all steps possible to prevent this waste of necessary food in the future?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer is in the affirmative. Every effort is being made to secure that fish reach the markets in good condition, but I may remind the hon. Member that the difficulty of ensuring rapid transport, both by sea and by rail, is necessarily increasing under war conditions. These difficulties are enhanced during the periods of exceptionally heavy catches of migratory fish.
    Sir A. FELL: May I ask if they have not sufficient ice at Billingsgate to keep this fish, or salt?
    Mr. CLYNES: There are occasions when ice is not available at the particular points where fish may be lying at the time being.
    Mr. ALDEN: In view of the importance of this matter, would it not be possible to use motor lorries in cases of urgency?
    Mr. CLYNES: I may say that the quantity of herrings landed on the mainland in this case was believed to have been totally unprecedented, and on that account inevitable congestion was caused, and therefore waste resulted.

    CATTLE SALES.
    Mr. G. FABERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his Department has consulted the Board of Agriculture as to the advisability and practicability of making it compulsory for farmers to sell cattle by dead-weight?
    Mr. CLYNES: Lord Rhondda does not propose to make it compulsory for farmers to sell cattle by dead weight, but he is in consultation with a Committee appointed by the National Farmers' Union, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and the Royal Agricultural Society as to the purchasing of cattle by dead-weight in districts where this can be satisfactorily arranged. The Board of Agriculture have been and are being consulted on this as on all other matters concerning agricultural produce, but the Food Controller is alone responsible for the decision that may be taken.
    Mr. FABER: Inasmuch as this is essentially a question for farmers and the Board of Agriculture, can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that those views will be duly weighed and advantage taken of them before any final decision is arrived at?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes; I will readily give that assurance.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Food to make it a penal offence for any farmer to sell a cow for slaughter which is in calf?

  IRISH EXECUTIVE.
  Mr. BYRNEasked if any proposals are under consideration for a change in the personnel of the Irish Executive?
  Mr. DUKE: I am not able to give the hon. Member any information on this subject.
  Mr. LYNCH: Has the right hon. Gentleman any understudy in training?
  Mr. DUKE: No, Sir; it is not my duty to provide understudies. I suggest that hon. Gentlemen should communicate with the ingenious persons who have disseminated what they call information on this subject. They should not refer to me for information on the subject, but to the authors of the reports.
  Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who is the author of them?
  Mr. DUKE: I have not the least idea.

  SUMMER TIME.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Home Secretary if he has received resolutions from the textile and engineering trades protesting against the date the Summer Time Act comes into operation; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Sir G. CAVE: I have received no protests from these trades, except one resolution from the Bury District Committee of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers suggesting that the postponement of Summer Time to the third Sunday in April would be more acceptable. As I said in the answer which I gave on the 4th March to the hon. Member for the Bury Division, I recognise that the fixing of an earlier date this year will cause some inconvenience, but I am sure that this will be cheerfully borne in view of the great general advantage of the change. I may add that the British Forces in France have adopted French Summer Time, which began on the 9th instant, and that it is desirable that the interval between the dates fixed for Summer Time in this country and in France shall be as short as possible.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (DISCHARGED SOLDIERS).
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether employers of labour who give work during the War to discharged soldiers who are physically deficient have any concessions made to them in regard to their liabilities under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  Sir G. CAVE:As indicated in my reply to a question of the hon. Member for the Tottenham Division on the 28th February, I have appointed a Committee to consider this matter. The Committee is now proceeding with its inquiry.
  Mr. WING: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the consideration of that Committee the question of workmen's insurance—as to how it would be affected by the re-employment of disabled soldiers?
  Sir G. CAVE: I am sure the Committee of Inquiry must needs have regard to that subject.
  Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement that employers may without any risk employ discharged soldiers in the meantime? There are many discharged soldiers seeking work who are unable to obtain it on this account.
  Sir G. CAVE: There are many employers who know that is our view, and it is with a view to removing any doubt that we have appointed this Committee.

  WORKERS' AND SOLDIERS' COUNCIL.
  Major NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the Workers' and Soldiers' Council, a body in connection with the Union of Democratic Control, and which was started in the interests of Russian aliens in the East End of London soon after the debacle of Bolshevism took place in Russia; is he aware of the revolutionary propaganda that this body of alien enemies is preaching; and what steps will he take to remove these persons from the East End of London?
  Sir G. CAVE: I understand that this body was established in the first half of 1917, but that for the last eight months it has had no recognised offices and holds no public meetings. If the hon. and gallant Member has evidence showing that the council is affiliated to the Union of Democratic Control, is engaged in revolutionary propaganda, and is composed of alien enemies. T shall be glad if he will submit it to me.
  Mr. BILLING: May I ask the right hon Gentleman whether he is aware that aliens are addressing meetings and preaching revolutionary matter; and, if he has the power, would he be prepared to consider the issue of permits to aliens before they are allowed to address meetings, so as to enable the police to inquire whether they have such permits, and to stop the meetings if they have not?
  Sir G. CAVE: No; I do not think that is a desirable course to take. It was considered as an alternative, but it was thought better to make an Order that empowers me to prevent them addressing; meetings.
  Mr. BILLING: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that after the meeting has taken place it is too late, and that it is better to empower the police to prevent the meeting unless they are satisfied that the speaker has your authority to address the meeting?
  Sir G. CAVE: That is so in some cases, but to make an Order forbidding all aliens, including Allies, to address meetings would be quite a different matter.

  ENEMY AIR RAIDS.

    PUBLIC SHELTERS (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the names of the members of the Advisory Committee who advise the police authorities as regards the safety of air raid shelters in the London area; and will he state if the London County Council, who are the Building Act authority for London, have been consulted in any way on this matter?
    Sir G. CAVE: The following are the names of the members of the Advisory Committee:

    Sir A. Stenning, F.R.I.B.A., Past President of the Surveyors' Institution (Chairman).

    Mr. E. C. P. Monson, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I.

    Mr. Fitzroy Doll, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I.

    Mr. Dendy Watney, F.S.I.

    Mr. Horace Cheston, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I.

    Mr. Percy Monckton, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I.

    Brigadier-General F. Horniblow, C.B.

    Major F. G. P. Gedge, D.S.O., R.E., and

    Lieutenant W. P. H. Roe, R.E.

    The Commissioner also has the assistance of an officer of the Royal Engineers invalided from France, who has had exceptional experience in the construction of dug-outs and in the protection of buildings against shell-fire. The Commissioner has been in correspondence with the superintending architect of the London County Council.

    MAROON WARNINGS.
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. G. FABER:
    24. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state why air raids on London, whether by night or day, cannot be signalled by maroons, seeing that is the most efficient way of warning people to take cover?
    Mr. FABER: I am aware this was answered yesterday by the Home Secretary, and I only ask it now in case the right hon. Gentleman may have anything further to add.
    Sir G. CAVE: No; I will refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave yesterday.

  EASTER BANK HOLIDAY.
  Sir E. GOULDINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government will again consider the necessity of declaring Saturday, 30th March, the day preceding Easter Sunday, a bank holiday, following the precedent of the last two years, in view of the continued pressure of work under war conditions which has been aggravated by the business men's week and tank collections?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): Very careful consideration has been given to this suggestion, but in view of the date on which the Saturday before Easter falls this year—at the end of the quarter—its adoption would give rise to inconvenience in many cases. The Government have, therefore, decided that the original decision must be maintained, but they recognise the great pressure under which the staffs of the banks have been working, and will consider the possibility of the grant of an extra day at Whitsuntide.
  Sir E. GOULDING:May I ask my hon. Friend is he not aware of the great number of women now employed in banks, and cannot he extend the half-holiday to them, if not to the whole staff?

  POST OFFICE (ALIEN EMPLOYES).
  Major HUNTasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether he will grant a Return of persons of enemy origin employed as postmasters or postmistresses in the United Kingdom; and (2) to whom is allocated the duty of watching people of enemy nationality employed in post offices in the United Kingdom?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER- GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): My right hon. Friend does not consider that the issue of such a Return would serve any useful purpose, and he regrets he cannot see his way to furnish one. Careful inquiry has already been made in every

  467
  case, and he is satisfied that the precautions taken are sufficient. Aliens employed in the Post Office are, like others, subject to the surveillance of the police, so far as their private conduct is concerned. As regards their official work, there are ample opportunities for observing their actions.
  Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that there are so many persons of enemy origin in the Post Office that it is impossible to compile a list of them, and does the hon. Gentleman think it is desirable that people who handle letter-bags should be under the surveillance of the police?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking the same question again.
  Mr. PEASE: This is a very much more difficult question than the hon. Member thinks. My hon. and gallant Friend asked a question last week with regard to a sub-postmaster at Eaton Terrace. That man is the son of an English mother, who married a native of Lorraine before the German occupation in 1871. He was born in 1866. In 1871, with the rest of the population of Lorraine, he became technically a German. In 1874 he came to England with his mother, between forty and fifty years ago. He has a son serving in the British Navy on His Majesty's ship "Hercules."
  Major HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there has been a great many complaints about these alien people in post offices? I have had a great many letters about it. And could not our police or detectives be better employed than in watching postmasters of alien origin?
  Mr. FABER: Are there not many cases of undiluted Germans who are now sitting in security and in control of British post offices'?
  Mr. PEASE: My right hon. Friend is very careful with regard to this matter. If there is any particular case which my light hon. Friend would like to bring before the Post Office I will look into it.
  Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Why is it at all necessary to employ people of enemy origin in the Post Office?
  Mr. PEASE: The statement which I have just made shows the difficulty of the question; but I am sure that my hon.
  468
  Friend himself would never think of asking the man in the case I mentioned to resign his post,
  Mr. JONES: I would think of asking any man of enemy origin to resign.

  POST OFFICE WORKERS (WHITLEY REPORT).
  Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a resolution from the local joint committee of the associations of the Manchester and district post-office workers asking the Government to enter into negotiations with the National Joint Committee of Post Office Associations, with a view to an early application of the principles of the Whitley Report to the Post Office; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. PEASE: My right hon. Friend has received the resolution referred to. The general question is under the consideration of the Government, and he is not in a position at present to make any further statement.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: In view of the great importance of the efforts the Government are making to stimulate action in various industries, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the delay in this matter is causing very great dissatisfaction amongst the Civil servants of the Post Office?
  Mr. PEASE: I think the onus of the charge does not fall upon the Post Office. It is a matter for the general consideration of the Government.

  WAR BONDS
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that by the stamp advertising War Bonds now stamped on postal packets the address is often wholly or partially obliterated and the writing on postcards rendered illegible, and that mistakes in the delivery of letters and postcards are thereby made more frequent; and whether he will give instructions that this stamp shall be placed only in such a manner as not to cover any part of the address or other writing on postal packets?
  Mr. PEASE: Impressions of the stamp in question take up no more space than impressions of the stamps ordinarily used, and only those addresses which are written without attention to the Post Office injunction to leave a clear space above the address can be hidden as suggested-I am informed that very few cases come under notice.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I could show to him a number of letters where the address has been absolutely obliterated by the stamp, and letters have been delivered in the wrong places in consequence?
  Mr. PEASE: Very plain directions are given on page 50 of the Post Office Guide, and I am sorry that, the hon. Member has been caused inconvenience.
  Mr. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that that direction is carried out?
  Mr. PEASE: I will mention the matter to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. A. K. LOYDasked whether, in order to estimate correctly the amount by which the money available to the Government for the conduct of the War has been increased by the purchase of National War Bonds during business men's week, allowance should be made for the subsequent application of such bonds in discharge of Excess Profits Duty; and, if so, whether he can say the probable extent of such allowance?
  The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): There are no adequate data for estimating what proportion of the National War Bonds sold last week will ultimately be tendered in payment of Excess Profits Duty; but, as I stated yesterday, we have done everything that we could to discourage investment in War Bonds of money which would immediately come into the Exchequer in the form of taxation.
  Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what last week's exhibition cost the country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; I cannot give the amount, but I can assure the House that it has been done very economically.
  Mr. BILLING: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a system of Premium Bonds would be more economical still, if it is money you want?

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    OCEAN-GOING TONNAGE.
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked whether, with a view to reducing the risks to shipping tonnage at the present time, he has considered the possibility of exchanging large British ships for an equal tonnage of small ships of neutral tonnage, in order that the larger ships should be employed outside the danger zone;
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Such a measure as my hon. Friend suggests would have the effect of reducing the amount of ocean-going tonnage in employment for war needs, and is, therefore, not practicable in the present tonnage position.

    SHIPBUILDING.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to appoint a Committee of Members of this House to inquire with the utmost rapidity into the position of British shipbuilding and to afford the Committee, if appointed, the fullest opportunity to investigate the causes of the delay which have been said to have taken place recently, and of recommending methods by which our shipbuilding can be speeded up?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will await the statement which the First Lord of the Admiralty proposes to make in the House next week on Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) if he is satisfied that all the available discharged soldiers who are suitable for work in shipyards at the present time are being supplied to those industries by the Labour Exchanges and other agencies for placing that class in civil employment; (2) if shipyards in this country are being worked to their full capacity; and, if not, have the facts been adequately communicated to the employers and workers in this industry, and are there no further means to stimulate the output of shipbuilding?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My hon. Friend may rest assured that every effort is being made to utilise to the utmost extent the full capacity of the shipyards in this country, and, as I have stated in the House on several occasions, private yards are being extended so as to give them a greater

    471
    number of berths and also to provide them with the additional plant necessary for increased output. Down to the 13th March, 151 extension schemes have been sanctioned, involving additions to machinery and plant, extension of some of the existing slips, and the addition of new slips.
    As regards the supply of additional labour to the yards, I gave the net additions since 1st October last down to 1st March on Thursday last in the Debate. As regards skilled men returned from the Colours, on the 14th February I told my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham that the War Office had consented to the release of 20,000. I told him also on that date that we, hoped that these numbers would be forthcoming at the rate of 1,000 per week during the latter half of February and onwards. Down to the 12th March, 1,098 skilled men have been released and sent to the yards and shops, and 790 are in the depot awaiting transfer.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is it a. fact, as reported by a responsible ship-owner, that the shipyards are stopping work at twelve o'clock on Saturday, and, having regard to the circumstances, is it not possible to further increase the output of the yards by working later on Saturday and on Sunday?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know about the closing on Saturday. There must be some men engaged, at any rate. But you will not increase the output by keeping men continuously on the stretch.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: With respect to the 151 extensions to private shipyards that have been sanctioned, will the right hon. Gentleman say during what period they have been sanctioned, how far back they go, and how many of them have been, in fact, carried into effect?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer the first part of that question without notice, but I can answer the latter part. Five have been completed. I can give further information. One hundred and seven have been begun. Eight of them are for extended slips, and forty-four for new slips.
    Mr. PETO: Has the Department formed any estimate as to when any result from these steps that: have been taken to increase the output may be anticipated?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If my hon. Friend will look at the Official Report of the Debate on Wednesday, I think columns 1071–2, he will find that I did my best to say: Two slips are ready now. Does my hon. Friend refer to the national yards or to these extensions?
    Mr. PETO: To these extensions.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question
    Mr. WATT: Has the principle of different ships been suggested to the Department, so that the machinery can be kept going?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I referred to that question in the Debate. We have endeavoured to modify the various standard ships, in order that the capability of the separate individual yards may be fully met.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to a statement recently made by Sir John Ellerman that for a period of thirteen months the whole of the resources of the country had built seventeen steamers, of a gross tonnage of 86,000 tons; and whether he will now give the correct tonnage of shipping built in the period mentioned?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think my hon. Friend has not covered the whole of Sir John Ellerman's statement. It is quite true that he said at the Chamber of Shipping meeting on 6th March that up to the end of February, or for a period of thirteen months, in which the whole resources of this country have been devoted to new construction, seventeen steamers of 86,000 tons gross have been constructed. He was here, of course, referring only to the standard ships. But he went on to say, and quite rightly, that during the corresponding period the output of vessels constructed by private enterprise amounted to over 1,030,000 tons. As a matter of fact, Sir John was inside the figure, and, of course, to that output must be added the output of Navy tonnage during that time.
    Mr. STEWART: Is. the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that ships launched in November and December were in proper condition for launching, and that they were not put into the water prematurely, thereby giving a better return for the last quarter of the year than was justified?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say anything about that matter, but the statement attributed to Sir John Ellerman that the total output for the thirteen months Avas 86,000 tons is not a full report of what he did say, because he said in addition that there was 1,030,000 tons constructed under private enterprise.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the very serious statement just made by my hon. Friend, will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly; if my hon. Friend will put down a question.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government have commandeered upwards of 650 acres of agricultural Land at Beachley, in Gloucestershire, and the plots on which two blocks of six cottages each, erected toy the Admiralty for the fishermen they evicted on this land, have an area of about one-twenty-sixth part of an acre; whether the dimensions of the third bedroom in each cottage are 6 ft. 7½ ins. by 6 ft. 1½ ins. by 7 ft. 9 ins. high; whether the blocks of cottages are part of a definite and ordered scheme for the development of the land; and whether an assurance can be given that such blocks of cottages will not be repeated over the rest of the estate?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In connection with the establishment of national shipyards on the Way it was found necessary to take possession of certain agricultural land. The actual area taken possession of at Beachley is 580 acres. It was decided to erect two blocks of six cottages each in order to provide accommodation for fishermen who formerly possessed houses on this land. These cottage were built as a special case by the Admiralty, after consultation with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in order that these fishermen might, in the national interests, be kept within reasonable reach of their fishing ground. The area of the land on which these two blocks will be built allows for twenty-six cottages to the acre. The dimensions of the third bedroom in each cottage are as stated, but this provides three bedrooms as against two in the former cottages. The other rooms are in every respect larger than those in the houses which the fishermen were formerly occupying. In addition, bathrooms and larders have been provided. I am sending
    474
    my Noble Friend a statement showing the comparison between the new and the old buildings.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINC.K: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question: Will he give an assurance that any future building will be on a more enlightened principle and a better lay-out than has been the case in the past?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Without going into the question of a more enlightened principle, I may say that this was emergency work. We were very anxious that the men, when they came back from the salmon fishing on the 1st March, should find houses ready for them. It is a self-contained transaction. We shall certainly adopt any larger scale, if necessary, beginning afresh and not following this scheme.

  SCHOOL TEACHERS' SALARIES (WAR BONUS).
  Captain BARNETTasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Grant for improvement of teachers' salaries can properly be applied in recoupment of war bonuses already paid; and, if not, whether he will take steps to ensure that the London Education Committee shall apply the said Grant exclusively to the purpose for which it was intended?
  The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD Of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The primary object of the Supplementary Grant was to secure permanent improvement of teachers' salaries, but the Regulations do not require local education authorities, in considering the improvement of teachers' salaries, to exclude from consideration war bonuses already granted.
  Captain BARNETTasked whether head teachers in London County Council schools earning salaries of £250 or above have participated in the war bonus enjoyed by other teachers; and, if not, whether, having regard to the increased cost of living, steps will be taken to pro vide that head teachers shall receive a war bonus proportionate to that granted to the lower grades or, in the alternative, an increase of salary?
  Mr. FISHER: The Board have no control over the arrangements of local education authorities for granting war bonuses.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware of the dissatisfaction expressed by assistant masters of the secondary schools in England and Wales at the manner' of distribution by some local education authorities of the supplementary Giants in tended primarily for the improvement of the salaries of teachers; whether he is aware that in many localities the addition to the teachers' salaries is insufficient to compensate for the increased cost of living; and whether he can take steps to alleviate a state of feeling which may have the effect of lessening the efficiency of the teaching?
  Mr. FISHER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield on 18th January, a copy of which I am sending him.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Pensions Minister whether any scheme for increased pensions to dependants of soldiers and sailors has yet been agreed to; if so, when will it be operative?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen): I can add nothing to my previous replies on this subject.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Pensions Minister respecting the application for a grant from the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Committee made by Lance-Corporal—No. 28306, 6th Yorkshire Regiment, who was an estate joiner prior to enlistment, in receipt of 23s. per week and house rent free, with liberty to earn extra money by private work, and had other pecuniary advantages allowed to him, and who, under these conditions, took out insurance policies in 1912 which committed him to the payment of premiums amounting to £3 18s. 8d. a year, which application has been refused; whether he is aware that the insurance policies referred to are on the point of being lapsed on account of the impossibility of the soldier's wife paying the
  476
  premiums out of her total income of 28s. per week, out of which she has also to pay rent and maintain herself and three children, aged four, seven, and eight, respectively; and if he, will make urgent inquiries into this, case with the object of affording to this soldier the protection which was promised when the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Committee was instituted?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stephen Walsh): The case cannot be identified from the particulars supplied, but if the hon. Member will send my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board the name and address of the man he refers to he will have inquiry made.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Pensions Minister if the concession recently made to meet the case of parents of soldiers killed in action who cannot prove pre-war dependence because their sons enlisted during apprenticeship, and whilst their sons were, in, fact, incurring monetary obligations towards their parents, which, having regard to the slender resources of their parents, the sons would have repaid on the completion of their apprenticeships, goes no further than that it merely empowers the grant of a pension if the parents are in pecuniary need, whereas, before the concession was made, pensions in the circumstances mentioned were granted in cases of hardship, which change in effect is little more than a change of words; and, if the concession goes no further than this, whether he will take steps at an early date to deal effectively with this long-standing grievance?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am not sure that I follow this question. The concession made as regards pensions to-parents who had not been actually dependent on their sons consisted in extending to other parents the special provision made in the Royal Warrant of last March for the parents of apprentices. If the hon. Member is thinking not of pensions but of separation allowances, I may remind him of my reply to the question he put to me on 13th February, when I explained that the amended Regulation removes the condition of "hardship" and permits of an allowance being given, equivalent to the support the soldier might reasonably be expected to give if he were in civil life, when such allowance

  477
  is necessary for the due upkeep of the home. This is, I think, something more than a mere change of words.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is me new Regulation accessible? Has it been published?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It has been published, I should think, within the last month.
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that John Thomas Blackman, 6, Connaught Villas, Arthur Road, Windsor, a discharged soldier, was supplied with a glass eye by the country at a total cost of 10s. 6d.; and that, in order to obtain the glass eye, he was compelled to travel to Reading, losing thirteen and a-half hours' work, at 10|d. per hour; and whether in such cases he will take steps to see that the discharged man who has to lose work and travel some distance in order to have artificial eyes or limbs provided has his out-of-pocket expenses paid?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Any discharged disabled man is entitled under the Instructions of the Ministry to obtain from his local War Pensions Committee payment of the travelling and out-of-pocket expenses (including within certain limits, loss of wages) incurred by him in connection with his treatment. I have communicated with the local committee in regard to the particular case referred to.

  MUNITIONS.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Major DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is no Welsh representative upon the Liquor Control Board; whether he is still in favour of the principle of devolution; and whether he will consider the, appointment of a Liquor Control Board for Wales and Monmouthshire, who shall be charged with the powers and administrative functions, so far as Wales and Monmouthshire are concerned, which are now exercised by the Board of Control in London?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): Members of the Central Control Board are not appointed as representatives of the several parts of the United Kingdom. The question of the appointment of a separate authority for
    478
    Wales and Monmouthshire would receive consideration if any proposal were under discussion to reconstitute the Central Control Board on a basis of nationality. But there are obvious objections to any such proposal.

    CASE UNDER INVESTIGATION.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether charges have been brought to his attention that an engineering firm in Aberdeen engaged in the manufacture of munitions were faking 6-inch shell, and were in the possession of special marking tools for this purpose, a consignment of shells costing £4,000 being involved; whether Colonel Stansfield, of Woolwich Arsenal, was sent to Aberdeen by the Ministry; whether it was discovered that discarded shells were being-marked as if they had been passed and approved; whether these engineering works have since been taken over by the Government after a military investigation had taken place; whether he is aware of the name of the electrical engineers in Aberdeen who produced a tool for markings similar to the inspector's mark; and whether there has been or will be prosecution of any or all concerned?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will put down this question one day next week. I have a certain amount of information in regard to it, but I am not yet satisfied.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
  Sir RCOOPERasked if the Ministry of Information is intended to serve as a central bureau for the purpose of answering inquiries by tile general public on all matters concerning the administration of the country, as far as it is in the public interest to do so, without referring the inquirer to the Department involved in the inquiry; and, if so, how it is proposed to link up the other Departments with the Ministry of Information?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Prime Minister if he will state the name and Civil Service rank of the Foreign Office

  479
  clerk to whose duties Lord Northcliff e succeeded; and whether the clerk alluded to is still employed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it would be a very undesirable precedent to refer to any Civil servant by name as suggested in the question.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the salary that this clerk is receiving?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; I do not intend to do so.

  SUPREME WAR COUNCIL.
  Major DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the possibility of enlarging the scope of the activities of the Allies at Versailles by the creation of a Standing Committee with representatives of all the Allied countries, who shall be charged with the duty of formulating definite proposals regarding the military, financial, and economic sanctions which may be necessary to enforce the decisions of an arbitration Court; and, if so, whether he proposes to invite representatives of neutral Governments to take part in. these discussions?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that the suggestion of my hon. Friend is a practical one.

  UNCLAIMED BALANCES.
  Major CHAPPLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will require all banks to give a return of the amounts of their unclaimed balances, in order that he may ascertain whether any considerable sums could be added to the Exchequer to meet the increasing expenses of the War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As inquiries made by the Treasury indicate that the amount which might be forthcoming from this source is not likely to be substantial, I am not prepared to adopt the course suggested in the question.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say approximately what is the amount of the unclaimed bank balances, and if he cannot say now will he be prepared to answer if I put a question down?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  SHROPSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY.
  Mr. ALDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a subsidy has been granted to the Shropshire, Staffordshire, and Worcestershire Electric Power Company; if so, on what principle is this grant of funds made to a new company; and whether it is the policy of the Government to make Grants until such time at least as the Coal Conservation Committee has made its final Report?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Worthington Evans): No subsidy has been granted to this company. As I stated yesterday, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Norh-East Derbyshire, the Ministry of Munitions have made loans against security to this company. The policy is to assist in cases where it is essential that more power should be made available for munition purposes.

  NAVAL OFFICERS' PAY (INCOME TAX).
  Colonel ASHLEYasked why, when the State contracts to pay naval officers so much a day and to provide them with lodging and certain victuals, and in some cases finds it convenient to pay officers money in lieu of such accommodation and victuals, Income Tax is levied on such officers in respect of such sums?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer, of which I am sending him a copy, given on the 28th November last to a similar question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Could the right hon. Gentleman say if that answer justifies what is pure robbery on the part of the State, and if it is convenient to the State to pay a man in money rather than in kind, why should that be taxed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at my answer he will see that, apart from the merits, it is simply carrying out the law as it stands.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to change this unjust law?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not agree that it is unjust, but it is a subject which can easily be raised on the Finance Bill, and I shall be ready to defend it then.
  Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that policemen have to pay Income Tax on their boots?

  INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE AGENTS.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to speed up the inquiry into the conditions of industrial insurance agents?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): The inquiry is proceeding as rapidly as can be expected from its complicated character.
  Mr. BYRNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is twelve months now since a Committee recommended the investigation of the case of these men, and that they are suffering considerable hardship owing to the delay?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Committee was not appointed many weeks ago, and in order to arrive at a just conclusion a very large number of considerations have to be taken into account. There are a large number of companies, there are varying conditions among the different companies, and there are many other questions that arise.
  Mr. BYRNE: When does the hon. Gentleman expect the Report of the Committee?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say.

  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).
  Sir R. COOPERasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the large number of organisations offering to assist discharged soldiers to find civil employment, some forty or fifty of these being in London alone, whether any steps are being taken to co-ordinate the activities of these organisations by a central conference or otherwise; and, if so, what those steps are?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend already has this matter under con-
  482
  sideration, and proposes to bring the general question before the Labour Resettlement Committee, which he has recently appointed to advise him with regard to the action which should be taken in connection with the return of sailors and soldiers to civil life at the completion of the War. If it seems desirable to do so, he will be very glad to arrange a conference of the kind suggested. In the meantime he hopes that the local advisory committees connected with the Employment Exchanges will be able, in consultation with the local war pensions committees, to make suitable arrangements for co-ordinating the work of voluntary organisations concerned with the employment of ex-Service men.

  AIR FORCE.

    AIRCRAFT CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has received repeated applications and deputations for months past from certain aviation workers in regard to granting adequate travelling facilities for the increasing number of workpeople employed; whether the present congestion on omnibuses and tram-cars is retarding output and is causing dissatisfaction among employés; whether any efforts have been made to reach such arrangements with the Midland Railway Company as would ease the present congestion and, if so, with what result; and what further action it is proposed to take?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: This matter has for some time been engaging the attention of the Transport Department of the Ministry, who have succeeded in obtaining the provision of additional omnibuses. Additional tramcars have also been provided at the rush hours, but, owing to the shortage of drivers, it has not as yet been possible to do more. The question is still receiving the special consideration of the Tramway Company and the Tramways (Board of Trade) Committee. In regard to railway facilities, the Department suggested the provision of a suitable halt as a means of removing congestion. In spite of serious engineering difficulties, this proposal has been adopted, and the halt is at present under construction and nearing completion.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY.
    Major DAVIESasked the Undersecretary of State to the Air Ministry

    483
    whether the personnel of the anti-aircraft artillery has been attached to the Air Service; and whether complete cooperation exists between the aircraft and the anti-aircraft forces?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY Major Baird): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and to the second part in the affirmative.

  TEADE UNION RULES.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is now in a position to fulfil his promise to introduce an amending Bill giving full legal sanction to Government pledges in respect of the restoration of trade union rules and conditions; whether the measure has been drafted; and, if so, when it is likely to be introduced?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: This whole question is being carefully considered with the other Departments concerned, and an announcement will be made in due course.

  ST. PAUL'S BRIDGE.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received any application for the extension of time for purchasing property for the construction of the new St. Paul's Bridge; and whether he has granted the same or whether, in view of the changed circumstances in London owing to the War, he will consider the desirability of all preparations for this new bridge being discontinued until after the War is over?
  Mr. S. WALSH: The Local Government Board have made two Orders under the Special Acts (Extension of Time) Act, 1915, for the extension of the time limited for the compulsory purchase of lands under the Corporation of London (Bridges) Act, 1911, and they have before them an application for an Order to extend the time for a further period of one year. The Act of 1915 was passed to enable Government Departments to extend the periods limited for the exercise of powers under local acts, and I am not aware of any reason why the City Corporation should not have the benefit of the Act, so as to prevent their powers from lapsing.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT.

    LONDON POLLING AREAS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in certain London divisions under the Representation of the People Act wards have been divided between various constituencies, and although these parts of wards will be the same for Parliamentary and county council elections they will revert to their original wards or areas for borough council and guardian elections; and whether, as it is desirable to have the same polling areas for all elections in London, he can issue an Order making the polling areas made under the Representation of the People Act the same for all elections in London?
    Mr. S. WALSH: I understand the hon. Member to suggest that in London the polling districts—and, similarly, the wards —should be the same for all elections, and although the Local Government Board are not empowered to issue any general Order on the subject, the convenience of such arrangement is recognised. The Board are accordingly prepared, where an alteration of ward boundaries for borough council elections is rendered desirable by the alteration of polling areas under the Representation of the People Act, to entertain an application for an Order to alter such boundaries under Section 26 of the London Government Act, 1899. An application could be at the same time made to the London County Council for an Order altering the ward boundaries for the purpose of the election of guardians, under Section 60 of the Local Government Act,. 1894.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS.
  Mr. BILLING: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question with regard to the following question I desired to put to the Prime Minister by Private Notice: "To ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the disquieting statements by Sir J. Compton-Rickett, M.P., with reference to a pending Imperial crisis; also whether his attention has been called to the statement by Sir Auckland Geddes yesterday at Bristol to the effect that an invasion of this country by Germany is to be anticipated; and whether, under these circumstances, he will take this

  485
  opportunity of taking the country into his confidence and either dismiss these alarming Ministerial statements or substantiate them in an appeal to the country, be that the people may realise the true gravity of the situation?"
  On that point, Sir, you advised me that it was not the Prime Minister's business to take note of Ministerial statements. May I ask you whether, having regard to the fact that these statements have been given much prominence in the Press, and to the feeling in the country about them, the Leader of the House might not take this opportunity of dismissing them as irresponsible statements or substantiating them by making an appeal to the country for a special effort?
  Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. Member has done the very thing I told him he was not entitled to do
  Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that the recent massing of vast German Armies on the Western Front has seriously altered the complexion of the War, and ought not the House to be called upon to discuss what is a very grave situation in the opinion of Ministers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the hon. and gallant Member has mistaken both the question of his neighbour (Mr. Billing). and my letter to him in reply.

  Prison Management (Ireland).
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can arrange for the experimental introtion into any Irish prisons of the new methods of prison management which have been carried out with success in the prisons of Sing Sing and Auburn, in New York State?
  Mr. DUKE: In the existing conditions in Ireland, I do not think it is advisable to try any avoidable experiments with the prison system.
  Mr. HARVEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can arrange for an inquiry into the system of duty for Irish prisons with special reference to evening duty and Sunday duty; and whether steps can be taken to provide that all prison officers shall have alternate Sundays off duty, as far as can be arranged, and to secure adequate hours of relaxation to those on evening duty?
  Mr. DUKE: I am informed that the relaxations referred to are, with others, already given in Ireland.

  Small-pox (East London).
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can give particulars of the outbreak of small-pox in the East End of London; if he will state the districts from which cases have been reported and the number of cases so reported; what steps have been taken; and with what result?
  Mr. S. WALSH: Ten oases of small-pox were notified between 2nd and 7th March in Stepney, Hackney, Bethnal Green, and East Ham. These cases were removed to hospital, the houses were disinfected, all human contacts are under observation, and all who could be persuaded were vaccinated. It is reported this morning that seven further cases have occurred in Stepney amongst the contacts and have been removed to hospital.
  Mr. PETO: Do the Government propose, in view of this emergency, to ask for any powers to enforce compulsory vaccination in certain districts now?

  BILL PRESENTED.
  MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE BILL,—
  "to make further provision for the health of mothers and young children," presented by Mr. HAYES FISHER; supported by Mr. Munro and Mr. Walsh; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    EASTER RECESS.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have three questions to put to the Leader of the House: First, can he say if the House will sit tomorrow; secondly, what the business will be for next week; and, thirdly, can he say anything about the Easter holidays?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will give the business first.
    On Monday, the first business will be the adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Education Bill, followed by the remaining stages of the Overseas Trade Department (Secretary) Bill, and we hope the Second Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill.
    Tuesday: Civil Service Estimates, to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair; and the Committee stage of the Army (Annual) Bill.
    Wednesday: Supply—Navy Estimates, Shipbuilding Vote.
    Thursday: I hope to make the Motion for the Adjournment, which, if nothing happen to prevent it, will be to the 9th April—that is to say, two weeks and one extra day of Parliamentary time.
    It is in the hope of getting the Adjournment at that time that I have put down the Motion to have a Sitting to-morrow, if necessary, in case we do not get the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill to-night. It is necessary, also, to get the Second Reading of the Overseas Trade Department (Secretary) Bill in order to get it before the end of next week. My right hon. Friend asked me about to-morrow. No; we will not sit to-morrow if we get, as I expect, the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill and the Second Reading of the Overseas Trade Department (Secretary) Bill to-night.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman still hope to have a Recess of three or four weeks, as he suggested some time ago, at Whitsuntide, in addition to the Easter Recess?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is quite impossible to anticipate at this stage, but I do hope so. If I may say so, it would be really to the advantage, not merely
    510
    of the Government, but of the House, to-have rather more of a Recess at Whitsuntide than was possible last year.
    Mr. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Overseas Trade-Department (Secretary) Bill is so urgent?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is simply to regularise the position which, I think, is accepted by the House. Without a Bill, the position of my right hon. Friend would not be properly regularised.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the Trustees Savings Banks Bill will not be taken until after the Recess?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not absolutely necessary that it should be taken before the Recess. It will be put down on Monday, but if there be any objection to-it, we shall postpone it.
    Ordered, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour, although, opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third, time."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

    RUSSIA AND JAPAN.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I wish to ask the-Foreign Secretary whether he has any information which he can now give to the House with regard to the rumours which are current about the intentions of Japan in Asiatic Russia, and whether he can now say anything as to what the-attitude of the Government on that question is? I think he will agree that we are now, at any rate, justified in raising this question. It has already been discussed in the Parliament of practically every one of the Allies which has any close interest in the subject. It has been discussed in the American Senate, it has been discussed by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French Chamber of Deputies, and it has been discussed in the Japanese House of Representatives, and, although no statement has been made in this House, a public statement of the most important character was

    511
    made to the Press at the close of last week by the Minister of Blockade. I will read the salient passages, and I think the House will see that it is of a most significant and even a most startling character. These are the words to which I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention:
    "As an independent Sovereign State Japan will take whatever action she thinks right. I certainly should not be surprised if Japan thought it desirable, in her own interest and that of the Allies, to send troops to prevent the Germanisation of Siberia. Personally I should welcome a decision by Japan to act as the mandatory of the Alliance in that kind of way. I think we should be well advised to seek the assistance of our Japanese Allies in a matter in which she, and she alone, can do effective service."
    That, at any rate, is a most serious statement. It indicates what we may presume to be in the mind of the Government at the time it was made. If it indicates the mind of the Government still—and things have occurred since—it seems to me that is not only one of the most fateful statements in the history of the War, but I believe one of the most unfortunate. We have been given no official reason for the action contemplated, so I have been obliged to collect, as far as I could, the reasons which have been given from different directions. I had to collect them largely from the statements and arguments put forward from the newspapers, but more serious and considered statements have been made by foreign Ministers, particularly by M. Pichon, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs. I quite understand that the statements in the newspapers are not official, and may be repudiated, but still they must be noticed, because the fact is that those statements in the newspapers have been almost unanimous in their arguments, and even in their language, and give every appearance of having been directed from a single source.
    4.0 P.M.
    May I take one or two of the most important arguments which have been used'? There are, it is said, and it is true, great stores of arms and ammunition at Vladivostock which were given to the Russians by the United States and by Japan, and which they are entitled to have returned and paid for by this country. But I understand there is no evidence that the Russian Government has expressed any unwillingness to return them, and the Russian Government—through President Wilson—sent an official notice only yesterday. I under-
    512
    stand also, from an answer in this House, that the Japanese themselves have refrained from asking that they should be returned, and therefore I cannot see that those arms and ammunition by themselves constitute any ground for a declaration of war. Then there have been a number of stories in the newspapers with regard to the great collection of Austrian and German prisoners in Eastern Siberia, and the theory which has been worked out is that they would receive arms from the present Bolshevik Government, and that a German general was on his way to organise an army. That all seems to me very improbable. The Bolsheviks, whatever else one may say of them, have as great a hatred of the German military machine as any other party in Russia, and, apart from that, there is no evidence at all of the existence of any of these prisoners in Eastern Siberia. The story is not based on any authority. There is no substantiation of where it has come from. It has emanated mysteriously in Peking, which is a thousand miles away. I notice that the Minister of Blockade, in his statement to the Press and in the reply which he gave in this House yesterday, was quite unwilling to say that he believed in the truth of the story either about prisoners or about a German general being on his way. As a matter of fact, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will make any use of that particular story, because I understand that it has now been abandoned, and the Press for the last week, at any rate, has almost unanimously refrained from saying anything further about it. The fact is, that there is no evidence at all that the German Government intend to play into our hands and to dissipate their forces by the mad enterprise of an expedition into Siberia. I do not know anything about the question of strategy, but I venture to say that the Foreign Secretary is unable to produce a considered statement from any of his military advisers to say that such an expedition is in the remotest degree probable or practicable. The Germans are at the present moment 100 miles west of Petrograd. The theory that has been put forward is that while the Germans are still so far away as that, it is indispensable to Japan to seize Vladivostock, Manchuria, and the Amur Province in order that they may then advance into Siberia. While the Germans are 100 miles west of Petrograd, and at a

    513
    moment when it is fairly clear that they are not going to enter Petrograd, and when the military movements towards Petrograd have ceased, the argument that the danger is so desperate that Japan must now, immediately, without delay, seize Vladivostock, Manchuria, and the Amur Province, and then march into Siberia, will not convince anybody who looks at the map. These are the arguments which have been with strange unanimity of language and policy disseminated throughout the British Press.
    May I come to what I realise are the more serious and considered arguments of M. Pichon? He has not dwelt upon the military aspect of the situation at all. He has stated that Japanese aid is being asked for and demanded by millions of Russians, and that if Japan enters Siberia it will be at the request of the larger and more responsible sections of the Russian people in order to bring some sort of order and organisation into that distracted country. There is, as everybody knows, disorder and disorganisation in Russia, but after all, the Russian Revolution is only twelve months old, and it is quite evident that the amount of disorder and disorganisation in Russia now is not any greater than in any revolution of similar magnitude at the end of the same period of time. In any case, whatever the disorder and disorganisation in Russia at this moment, I believe that if our object is to help, the best way to do so is to allow Russia to work through her disorder and disorganisation for herself, and so work out her own salvation for herself with as little interference as possible from any foreign Power.
    Sir J. D. REES: Except for Germans.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is that what the Germans say?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: If we are going to restore order and organisation into Russia behind Japanese bayonets, if we are going to take part in a civil war in that country, if we are going to bring back Kerensky or the Cadets, or Korniloff -or the Czar, behind the arms of an Asiatic Power, then we might as well tear up every democratic profession with which we entered the War, and it will mean the moral bankruptcy of the Alliance. I do not believe that any of these are the real reasons. The real reasons are not military reasons. The real reason is not this
    514
    zeal for organisation in Russia. The real reason lies behind all that. It is simply this, that Russia is defeated and helpless and unable to protect herself, and I hope that the Alliance, at any rate, are not going to take advantage of that situation.
    HON. MEMBERS: What about Germany?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Hon. Members refer to Germany. When Germany occupied Poland, Courland, and Lithuania we in this country, and the President of the United States, said that it was an act so infamous that we could not allow it to stand. What are we going to say if we are parties to an act of spoliation on the other side of Russia, which would be worse than the German act of spoliation, because to seize the territory of a Power whom you have defeated is more easily to be defended than to seize the territory of a Power with whom you are at peace merely because she is unable to defend herself. [An HON. MEMBER; "What do the Germans say?" Hon. Members may be amused at what I say, but if we are going to do to Russia in the East what Germany has dune in the West, then I ask, for what single moral principle shall we be able to say we are fighting in this War? It is not only the question of Russia, it is not only Russia that we shall have sacrificed, but it will mean that we are abandoning two, at any rate, of those little nations whom we said we went into this War to protect. If we allow Russia to be despoiled of her provinces in the East then we shall not be able at any Peace Conference effectively to raise our voices on behalf of her provinces in the West, on behalf of Poland, Courland, Lithuania or Roumania. The Noble Lord the Minister for Blockade stated that Japan is an Independent Sovereign State, and that she will take what action she thinks right. But if this thing is going to be done then I assure the Noble Lord that no technical reasons can obscure our responsibility in the matter. If this is done, whether Japan does it by herself or if she does it as the Noble Lord said as the mandatory of the Alliance, the Alliance as a whole will be responsible, and among the Allies this country, the Ally of Japan, is, as the United States has been pointing out, in a special position and would have a responsibility heavier than any of her Allies.

    515
    In the last few days an incident has occurred which I am afraid will gravely displease hon. Members who have been amused at my references, and it would appear from this incident that the decision is not yet irrevocable. Yesterday there met in Moscow the Central Soviet Congress. This Soviet Congress is the de facto Government of Russia.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Which has ruined Russia?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The hon. Member says it has brought Russia to ruin. I can only say that the attitude of many hon. Members towards that Congress is not the attitude of President Wilson. That Congress at its meeting received a message from one of the Allied statesmen, President Wilson; but that message for some reason has appeared in an extraordinarily small number of newspapers. I, therefore, propose to read its chief passages to the House. It shows that the language and policy of President Wilson is quite at variance with the language and policy of the Noble Lord the Minister of Blockade, and I think some explanation is required as to why these two messages should have emanated from leading statesmen in the same Allied combination. President Wilson's attitude towards Russia is not that of many hon. Members of this House. May I read his message? He expresses his sincere sympathy with the Russian people, and then goes on to say:
    "Although the Government of the United States is, unhappily, not now in a position to lender direct and effective aid, it would wish to render it, I beg to assure the people of Russia through this Congress that it will avail itself of every opportunity to secure for Russia once more complete sovereignty and independence in her own affairs and full restoration of her great rôld in the life of Europe and the world.
    HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I cannot understand why hon. Members should cheer both that statement and the statement of the Noble. Lord the Minister for Blockade.HON. MEMBERS: Why not?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The Noble Lord contemplates a policy which will inevitably mean that Japan will have to make war upon the Soviet Government of Russia. If Japan enters Russia with her troops she will be resisted by the Government of Russia, [HON. MEMBERS:
    516
    "No!"] She has been resisted already; she would be resisted by the Soviet Government.
    Mr. FABER: Why?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Because the Soviet Government of Russia has already declared that it intends to resist, and has already organised and started resistance against Japan. President Wilson, on the other hand, states that he is willing to render to that Government, if he can direct and effective aid.
    Mr. FABER: To the country and not to the Government.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The Noble Lord the Minister for Blockade desires a policy which must inevitably lead to the result that Russia will be subjected to still further loss of territory in the East. If Japan is to enter Russian territory, and occupy it as a mandatory of the Alliance, then it follows with almost absolute certainty that that territory, having been occupied, will not be returned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Has Japan returned Korea which she entered for temporary purposes Has she returned Kiao Chow? Is there any piece of territory which she or any other great Power has occupied for temporary purposes and has returned?
    Mr. HUGH LAW: If a policeman eaters a house after a burglar it does not follow that he will continue to occupy it?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: There are two answers to that. In the first place, I should say that a policeman will always leave it, but from all that I can remember at the moment a nation which does so almost invariably retains possession, and my second reply is that if the hon. Gentleman had listened to the line of reasoning which I am pursuing he would know that I had endeavoured to show that there is at this moment not any possibility of the danger of Germany occupying Siberia. Therefore I repeat that the policy which the Noble Lord outlines would almost certainly lead to the loss of Russian territory in the East to Japan,, and that is not in consonance with the policy of President Wilson, who declares, on the contrary, that what he will insist upon is a full restoration of the rô1e whch Russia previously occupied. I hope that the Government is going to follow the line of policy laid

    517
    down by President Wilson. If it does not do so, if it follows what is for the moment the line of least resistance and simply gives way to what I can quite understand are the desires of Japan, then 1 do not think that, even from the point of view of this country, it will be acting for our best interests in the long run. Russia at the moment is in the midst of defeat and revolution, but Russia is not dead. Russia, at the end of it all, will remain a great country. It must remain a country with population, natural resources and rate of development equal to those of the United States. I do not know Russia myself, but everyone who does know it agrees that Russia will revive. It will revive as democratic as, but more purified and stronger than, it was before. I believe that it will revive capable of making a great contribution to civilisation. When that day comes, I believe that we shall toe glad to have Russia as a friend, but if the Allies take part in this action the result which more than any other it is calculated to have is to drive Russia into the orbit of diplomacy of Germany and the Central Powers.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I desire also to say a few words on the proposal that has been made that Japan or some other of the Allies should intervene in Siberia to an undefined extent. I think that such intervention at the present time, by Japan or any other of the Allies, would be one of those fundamental errors which lose campaigns, and turn the course of history. I want to separate myself to some extent from the point of view put forward by the hon. Member who has preceded me. My views are not the same as his. If he has incurred some hostility in the course of his speech, I think that it is due, not so much to the opinions which he expressed himself as to the opinions which he attributed to others. I find it impossible to justify the ascription of the views which he did ascribe to the Government, or those who have made this proposal for Japanese intervention. To talk about spoliation or bringing back the Czar to power as being the motive with which Japanese intervention in Siberia has been urged, I think, is not merely to misconceive the situation but to do an injustice to those who have advocated the intervention of Japan. I venture to say that there is not, on the part of any responsible or,
    518
    I might almost say, of any reasonable person in this country or any of the Allied countries, any desire to intervene in Siberia for the purpose either of spoliation or for bringing back Czarism, or any other precise government, into Russia. The desire for intervention has been dictated solely by the desire to guard the Allies, and to guard our Empire against great dangers which confront us at the present time—against an urgent menace. I venture to hope that the Government, after mature consideration, will not approve this proposal of intervention in Siberia at the present time for two reasons. The first is that that intervention will give rise to new and fresh dangers in addition to those with which we are already confronted. There can be no doubt on the part of those acquainted with Russia and Russian opinion—and unlike the hon. Member who has spoken last, I claim a long personal acquaintance with Russia—that such intervention at the present time would unite the warring sections in Russia, and unite them against those who intervene in this way. It would not be Germany we should have to fight; it would be Germany and Russia. Intervention at this time, in my belief, would undoubtedly throw the forces and resources of Russia into the arms of Germany. That is a fact which ought to be the subject of the gravest consideration.
    Sir J. D. REES: Where are they now?
    Mr. SCOTT: They are neutralised and paralysed just now. They are not being used in any way for the purpose of attacking us at the present time. But the effect of this intervention would be to throw the forces and resources of Russia into the arms of Germany, and to leave them to Germany to be used as a direct enemy in alliance with enemies against us. Far better for us, if intervention has to come, that we should wait until it is the Germans who have been the aggressors and occupiers.
    Mr. FABER: To wait until they got inside the line.
    Mr. SCOTT: Russia would then be in revolt against them, and if we intervened we should come as deliverers, and we should be welcome. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh. I do not know if the hon. Member below me (Sir J. D. Rees) knows much about Siberia.
    Sir J. D. REES: I do not know if the hon. Member has ever been in Siberia himself. I have travelled all over it.
    Mr. SCOTT: Yes, I have travelled in Siberia. I am not aware whether the hon. Gentleman speaks Russian and reads it as I have done for many years.
    Sir J. D. REES: I am a Russian interpreter.
    Mr. SCOTT: There is very great danger of our country being committed against the Russian Revolution. We made that error, a great and fundamental error, in the case of the French Revolution. If we make it now it will have even more disastrous consequences than it had then. It involved us in long and bloody wars before, and it put back the hand of reform and progress for generations in Europe. This time it will have more disastrous consequences. Do not let us think that Russia is out of this War. Do not let us think that Russia can be wiped off the slate. The size, resources, and population of Russia cannot be ignored in that way. I noticed that there was some laughter when it was suggested that at one period, after the commencement of the French Revolution, France was in a state of equal disorder. It is true that she was in that state. Bankrupt, disorganised, under a reign of terrorism, torn asunder and bleeding, France yet became the greatest military power in Europe. There is a tendency to take a short view of the great events in which we are involved at the present time. We are right up against them. It is difficult to see them in right perspective. We are overshadowed by the huge event that is happening before us. We cannot see it in its relation to other events. We cannot see the direction in which events are marching. In order to get a true perspective I think that it would be very desirable, that hon. Members, who see nothing but the immediate event, should, after reading the morning newspaper, read a chapter of Gibbon or a chapter of the history of the French Revolution. I think the French Revolution was commenced about 1789, the Battle of Waterloo was fought in 1815, and the French Revolution was not ended then. It is a mistake to think that the Russian Revolution is simply an orgy of crime and violence. One is tempted to do so because the revolution dealt a deep blow at us, and has injured us in the great struggle which we are waging. It has handi-
    520
    capped us, injured us, and crippled us, and it is easy to mistake the character of the revolution because of the crimes, blunders, and ineptitudes of many of the leaders of the revolution that are patent and open to every observer.
    Nevertheless, to take that short view would be a mistake and a blunder. The Russian Revolution is a greater thing even than the War; it is one of the great landmarks in the history of mankind. What does it stand for? The Russian Revolution, on its spiritual side, apart from incidental disasters and crime associated with it, what does it stand for? It stands for something very closely related to the higher objects with which we entered the War, and it is very closely related to future developments in this country. Russia is one of the greatest Empires in the world. It contains almost a sixth of the land surface of the globe, and within the ringed fence is great diversity of languages, of religions, of races, and of varieties of climate, all under one centralised Government, the most centralised Government in the world, a Government that was incompetent and incapable. There you had the evils of centralisation in a most extreme form. It was impossible that one single centralised great Government could rule, with satisfaction to the people, over an Empire of that character. The revolution, which came suddenly, is a revolt against centralisation, a revolt which has taken a form so extreme, that in its manifestations it seems to be a revolt against any Government whatever. The Bolsheviks, who, at one turn, rose on the crest of the wave, are not Constitutionalists, they are not Socialists; they are as much opposed to, shall I say, the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Maedonald) or the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snow-den), as they are opposed to Kerensky or the Government of the Czar. They are opposed to any system of Socialism carried on by the State; they are in favour of direct action by the people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Murder!"] What is the use of bandying epithets? I do not understand the use of the word "murder." It explains nothing. Let us rather try to understand the direction in which the revolution is moving. This is a revolt against the State; it. is a revolt against representative institutions. With us the masses believe in government through representative institutions. With the Bolsheviks the unit of government would

    521
    be the number of people who could meet together under one roof; they believe only in government by a mass assembly. For trade unions, as we know them, they would substitute mass meetings of the workers in each separate shop. It is essentially, in all its phases, from beginning to end, its moderate phases and its most extreme phases, a revolt against centralisation, and a movement in favour of decentralisation. It has taken an extreme form, and great and abominable crimes have been committed in its course.
    But this great movement, which is going to affect the history of the world in the future, is one in regard to which we should understand the direction in which it is moving. How is it related to the War and to the part we are playing in the War? Putting it at its best, the purpose for which we have entered this War is to secure co-operation among nations, to establish international law, to enforce the recognition of international law, and to achieve, as one of the poets has said, the federation of mankind—the Parliament of man, the federation of the world—I am obliged to the 'hon. Member near me for that last phrase, for which I thank him. It is to impose a higher centralisation upon States for international unity. But this movement in Russia seems to be a movement against centralisation. The Allies' movement is for further centralisation for certain international purposes, for the purpose of regulating the affairs of nations, and for putting an end to the possibility of future war. That is, at its best, the highest and most spiritual purpose for which we have entered this War. At first, it would almost seem that the whole tendency and trend of the Russian Revolution must be contrary to a movement for further centralisation. I think it is not contrary, and I think they are both closely related to one another. They are simply opposite sides of the same shield. President Wilson has put the object of the Allies in this War in a phrase which receives universal assent, "to make the world safe for democracy." But if we are going to make the world safe for democracy, we have got to protect it not merely against external foes, but also against internal foes. When the War started a struggle against the external foes of democracy was inevitable. The movement put before us, the movement towards international law and the League of Nations, is one for the defence of demo-
    522
    cracies against external foes, by means of centralisation. But there are enemies within democracy, causing great and serious danger. The great characteristic of the British democracy is government through elected representatives—representative institutions. Do not let us delude ourselves into the belief that all is well with representative institutions. Representative institutions are sometimes confused with democracy itself. They are not identical with democracy; they are merely an instrument which democracy has invented for its own purposes and uses. It has used other instruments, and it may in future use other instruments, and we cannot disguise from ourselves that the instrument of representative institutions has fallen, for many reasons, into severe discredit and disrepute, partly on account of the War, though I do not say entirely on account of the War. Do not let us think that it is entirely on that account. We all know it has been a commonplace among Liberals that for generations past our Parliament, our legislative assembly, has been paralysed, congested, overwhelmed with work, and unable to do it. There were long arrears of legislation piled up. We have watched the gradually increasing disrespect in which it was held by the people, a disrespect which was justified by the failure of the legislative machine to give the kind of legislation that was wanted, the failure to pass it through Parliament. The Legislature had to look not merely after the affairs of the Empire, but after the affairs of the parish pump, and it could not do it.
    We were suffering severely from the evils of our centralisation, and the movement for decentralisation was coming here, and coming strongly, though gradually. In Russia is has come like a flood, a deluge; it has shown us what disasters may occur when reforms are delayed. It is part of the genius of the people of this country that they know how to take occasion by the hand, and make the bonds of freedom wider still. It would be well to recognise that the great movement which has started in Russia is something cognate to the highest objects we have in the War, and also to the essential reforms which are due in this country, reforms that would bring under the direct control of the people those matters which affect their daily and domestic life. I have been led to develop this aspect of the subject rather more fully than I had intended. My first reason for objection

    523
    to Japanese intervention is that it will lead us into dangers with which we are not confronted at present. My second reason is that it will not meet the danger actually threatened in the East. The hon. Member referred to Vladivostock. I wish Vladivostock were the only danger with which we are threatened in the East. As to the stores and munitions accumulated there, that is a, small matter relatively to the grave dangers that face us. Even if we lost the munitions, even if they were put on the railways and transported straight to Germany, we would know exactly what we had to face. But that is insignificant in comparison with the great danger with which our whole campaign and our whole strategy are threatened in the East. The question of these stores and supplies could easily be solved by landing a few battalions and providing shipping for their transport; they could easily be brought away. But that has nothing to do with Japanese intervention on a large scale in Siberia. The real danger, threatening not Siberia at all, lies in the fact that the Germans are on the North-West Frontier of India and the frontiers of Afghanistan and Persia. The real danger lies in the fact that the Germans have got two railway lines in direct contact with these frontiers, the Orenburg Railway and the Trans-Caspian Railway. We know that in the past our statesmen and our soldiers have had many anxious moments on account of German intrigue and German menace on the North-West Frontier of India. That menace has now matured in an urgent form. But a Japanese occupation of Siberia would not help us in the slightest in regard to it; even though they advanced as far as the Urals it would not affect either of these two railways.
    I do not want to pose as a strategist. I believe there are two schools with regard to the nature of this War—the Western school and the Eastern school. Personally, I have always belonged to the Eastern school. I have regarded the War as an Eastern war, not merely because there we can make the most effective attack on German ambitions and cut Germany off from her objects, but because in the East is our Achilles' heel. The Eastern Front is the British Front: not the Western. I do not believe that this War can be ended on the Western Front.
    524
    I do not believe any blow can be struck by either party which will determine it. Germany holds that front strongly in well-fortified and very short lines compared with the lines she has hitherto held, and at the present time she is able to take over new territories unchecked by anything we can do on the Western Front. Unless we are prepared she may deliver a blow that will force our hand, and force us from sheer necessity to withdraw large numbers of troops from the Western Front and send them Eastwards to save our Empire. An hon. Member asked me where our blow should be struck! and, although I do not pose as a strategist, I have no objection in telling him where, if I were Commander-in-Chief, or Prime Minister, or if I had the power, I would act. I would send the troops to Mesopotamia and the North-West Frontier of India. I believe it is on those fronts that the Empire can be saved. It is no use saying it is difficult and that there are transport difficulties. The question is, Is it necessary, and are we threatened there in a vital manner? If we are. then we should send the troops there.
    We have heard much talk about an alternative Government and the difficulty of finding one. I do not believe there would be any difficulty. You could constitute twenty or thirty alternative Governments out of this House. Nothing would be easier. What is wanted is an alternative policy, and I am sorry to say I do not see any sign of such a thing on the part of any alternative Government. It has been freely rumoured for long that the Prime Minister holds the Eastern view, that he regards the Eastern Front as our vital front, and that he has been in favour of making far larger efforts in the East. That has been stated time and again, and never, so far as I know, has it been contradicted. The speech of the Noble Lord the Minister for Blockade also took the Eastern view, and regarded this as the vital front. If those two Gentlemen believe that, if the Prime Minister and the Minister for Blockade believe this is the vital front where a knock-out blow could be delivered, then they ought not to remain in their present positions if they cannot succeed in inducing the Government also to take that view. I hold this view so strongly that, if I could see any alternative Government prepared to pursue it, I would be willing to give it my support.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: In the very Interesting speech to which we have just listened the hon. Member covered a great variety of ground, but in the latter part acted rather on the principle of the Byronic heroine, who, "swearing she would ne'er consent, consented." He told us he would not indulge in a strategical review, but promptly proceeded to give us some instructive observations on strategy. In the earlier part of his speech he devoted himself more rather to political prophecy, and I confess a good deal of what he said was over my head, while there was little when 1 was able to follow the hon. Gentleman in which I found myself in agreement with him. But I certainly did agree with what he said in the main about the Russian Revolution, its magnitude, and the far-reaching character of that great movement which, no doubt, will have its place in the history of the world. I also entirely agree with him in welcoming, on the whole, the outburst which has led from tyranny to freedom in that great country. Even when freedom takes the form of licence and disorder, it is, on the whole, to be preferred to the grinding tyranny which preceded it in Russia. My hon. Friend also gave us, in passing, a little lecture upon history; he exhorted the House to observe a sense of proportion in looking at events like the Russian Revolution, especially when comparing it, as we are all apt to do, and, indeed, bound to do, with the revolution in France more than a hundred years ago. There, I think, my hon. Friend rather sinned against his own exhortation that we should observe a sense of proportion, because the lesson he drew in comparing the Russian Revolution with the French was that we need not regard Russia as out of the War. It seemed to me the hon. Gentleman overlooked the very material facts when he compared the two great movements—first, that the Russian Revolution came upon her at a time when she was already engaged in a desperate struggle with a foreign enemy, whereas in France it came in a time of peace; and, secondly, in point of fact, it was more than three years before France even began to show herself a military Power after the time the revolution was in progress. If anything like a parallel is followed in the case of Russia, I do not think my hon. Friend can get over the idea that it takes three or four years as a minimum to produce anything like a
    526
    military force, and therefore, I do not think that Russia can still be regarded as a living factor in the present War.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Do you prophesy that the War will be over in three years?
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. McNEILL: I am not going to prophesy, but I think my hon. Friend will agree with me in hoping that it will. I have no confidence whatever that Russia can be regarded as an actual force in the present War. I do not think the great part of my hon. Friend's speech bore any very close and obvious relevance to the speech of the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Lees-Smith). I found it difficult in listening to the hon. Gentleman to understand what was his motive in introducing this subject at all to the House to-day, and I came to the conclusion that he revealed his object in one sentence which dropped from him in the course of the speech. I think he must have considered it his mission to preserve us from what he saw to be our impending fate, the moral bankruptcy of the Allies, and I have no doubt he hoped that he might be able to persuade the House to adopt his views—which I do not think it is likely to do—and that then we should be saved from that moral bankruptcy which he fears is coming upon us. I must confess I had not myself seen it until he quoted it, that the view which has been apparently expressed by my Noble Friend the Minister of Blockade— my knowledge of which is confined to what was quoted by the hon. Member for Northampton—is one with which I find myself in complete agreement as far as my knowledge enables me to form a judgment with my Noble Friend. I say "as far as my knowledge enables me to form a judgment," because that is why I rather regret the hon. Member thought it right, in order to save us from impending moral bankruptcy, to say what he did to-day. I am rather doubtful whether any of us who have not access to confidential and diplomatic information are in a position very strongly to say whether or not intervention by the Japanese in Siberia at the present moment would be a good thing or not. I certainly would not, of my own motion, have expressed any opinion at all, and that is the reason why I say I am very glad to learn that my Noble Friend, who has, of course, that special information, is able to express a view which, if I were not deterred by the

    527
    considerations I have mentioned, would undoubtedly be my view. I think it a very desirable thing at the present moment that Japan should strongly intervene both of her own account and as a mandatory of the Allies in the Far East. That is what I understand my Noble Friend said he hoped she might be able to do. Of course, it is quite true, as my Noble Friend says, that Japan, being a Sovereign Power, can in the main judge for herself, but the fact that the Japanese Government appears to be most anxious to act entirely in consultation and in conjunction with her Western Allies, is, I think, the strongest possible proof of her loyalty to the Alliance and of her desire to avoid any action which would be open to criticism either in America or in Europe. At any rate, I hope she will be able to do so. What reason has the hon. Member for Northampton given against it? I think, to begin with, that in order to make good his case for moral solvency he indulged in a good deal of imagination as to existing facts. First of all, to refer to the very real danger, as I deem it to be, arising from the release of very large numbers of German and Austrian prisoners in various parts of Russia. The hon. Member said—it was a curious expression to use about the German prisoners—that there was "no evidence of their existence in Siberia," an expression which would have been entirely in place had he been talking about the discovery of petroleum or some precious metal. It seems hardly applicable to the existence of prisoners who must be numbered by hundreds of thousands, and whose whereabouts—though I am neither better nor worse informed than the hon. Member—must be well known to large numbers of well-informed persons. I take it for granted that the Russians did take from the Central Powers prisoners who are numbered probably not less than 1,000,000 all told, perhaps more, and that a large number of these are in all probability in some part of Siberia. If the information at the disposal of our Government goes to confirm that fact, I hardly think the hon. Member below the Gangway is justified in speaking of there being no evidence of the existence of those prisoners at all. If they are there, as I take it for granted they are, surely they may constitute a very real menace, not merely in the interests
    528
    of the Alliance, but, what is quite as important, and in my hon. Friend's view much more important, the interests of Russia and of the Russian people.
    My own view is that if it be found possible for the Japanese to intervene in. Siberia, it would be quite as markedly in the interests of the Russian people and of their ultimate fate as it would be in the interests of the Alliance. The hon. Member almost brushed aside the question of the great stocks of material which have accumulated not only at Vladivostock, but, as I believe, at other points along the Siberian Railway—immense stocks of material of vital importance from the military point of view according to the hands into which they may fall. It is of immense importance whether they are retained by anyone who can use them either by or on behalf of the Alliance or by people well disposed towards the Alliance, or whether, on the other hand, they fall into the hands of people evilly disposed towards the Alliance. This is a very material point. This vast accumulation of material there, costly and valuable as it is, has been to a large extent paid for by us, and therefore our interest in it is a very real and practical one. But the-main fallacy, if I may say so, which appears to run through the speech of the hon. Member who introduced this Motion was found in a sentence where he said that the Soviet Congress in Moscow is the de facto Government of Russia. If I read even approximately aright the present condition in Russia there is no de facto Government there: there is a revolutionary committee here to-day and gone to-morrow, composed of individuals whose opinions it is very difficult for us to understand or to gauge. So far as we know anything about them, they take one form of thought one day and a different one the next, and exercise very little control beyond a limited territory.
    We see Russia broken up as we might expect it to break up into a great number of small independent republics or States, because Russia, unlike France, is composed of a great number of distinct nationalities, of peoples speaking different languages and holding different religions. Therefore, it is a country in which it is infinitely more difficult than it was in France to retain anything like the unity which common patriotic sentiment might have produced. Instead of a de facto Government all we have are

    529
    various committees claiming, usurping and, sometimes to a limited extent, exercising authority which rests upon no legal basis and only upon sheer naked force so far as they can establish that force, or upon acceptance so far as that acceptance goes, with no organised legal executive power by which they can carry out any laws they may pass or any executive decrees they may enact. None of the machinery which is referred to when we use the word "government" exists, and consequently the attempt of the hon. Member to represent the Soviet or the Bolshevik Government in Moscow—it was at Petrograd the other day, now it is at Moscow, and it will be somewhere else to-morrow—as being the expression of the Russian peoples will or the representative of the Russian peoples' interests appears to me to be an entirely misreading of the situation, and because of his misreading of the situation the hon. Gentleman found it so difficult, though I see no difficulty in it whatever, in reconciling the language used by my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) with the language used by President Wilson.
    After all, my Noble Friend is absolutely at one with President Wilson in wishing well to the Russian people, as we are all at one in wishing them well, and when President Wilson speaks of their being restored, apart altogether from the form of Government, to all the power and position which they exercised and held in the past, he is expressing the desire of all of us. It is because we see there is no possibility of their ever achieving that ideal unless they are saved from the menace which hangs over them from Germany, that we are all anxious to take any and every means we can, first of all, to resist the power of Germany in Russia, and, secondly, to give some coherence to the Russian peoples' common power of resistance at some central point round which their national unity may once again range itself. For that reason we are wishful that any member of the Western Alliance shall take whatever steps it can from geographical or other reasons to save Russia from further military material loss; secondly, to offer a strong opposition to further advances of the Germanic power in the East, and, thirdly, to give a rallying point to the Russian people themselves when they have sufficiently passed through the throes of their revolution and are able once more to construct the machinery of an ordered
    530
    Government. It is for these reasons that,, if the conditions are suitable at this moment, as I gather them to be from the speech of my Noble Friend, I for one would welcome most gladly the intervention which the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway so much deprecates of the Government and the power of the Japanese in the Far East of the Russian Empire.
    Captain GEORGE LLOYD: After listening to the interesting speech of the hon. Member in opening this Debate one reflects that there are few things one can say on foreign affairs in this House with; great advantage, and still fewer, at moments like this, one can say without disadvantage. But I cannot help remarking that in his references to moral obligations in the War he ignored what seems to me a rather important factor, namely, that there is still a moral call for fidelity to well-proved alliances, and that we stand in relation to Japan in a very unique and peculiar position in this-respect. I think I am correct in saying that, until this War broke out, she was our only Ally, and is to-day, except Portugal, the oldest Ally we have had. There was another side observation which I regretted in his speech, and that was when he assumed, or seemed to assume, that His Majesty's Government were, at this time, engaged in doing their utmost to persuade Japan to take one particular course of action or another.
    I do not know in the least what the circumstances are, but I should very much doubt and regret if our Government, at a moment like this, took any-very strong action either to prevent or to persuade Japan to adopt any course in the Far East. At the same time, I think, we have to look at the situation in the East from the point of view of the-Japanese themselves. There are certain important factors which are perfectly clear, and are not in dispute at all. One is that the disruption of Russia, however much we may and do regret it, has upset the whole balance of power in the East, and Japan has got to prepare to safeguard herself from a menace on her flank, which is similar, if not equivalent, to the menace from which we are here protecting ourselves in Belgium. No one can deny that the breakdown of power in Russia presents a serious situation to the Japanese, and that being the case, I suggest it is not for us in this House

    531
    to attempt to dictate any course of policy to Japan in so far as that policy or course of action may be taken in defence of her own legitimate interests, and in defence of her future. I do not believe there is anyone in this House who would say a word to hinder Japan from doing what is necessary to safeguard the future and the safety of her people, but. I think we can go a considerable step further than that and say that, inasmuch as Japan is an old and trusted Ally of ours, who has earned our respect and gratitude by the course of action she has taken in this War, we should back Japan in any decision.
    On her part it has been a loyalty of deeds as well as words, though, as I have been away, I do not know whether any tributes have been paid to her, as they ought to have been paid, in this House for that loyalty of deeds—deeds which the Australians, when they first moved West, can testify to—deeds which everyone of us who have moved about in the infested Mediterranean can testify to. Their gallantry at sea is a fit and proper matter upon which you should make some recognition in this House. I cannot help thinking that this House and the country would be very unwise to try to influence Japan, and I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary gets up to make his statement to the House he will be able to indicate that we are not going to take any strong course to hinder or to insist on any policy in Japan, for essentially this is a Japanese question which the Japanese themselves must settle in the main. If they purport to take any wider action than that which might be contemplated now then that will be a matter for this Government and the Allies to consider. But as regards their own domestic dangers and difficulties I think we should be unwise to try to dictate any course of policy to Japan at all.
    It has been objected by hon. Members in this House that the intervention of Japan may throw Russia into the arms of Germany. That would not change the situation very much from what it is to-day. T think it is safe to say that there is nobody inside this House or out of it can predict what effect any action taken in the Far East may have upon the unvocal and broken masses of the Russian people to-day. The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said that Russia must be allowed
    532
    to work out her own salvation, and I think other speakers have said the same thing. We desire that they should be allowed to work out their own salvation, but not at our expense, and I do not think we should be right to be influenced in the course of our policy as regards Japan by that consideration alone. May I make one last reflection, and it is this. I do not think when the hon. Member who opened this Debate makes rather unsympathetic speeches towards one of our Allies that he reflects for a moment, or has properly reflected, on the opportunities which Japan has been afforded by this War of not co-operating with full loyalty towards us. Has he considered that we owe Japan a very deep debt of gratitude for its loyalty, and, as I have already said, its deeds and not words. That loyalty has been thorough. Japan has had every opportunity and great temptation during this War to foment intrigues in the East which might have resulted in great personal advantage in later years in India, in Burmah, even in Australia, or in any other place you like to mention. It will be found, I am certain of this, that Japan has been loyal in these ways and loyal in every sense of the word to us in this War. I for one most earnestly hope not only that very little may be said in this House at so delicate a moment in the situation, but that in anything that is said we may bear in mind that Japan has given us great evidences of the unswerving loyally of her people, and in criticising or making any reflection upon the dangers of the present moment, we should prefer to trust rather than to suspect and to assist rather than to hinder.
    Sir J. D. REES: Surely it is an extraordinary circumstance at a time like this, when we see a black splash on the map stretching from the North Sea across Europe and Asia Minor to the head waters of the Tigris and Euphrates and almost in sight of the Persian Gulf, which is or should be an Indian lake, that this House should be debating a Motion which most ungraciously, and, as it seems to me, most unwisely deprecates any action which a faithful Ally may take in the Allied cause. I confess that it fills me with despair and indignation that the House should be discussing such a Motion on such a day. The hon. Member who moved said quite fairly that he knew nothing about Russia. He did not tell us what was the object of his Motion, and I confess I never quite gathered, unless it was to prevent one of our Allies from helping the other Allies

    533
    in the greatest crisis of the War. It appears to me to be an amazing thing that any hon. Gentleman should be able to bring forward such a Motion. I assure the hon. Gentleman, as one who has been round about the world a little, that it would be absolutely impossible amongst any of his fellow countrymen anywhere in the Far East to make the speech which he made to-day in this House. The feeling would be so strong against it and the feeling with Japan, and detestation of Germany so strong and violent, that his speech, with the inclinations which he has made to-day, would have been absolutely impossible for him to have delivered. What does he want? He professes great respect for Russia, but only for the remains of Russia left by Germany. It is for that he has respect. The great Russian Empire which has been dismembered and lies prostrate and bleeding is misrepresented in a manner which is painful and hateful to those who know the admirable Russian people. It is for what remains of that Empire. when it has been so crushed and treated that he shows respect, and it is not any idea of its resuscitation. He does not want to see it occupying the great place which it occupied in the world before. He only wants respect to be shown to what remains after the German aggression.
    He wants to keep Japan out. Why does he want to do so? Japan occupies in the Far East to an extraordinary degree the same position as we do in the Far West. Is it for him or anyone in this country to get up and ungraciously object to intervention which may or may not, for all I know, be contemplated, and for that I am waiting for the Foreign Secretary. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has some information on that subject. He says that the Germans are far away from Siberia. Are they? Siberia stretches right away to the Ural Mountains, and I think the Germans have spread to districts not so very far remote from the Ural Mountains. He wants to wait until they arrive at Vladivostock before our Ally, who is there, should take any steps. I hesitate to apply to such an argument the epithet which I think it deserves. What would be the use of Japanese intervention when once the Germans, who have shown themselves so capable of taking and holding on to a situation, had taken the coast opposite the islands of Japan? The hon. Member actually says that the Allies should not prey on Russia. Have the
    534
    Allies preyed on Russia in supplying them with munitions of war and with our money, and labour and everything to help them? Why does he suggest that the Allies should desire to prey on Russia? After making these most serious allegations against ourselves and these most ungracious strictures against our Allies, the hon. Member went on to a dissertation upon the moral principles for which we are fighting. If we are not fighting for our lives, I confess I understand nothing about this War, and I think we have every object in doing everything we can in getting our Allies to do everything they can to keep us going in this present most serious crisis.
    The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott) delivered a speech which was mostly a dissertation upon the Russian Revolution. May I venture respectfully to suggest that there is another side to the Russian Revolution than that which he put forward? I firmly believe that the Russian Revolution was organised by the Germans as part of their offensive. I do not think that Russia was ripe for revolution, and I believe that the Pretorians at Petersburg were bought. When the two hon. Gentlemen spoke of the high principles animating the Russian Revolution, I wondered whether either of them knew that Russia, prior to the revolution, was the most democratic country in Europe, except for the autocracy at the top. There was a democracy right throughout the country, and anybody who has lived in the villages must be aware of that fact. When my hon. Friend spoke of Siberia I asked him had he been there, and he must have been greatly obliged to me for eliciting the fact that he had, because his speech betrayed no internal evidence whatever of that fact. The hon. Member said, among other statements, that Russia was famous for its diversity of languages, and the hon. Member opposite said the same thing. I believe it is famous among Empires for having almost only one language. I believe there are three, but the Russian language, of which I happen to be an interpreter, will take you almost from end to end of Russia, and I do not know of any other Empire in the past or the present of which the same thing can be said. My hon. Friend (Mr. Scott) wanted us to send troops at once to the North-West Frontier. How are they to be sent there, where are the troops to come from, and what are they going to do when they

    535
    are there? Has the Indian Government, which may be presumed to know something about this matter, asked for those troops? It is really a fantastic proposition, and surely we have enough on hand at the present time without inventing bogeys on the North-West Frontier, and without suggesting to a people sensitive of rumour that they should now organise one of those rebellions which the hon. Member seems to expect, but as to which we have no proof that such is brewing. My hon. Friend is very fond of stating to the House certain facts concerning the Indian Frontier and the Russian Empire, and so on, without telling us whither his arguments lead. I suppose it ought to be so clear that it is unnecessary for him to state it, but it is not very clear to me. It would be a help to me when next he speaks on the subject if he would state exactly what it is he wants the Government to do. If it is a case of sending troops to the North-West Frontier, I believe my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Yate) will agree with me that, even if it were possible to take troops from the Western Frontier and send them to the North-West, we should be acting very foolishly in doing so.
    The hon. Gentleman is also terrified on another subject, since he said that if Japan intervenes in the East in Siberia it will throw the forces and resources of Russia into the arms of Germany. Where are those forces and resources now? If they are not in the arms or under the thumb of Germany, I confess I am unequal to reading the "Daily Mail.'' What an extraordinary argument at a time like this, at a crisis on which I do not wish to dwell I do not think it is desirable to do so, or that such a Motion as this, so odious to our gallant Allies and so ungracious to them, should be brought forward with petty debating points founded on want of knowledge. That such a Motion should be brought before the House and considered on a day like this seems to me to be a most disastrous circumstance. I do not wish to trespass further on the time and attention of the House, though I should have no difficulty at all in dealing with every point with which the hon. Gentleman dealt at equal length and with greater accuracy. I would beg the House most respectfully to consider and suggest to those on the pacifist benches that though their
    536
    intervention may not do great harm here it may be productive of great harm in the bazaars which are the whispering galleries of the East, and in the Press, which is often prostituted to bad purposes. It is, above all things, desirable in the House of Commons that we should hold together at present and not at any rate make points which are absolutely odious to our gallant friends and Allies.
    Mr. BUXTON: In this discussion of the problems arising out of the Russo-German Treaty, perhaps undue prominence might be given to this question of Japan. There are other problems momentous enough, Heaven knows, and I venture to call attention for a moment to one of them, as distinct from the problem arising from the eastern extremity of the Russian Empire—I mean the problem arising from the southern extremity. After all, the Germans are probably a very long way from Vladivostock, and I do not know that any evidence exists for the fear that they may approach Eastern Siberia within a very long time. But it is a patent fact that they are already in touch with the Caucasus, and the news to-day of the occupation of Odessa visualises the picture-afforded of German communication established between Odessa and Batum, following upon the terms imposed upon Russia, by which the Batum and Kars district is to be handed over to German control. There are problems, I think, arising out of that to justify a few moment's attention. It is a case where Lord Salisbury's maxim may very well be recalled—the maxim that we ought to study large maps. I am one of comparatively few Members of the House who have been in the Caucasus, and I would like hon. Members-very much to realise something of the nature of that country and its importance.
    The Caucasus represents the second stage in Russia's formation of an Empire. It is, after all, not so very long, as time goes, since the small Russian State made headway against the Tartar States, and found what Peter the Great called, "A window to the West." having been previously cut off from the sea. You had then added to the Russian Empire the western fringe of the Baltic Provinces, which have now, by the Russo-German Treaty, been detached, and which, in any case, were not strictly Russian, but were occupied by a mixed population, and form a separate problem from the national problem of Russia. But it is to the

    537
    southern side of the Russian Empire proper that I want to call attention. A hundred years or more later—that is, about a hundred years ago—the Russians turned their attention to the south, and in Napoleonic days established themselves -against the Turks and Persians on the south side of the Caucasus. As we know, they extended still further that Empire a very short time ago—in 1878—but, in the main, it is the creation of a distinct period between the early conquest of the Baltic Provinces, and the conquest of the Far East, which is a thing of yesterday. That Caucasian country is a very extraordinary, an interesting, and a wealthy country. Perhaps I may be allowed to recall for a moment what the population of that country is. In Caucasus proper there are eight and a half million people. They are about equally divided between Christians and Moslems. When you come down through Central Russia and get southward to the Cossack country, and begin again to get in sight of the Caucasus mountains that immense, magnificent, straight line of snow mountains stretching from East to West—and cross the Dariel Pass, you come into quite a different world—an immensely richer world, a world far removed from the properly Russian country—into a medley of small races, a great medley of languages, some Mahomedan races and some Christian. South of the Caucasus mountains you have about four and a half million Christians, comprising about two million Armenians, about two million Georgians, and about half a million Russians. On the Mahomedan side, you have about two and a half million Tartars and about one and a half million of other small nations or tribes.
    That, clearly, is not a population that can be treated on the principle of self-determination at all. It must be an Empire if any order is to be maintained there at all, and it is one of the assets of Imperialism, properly called, that Russia has established order there where there was no order before—that is, comparative order, because brigandage has never been suppressed, but comparative order sufficient to allow a very great increase of industry and an enormous increase of wealth. It is a very rich country, of course, on account of the oil. Batum is one of the great wealth-spots of the world, because it is the exit for the oil product. But when you get down to the Araxes Valley, you suddenly come to what is virtually a. tropical country, and cotton is grown with
    538
    very great success in that valley. But, besides its intrinsic value, that district is of enormous importance as an important item in a route from East to West, and it is worth considering for a moment the nature of the Caucasus, of which the Germans have now obtained control as a route. The German hope in the early part of the War was, doubtless, to break out to the East, but not by this route. It was to work through Turkey, to make use of Turkey, and ultimately, perhaps, in the minds of a section of the German governing people, to make a route through Mosul and Teheran and on to Herat. Fortune, so far, has favoured the German efforts in securing a very superior route to that. We have not been able to cut that route from the South, and if we had we should not be in a position now to out the West to East route which Germany has, for (the moment, secured, because it is further north. The route now secured is a better one. The route is through Batum, Baku, and so on East across the Caspians, and by existing railways to Merv and Samarkand. There is also the route further north, which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott) the other night said came under German control, which might be so if Russia as a whole were under German control—a direct line through Orenburg to Tashkand. But far better than that line is the line already brought under control, because the line across the Black Sea and across the Caspian is a line which is both warmer and cheaper, being largely a water route.
    There is one other point of immense importance in regard to that Caucasian country. One of the most justly liberative objects which the Allies have had before them in the War has been the object of liberating a nation which has been an active ally and shed its blood very freely for us—the Armenians—and the Minister of Blockade has very frequently expressed the fervour of his interest in that cause. The Armenian cause is now in jeopardy, and it is almost impossible to see now what can be done for the Armenian. It is a paradox that probably now the best hope of doing anything for the Armenians is that the Germans themselves, and not the Turks, still keep the control of trans-Caucasia, and that it may be regarded as a matter of policy to preserve all populations as a source of revenue. The whole of this route of which I am speaking, and which is immediately in question, unlike the Siberian railway and the Pacific coast,

    539
    has this peculiarity, that it runs through non-Russian country. It passes, it is true, through Odessa, but even Odessa itself is only on the border of Russia. It is almost in Bessarabia, that is to say, in Roumanian country, and when you get across the Caspian again you are not, of course, in Russian country. You are among populations which have been in the past extremely anti-Russian. The Armenians and the Tartars were very anti-Russian, and the Georgians have only lately, it is believed, become more or less permeated by German propaganda.
    The gravest fear must also be felt on account of the Britishers who are in the Caucasus, a country inaccessible to the Allies, a country which must be governed by some Imperial rule, and which can never govern itself as a self-determined unit. There are not only the Consular and military agents of ours in the Caucasus but relief agents, who have been working so heroically. There are also the civilian British, including a great many British women, many of them governesses in Russian and Armenian families. The Caucasus is cut off from communication now with the Allies, and there is no homogeneous national force capable of being set upon its own feet, as there is, of course, in Russia proper, because of the medley of people there. No remedy at all at present can be seen for this disastrous situation, but when a mere reversal or abrogation of the Russo German Treaty is proposed we must remember that reversal itself would not effect what we want. The Baltic Provinces want self-determination. South-East Russia needs an Imperial Government. It was anti-Russian, and the new Russia will not give it an Imperial Government. To sot Russia up again we must assume that it will be in some form a non-Czarist Russia, a non-Imperial Russia. It will afford no solution to that country, and that is true whether it be a Bolshevik or even a Cadet Russia. It will not be an Imperialist Russia, and, therefore, the whole situation bristles with difficulties which it would have been an immense object to avoid. It seems to me that the cause of so great a crisis must not go unconsidered in a Debate like this, and that it is useful and interesting to go back for a moment to the last year or eighteen months of the situation in regard to Russia. Is any factor to blame for what has occurred; because the crisis is very great and dan-
    540
    gerous indeed? Let us look back on the situation previous to the Russian Revolution. There was still a prospect that Russia would advance again from Erzeroum, and we had accordingly made the treaty with Russia and France allotting the boundaries of Armenia and Syria to the Allies. But the Russia of the Czar was already deeply suspect. The Grand Duke had been dismissed from the chief command by corrupt and other influences. I remember my own brother, who went to Tiflis in relation to relief work, discussing with the Grand Duke what measures should be taken, and he was impressed by the precarious position in which the Grand Duke then stood, and on all hands there was talk of disloyalty and positive pro-Germanism in the Russian Army. If a settlement could have been made then, if these subsequent disasters could possibly have been forestalled, everyone knows how vital it was that that should be effected. Then came the moment when the late Government was upset, owing, as the public now believe, to the proposal which Lord Lansdowne made, and the discussions which followed. The change of Government took place, and it is generally understood that there was a difference of opinion upon the question of stating the Allies' aims in a more moderate or a less, moderate form. There followed at once in January the Allied statement of aims which committed the Allies to aims such as the encroachment upon Austria-Hungary, not to say the dismemberment of Austria-Hungary, and a great encroachment on Turkey, which clearly made a settlement impossible, and led to a prolongation of the War. That is all intimately connected with what happened in Russia and led up to the present point. The sequel came in. March with the revolution. The defection became evident with the advent: of the Kerensky Government, and even before that in the time of the Lvoff Government. It was seen to be a virtually accomplished fact during the summer. It was evident, when the Stockholm Conference was not permitted, and when despair increased in Russia, that Russia would not fight again, all the more so-because an offensive was attempted by the revolutionary Government and failed-What I mean is that the present crisis is not a new crisis at all; it is the result of the defection of Russia which took place months ago, and the cause of it is in reality

    541
    the unwillingness of Russia to fight for certain aims put forward, rightly or wrongly, by the Allies. Those in authority faced this disaster quite knowingly. Their eyes were open to what must be coming, they wrote off Russia as a factor in the War, and apparently without any plan by which that result was to be met. The surprise now felt by the public is no surprise at all to those who have had to consider in the course of their duty what was likely to happen as the result of the events which were occurring. I feel we ought to consider without any prejudice where really lies the responsibility for this disaster. The programme of aims led to it, but though it led to it, it should not be attacked if the aims were just aims. In that case the defection of Russia was merely the act of God, an inevitable thing for which no one was responsible. It is true that disasters injure Governments, but that is not really fair, and I do not desire to attribute the blame to the aims policy of the Allies unless it can be shown that those aims were mistaken in themselves. When this Government was formed, I welcomed its formation very warmly. I thought its predecessor was not active in many directions, and I am more than impartial in the judgment I venture to form of it now—I am decidedly prejudiced in its favour—and when one expresses regret and disappointment at the course which has been taken I myself only feel that loyalties, affections, and partialities should not at a time like this impose silence on us if we hold opinions and think those opinions should be expressed. What I think is that this Government took a wrong turn in regard to war aims, and instead of applying the reason and calculation which military events up to that time had shown to be wise, followed a course which, in regard to military events was, in fact, reckless. What to my mind settles the matter is that the aims advanced by the Allies have largely already been withdrawn. Many of those on account of which, as I believe, Russia was lost, have been dropped now. For instance, the break-up of Austria has been definitely dropped, for while it was demanded in January, 1917, it was repudiated in January, 1918. We used to hear from the Prime Minister of the necessity of the "knock-out." That was another cause of the alienation of feeling in Russia. That is not heard of now. Above all, events have proved that the
    542
    attitude of moderated aims if adopted a. year ago would have proved a strong.; policy. If the Allies had then made a. settlement embodying restoration and not, victory, who will deny that Russian sympathies would have been retained, if not wholly very largely, and if such a peace could have been secured, who would doubt that a peace on that basis would not be-preferable to the situation of to-day? Russia, if only merely restored, with the-munitions intact which she then held—the-frontiers of the old Russia restored—that would be a very welcome exchange for no-Russia at all. Again, a year ago the situation was more favourable. Only the other day we learned from Lord Milner that German feeling was more favourable a year ago than now. Something like a restoration peace was more acceptable at that time. It may be said you could not have-kept Russia fighting anyhow. That may be the case; nobody can tell. We can only say that the Russian Government evidently was sincere in its appeal that it could not keep Russia loyal for the War on the basis of the former aims. Another piece of evidence is the apparent opinion of President Wilson. At all events it is undeniable that we did not try that method of keeping Russia in the War, and that was the only method by which she could have been kept in the War. The decision of the Government was to adhere to the-policy of obtaining a peace by victory, a. humiliating peace.
    The CHAIRMAN: Really I must point out that this Consolidated Fund Bill deals. with the Vote of Credit for the ensuing financial year, and therefore hon. Members. must deal with present and future policy rather than with the past. They can only refer to the past in so far as it relates to. the present and the future.
    Mr. BUXTON: I apologise. I was not. aware of that. I thought it was in order to refer to the conduct of the Government in its action with regard to the future. I bow to your ruling.
    The CHAIRMAN: It must be within limits. The hon. Member has been half' an hour without coming to the practical application of his remarks.
    Mr. BUXTON: If I am not in order, I will not pursue that line, but I do not see how we can consider the future without considering what led up to it, and considering what line ought now to be taken.

    543
    I find it difficult; I do not really think it is possible. However, I would only urge in conclusion that it is not just, it is not reasonable to decide upon the policy now being pursued without connecting it with the policy pursued in the past. To my mind neglect of the past may fundamentally vitiate the position you take up in regard to the future, and that, I think, is partly the reason why the doubt as to our aims has destroyed to a great extent that unity of national feeling which existed in the earlier days of the War in this country—a unity which now, I think, would be maintained by the reversion to those original aims. Coming now to practical proposals, the proposal which alone can restore unity of feeling in this country, and which even now can appeal in Russia to those moderate forces, not Bolshevik forces, to which we desire to appeal—that remains, as it was in the time of the Kerensky Government, a restoration policy.
    6.0 P.M.
    There are some objections in Russia, as there was from the first, to a policy which is regarded there as not being based on restoration alone. That idea of attempting to revert to a policy of restoration and of a readiness to attempt to negotiate a settlement when the time comes when it is possible to negotiate on such a basis, is now associated with the name of Lord Lansdowne, and yet those who, like Lord Lansdowne, urge a considered and reasoned settlement are supposed to be lacking in patriotic feelings. The alternative policy which has been pursued has led to a succession of disasters, and I think it must be admitted may possibly lead to a catastrophe. Many of the activities which the Prime Minister has set on foot ought to have the warmest support of all of us. This is not a question of pacifism; it is a question of reason and calculation against recklessness. I hope we are all agreed that we should fight to the end for the results we want, and what we want is in the main a stable peace after the War. The difference comes in with regard to the material that is to be used for that purpose. We all agree that the physical factor is the main one, but the psychological factor has been neglected in the diplomatic conduct of the War, although the Foreign Secretary has rather indicated his view that it has been rightly directed. It is not a matter
    544
    of pacifism at all; it is a question of the unreasoning and reckless influences which have got the upper hand. There is a grave danger of disastrous developments unless the more calculating forces, represented in the public mind by Lord Lansdowne, obtain the upper hand in the conduct of our war policy.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): I am not quite sure that I have fully apprehended the purpose for which my hon. Friend has made the speech to which we have just listened. I do not gather that he drew any precise moral from his survey of the past, and although that survey in its full development was not permitted by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think we heard enough of it to understand the sort of line my hon. Friend desires our thoughts to pursue. I believe I am right in saying that he would have liked a year ago to have had what he calls a "peace by restitution"; in other words, he would have been content if the frontiers of France, Belgium, and Italy had remained where they were before the War broke out.
    Mr. BUXTON: I said with adjustments possibly between self-determination on the French and Italian frontier, and, let us say, claims in the colonial field.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not follow the last sentence. I understand that there are to be adjustments which we have no ground for believing the Central Powers would for one instant accept. There are to be adjustments which would give, I do not know how much, but something important I presume, to France and Italy. In every other respect the world should be restored, as far as frontiers are concerned, to prewar conditions. I am not going into that question. I think I can show the hon. Member that that is a very narrow and crude way of considering the problem of peace after the War, and I do not need to pursue it. Let me say it is clearly quite inconsistent with the doctrine of self-determination. The doctrine of self-determination of nationalities, as explained to the world by President Wilson and others, is certainly much more than a mere adjustment of frontiers, even using the expression "adjustment of frontiers" with the latitude which has become familiar with German politicians. The hon. Gentleman says the late Government fell on account of the same views expressed by Lord Lansdowne. That is entirely new, but it has no historic basis in fact what-

    545
    ever. It is a legend, and, for anything I know to the contrary, it may have grown up in the Press. It is absolutely, as far as my knowledge of what passed in the Cabinet, of which I was a member, was concerned, entirely without foundation.
    Another illusion which the hon. Member has is that he thinks Russia would have been kept in the War if we had made an announcement of our war aims. I have no reason whatever to think that the announcements made by Russian statesmen, as my hon. Friend will remember, have always included self-determination, and that never can be squared with mere adjustments. The hon. Member's statement that Russian (statesmen, by their declarations, have materially limited the scope of the War I believe to be inaccurate. I can assure my hon. Friend to the best of my belief that he has entirely misrepresented the play of political and social forces in Russia if he thinks the reason why Russia went out of the War is that our war aims were not publicly or semi-publicly reconsidered at the Conference of the Allies.
    Mr. BUXTON: I did say that the restatement of aims was a method by which Russia might have been kept in the War. May I ask the Foreign Secretary if there was hope that any other method might keep Russia in the War?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Member has suggested a remedy. I do not profess to have a remedy for the misfortunes that have occurred, as I think to civilisation itself, from the fact that the Russian Revolution occurred in the middle of a European war. 1, in common with every man an this House, I would almost say in common with every man in the country, welcome the change from autocracy to what we hoped, and still hope, what we believed and still believe, is going to be a reign of ordered liberty. The revolution, unfortunately, came at a time when Russia was weary with the sacrifices of a great war, and it was mixed up, and almost overshadowed on its political side, by pacifist influences which were allowed to reign uncontrolled in the Army, the Navy, and all the other forces which might have been, and should have been, co-ordinated to resist the common enemy.
    I think two or three hon. Gentlemen, in the course of this afternoon's Debate, have drawn a parallel or a contrast, as the case may be, between the Russian and the French Revolutions. There are
    546
    resemblances in the fact that we hope from the Russian Revolution there will spring up in the future as great advantages to mankind, or to the country immediately concerned, as sprang from the French Revolution. We can trace many of the faults, many of the crimes, which stained the French Revolution in the faults and crimes which unhappily stained the Russian. Revolution, and which, perhaps, are inseparable, however much we may regret it, from any great social convulsion. From our point of view, and the point of view of the War, and the point of view of how we are to secure in the future the freedom of small nationalities, and how we are to save the world from the domination of one over-greedy Power, no greater misfortune could have occurred than the coincidence between the Russian Revolution and the fact that a War was being conducted in which Russia was one of the great Allies.
    Personally I am an optimist about Russia, but I am not an optimist about the immediate future of Russia, because it seems to me that the difficulties thrown in Russia's way by the fact that the War raged before the revolution. Russia is only nominally out of the War at the present time. She is still suffering from the invasion of her enemy, and that is the real problem which touches all the questions raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Buxton) and all the questions raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees-Smith) who initiated this Debate. In France the French Revolution is associated with great military operations. It ended in the production of an army whose high efficiency was the wonder of Europe, and which overturned all the decrepit monarchies in the Central European States. Contrast that with what has happened in Russia since the revolution. There is not a single fighting instrument possessed by Russia which the Russian revolutionaries have not deliberately, but absolutely and completely destroyed.
    The Russian Army no longer exists, and the Russian Navy no longer exists. The Roumanian Army—that most gallant and most unfortunate body which might have and which would have co-operated to preserve both Russia and Roumania from the tyranny of the Central Powers—has been betrayed by Russia itself, opposed by Russia itself, its position rendered impossible, its supplies cut off, its communications destroyed. The unhappy results of

    547
    the revolution from the military point of view are quite plain and obvious to the most careless observer. I do not wish to cast the slightest aspersion on the sincerity and zeal of the Russian revolutionists. I am speaking of the Bolsheviks at this moment. Perhaps their predecessors were not wholly guiltless of the same error—I am unable to read the hearts of men. I do not presume to judge persons with whom I have no acquaintance, and of whom I am very ill-qualified to express an opinion. But that the actual course which they have pursued would render them completely helpless in the face of German aggression was from the first obvious to the whole world, and it is now obvious to these statesmen themselves. Now they express the desire— 1 am sure they express it genuinely and earnestly—that they should reconstitute the Russian Army for the purpose of Russian defence, and they would welcome our assistance doubtless in carrying out this object. But can you reconstitute it for purposes of national defence? Can you improvise a new instrument when the fragments of the old instrument are lying shattered around you I It cannot be done in a day. Had Russia not been at war, I believe it would have taken many years to have completed the course -what I hope and believe is to be the beneficent course—of the Russian Revolution.
    Autocracy, however necessary it may have been to create Russia—and it is very difficult to see how the Russia we know could have been created without it—showed itself quite incapable of bringing into existence that frame of mind which makes a great self-conscious nation independent of the particular form which its institutions may have at the moment. The autocracy was destroyed, it fell almost without a blow, and immediately Russia fell into chaos. Really, it is not true to say—I am not sure that it was not my hon. Friend behind me who said it—that exactly the same thing happened in France. The same thing did not happen in France. I do not say that you cannot find in this or that episode parallels to the French Revolution, but the total effect of the French Revolution was not the disintegration of France but its integration. The units out of which modern France was constructed were no doubt compacted into a nation under the old monarchy, but the divisions between
    548
    these units were still obvious. They still remained in the institutions of the country, and it was not until the revolution, until the passions excited by the revolution, and the love of unity which the revolution brought forth, that France became homogeneous from end to end, and all the old provincial distinctions were swept away. Precisely the opposite has happened in Russia.
    The revolution comes and immediately all the old divisions between populations, between different regions, between different creeds, have suddenly become marked and prominent. First this body and then that body threatens to fall away, and it must take time, inevitably take time, before we see the end of that process and know clearly how much of the old Russia, if any, ought to cease to form part of the new Russia, and how the new Russia will be constituted. A very difficult process in time of peace, a very difficult process in time of prosperity. But how are you going to carry it out in time of war, when you have at your gates an enemy remorseless, persevering, quite unscrupulous, like that which is dealing, at its own sweet will, with Russia at the present moment? That is the real difficulty which we have all got to think over and to deal with to the best of our ability when we consider some of the problems raised by the hon. Gentleman who initiated this Debate. His speech was a violent attack—1 do not use the word "violent" in any offensive sense, but it was a strong attack—on what he conceived the policy of the Government to be with regard to Japan and Siberia, entirely oblivious of the facts which I have just tried to bring before the House, and based upon a profound misunderstanding of what any human being has ever thought, contrived, or desired with regard to Allied intervention, Japanese or other, in Russian affairs. The hon. Gentleman's whole speech was based upon the idea that a Japanese expedition to Russia was designed to bring about, and would inevitably have the effect of bringing about, the dismemberment of Russia. No other hypothesis ever occurred to him as either probable or, indeed, possible. He laid down as a universal proposition that whenever one country sends troops into another, those troops invariably stay where they are sent, and annexation is the result—a very bad look-out for the North of France.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): That is what the Germans say.
    Mr. BALFOUR: It is a very bad lookout for the North of France if there is the slightest foundation in that theory. Of course, such events have occurred, but the idea that they must occur—it is obvious that they ought not to occur—I think the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will admit is really absurd. At all events, if he wants to understand the view of those who think that the time may come when Japanese aid may be very properly given in this contest, he must remember the two points that I have described. In the first place, under those circumstances the Japanese would be the friends, and not the enemies of Russia. They would be Allies of Russia against Germany. Not the plunder of Russia, but its preservation from Germany would be the object. Everybody who heard the hon. Gentleman's speech—there were not many Members in the House—must be perfectly well aware that was an hypothesis which never even occurred to him. I think that it does not say much for the hon. Gentleman's perspicacity, or perhaps I ought to say his charity. I should like to ask him a question. I do not at all suggest that these problems are not problems of immense difficulty. He says that Germany is still 100 miles west of Petrograd. Petrograd is, I should think, some 3,000 or 4,000 miles west of Vladivostock. What possibility or probability is there that Germany will get to Siberia and commit any injury inside Siberia either upon Russia or upon the cause of the Allies? I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands the condition of Russia of which I have endeavoured just now to give a sketch to the House.
    I do not for a moment believe that Germany is going to try and send great organised military forces from Riga to Vladivostock. I agree that would be probably an operation of very great difficulty, and certainly, from a purely military point of view, would be a very great, unnecessary and even fatal waste of power. But does the hon. Gentleman not see that now Russia lies absolutely derelict upon the waters, and that now it has no power of resistance at all there can be a German penetration from end to end of Russia which, I think, will be absolutely disastrous for Russia
    550
    itself and certainly will be very injurious to the future of the Allies. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman knows how far this kind of penetration has already gone on. I suspect that at this moment a German officer is much safer travelling at large through Russia than an Allied officer. Why? Not because the Russians love the Germans, but because, as a matter of fact, the German penetration has really struck at the root of Russian power. I was informed the other day that, only one bank was allowed at Moscow. That bank is a Gorman bank. The Bolshevik Government, I believe, sincerely desire—I hope not too late, though I fear it may be so—to resist this German penetration. How can they resist it when they themselves, or their predecessors, have destroyed every instrument which makes resistance possible?
    If the hon. Gentleman and the House have followed me so far, they will perceive that inevitably Russia's Allies have to ask themselves whether, if Russia herself has destroyed every instrument of self-protection which she once possessed, they cannot themselves among themselves supply that which she now lacks. We do that in Russia's own interests and for Russia's own sake, if it is done. It is not done to satisfy the greed of this or that Power. It is not done with any hope of gain. Good Heavens, our relations with Russia in this War do not suggest gain! It is done because we believe in the cause we are fighting, because we believe if Germany does really penetrate and send its tentacles through the whole of that vast Empire, not by vast armies travelling from East to West, but by methods perfectly well-known to Germany and well within her power, that there will be a transference of the huge resources of Russia, especially of the richest part of the Russian Empire, namely, Western Siberia, to say nothing of those vast military stores of which one hon. Gentleman spoke rather airily in the course of this Debate, and which I can assure him His Majesty's Government would be very reluctant to see transferred from the Allied side to the enemy's side.
    That is from the Allied point of view. But may I ask the House to consider this question from the Russian point of view? It is, of course, impossible for any man to pretend to penetrate the future. Russia has always been a country of surprises. A country of surprises it remains at the

    551
    present moment. What are the things that most of us fear for Russia herself when we look into the future? Frankly, 1 will tell the House what I most fear for Russia. It is this: Under the impulse, under the shock of the great revolutionary cataclysm, all social order has been shaken to its foundations. As everybody knows, many disasters have occurred, and, I fear, many crimes have been committed. It is Germany's interest, I believe, to foster, to continue, and to promote that condition of disorder. Those who watch Germany's methods throughout the world know quite well that she always wishes to encourage disorder in every other country but her own. If the country is a Republican country, then she wishes to introduce Absolutism; if it be a country under Absolute Government, then she wishes to encourage rebellion. She counts it her gain that other Governments should be weak, and she knows well enough that there is no better way of making other countries weak than making them divided —houses divided against themselves.
    Therefore, I believe Germany, unchecked, will do her best to continue these disorders which, unhappily, already have stained the path of the Russian Revolution. What will be the result? What must be the result? The result must be—especially in a country where a sense of national unity appears, at all events for the moment, to be singularly weak compared with that which prevails in other civilised countries—that men will at last look round and say to themselves, "This disorder is intolerable. It makes life impossible. Human effort cannot go on. Something must be done, good or bad, to put an end to mere chaos" There will, therefore, be different classes in Russia, some from patriotic motives, some from personal and purely selfish motives, who will welcome anything in the world which gives them the semblance of a stable, orderly, and civilised Government. When that time comes, then I conceive that Germany will say, "Now we will step in. We will, by all the open and subterranean methods which we have developed and cultivated, now exercise our power in the country. We will re-establish, possibly in some new form, possibly even in its old form, the autocracy," which we in this House hope will have gone for ever, and you will have, in a Russia shorn of some of its fairest provinces, set up again an
    552
    autocracy far worse than the old autocracy, because it will lean upon a foreign Power for its continued existence.
    If that prophecy come to pass—and I most earnestly hope that I am in this a false prophet—then, indeed, all our dreams of Russian development and Russian liberty will be gone. Russia under this government would be a mere echo of the Central Powers. It will cease to be a makeweight in any sense to German militarism. It will have lost all that initiative and all that power for self-development which we so earnestly hoped the revolution had given it. The picture I draw I admit is an imaginary picture, as all pictures of the future must be. I admit it is a dark and sombre picture. Will anybody have the courage to say that they can draw a horoscope of the future more likely to be fulfilled if Russia remains, as I fear she is at this moment, absolutely helpless in the face of the German penetration? It all turns upon that. If Russia could indeed rouse herself now, and offer effective resistance to the German invader, that very fact might give her a national spirit and a national sense of unity which might make her future far more splendid than her past. But I fear that, as this revolution has come in the middle of the War, and unfortunately come upon a war-weary nation, and as those who are responsible for it unhappily treat it almost as an article of their creed that an army should hardly exist and, if it did exist, should hardly be disciplined, as, unfortunately, the country is in that condition, I am unable to see how, without some external help, Russia is going to resist the invasion of this particular malady, this German malady.
    Therefore, the question we inevitably ask ourselves, and must ask ourselves is, "Can any of the Allies give to Russia in her extremity that help and that sympathy of which she so sorely stands in need"? It is help and sympathy which the Allies desire to give her, not invasion and plunder, as the hon. Member supposed. I agree that there may be circumstances, there may be prejudices, there may be feelings which render assistance in the East by the only country which can give it in the East a question of difficulty, a question of doubt, a question over which statesmen will hesitate, a question which must be weighed in every balance and looked at from every point of view. But that we the Allies—America, Britain, France, Italy, Japan—should all do that

    553
    we can at this moment of Russia's fate to help her through the great crisis of her destiny, appears to me to be beyond doubt, and I reject a priori no solution and no suggestion which seems to offer the slightest hope of our doing any good in that direction. I do not think I need say anything more than that. The House would not expect me to talk about the discussions that may go on between the Allies and the Foreign Offices of the different countries. The broad principles which, I think, ought to animate us in any decision, when any decision is taken, I have laid before the House, I hope, with sufficient force and sufficient clarity.
    My Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) reminds me of one thing. I do not think I can let this Debate finish without repudiating vehemently the suggestion made by the hon. Member who opened it—that Japan is moved by selfish and dishonourable motives. In any course which may have been discussed in Japan itself, by the mouth of her statesmen, or with her Allies, Japan has behaved with perfect loyalty. If Japan gave promises with regard to Russian integrity, or any question connected with Russia, she would keep them, as she has kept all the promises she has made to us and her Allies in connection with this War or with any other great public transaction. Therefore, I draw no distinction from that point of view between Japan and the other countries who make up the great body of belligerents upon' the Entente side. I hope I have said enough, and not too much, to indicate the general problems as they present themselves to this Government and to our Allied Governments, but, at the same time, also to show that we recognise to the full how difficult this problem is, how hard it is to help a nation like Russia, which, partly through its own fault and partly through undeserved misfortunes, is utterly incapable for the moment of helping herself.
    The House will feel, I am sure, after having listened to this Debate, and after having heard what I have ventured to lay before them, that the decisions which the Allies may have to come to are decisions not without difficulty, but that the principles upon which those decisions must be come to are neither ungenerous, nor unfair, nor hostile to Russia, nor hostile to the Russian revolution, but, on the contrary, that our
    554
    one object is to see that Russia should be strong, intact, secure and free. And if these objects can be attained, then, indeed, and then only, will the Russian Revolution bring forth all the fruits which Russia's best friends desire to see.
    Mr. MORRELL: It is rather significant that on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, when we have been engaged in voting the largest sum of money which has ever been voted in this House for the conduct of the War, we should have been engaged all this afternoon in discussing little else—indeed, practically nothing—than the situation in Russia. Everyone must recognise the sympathetic tone of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Russia. I propose to devote my remarks to the situation which is caused by the practical withdrawal of Russia from active participation in the War. I believe we all recognise that we have arrived at a most critical stage in the conduct of the War, and it is a curious and surprising thing that in the course of these Debates, which have now gone on for a week upon this huge Vote of Credit, no one, since the Leader of the House made his first speech in introducing it, has attempted to make anything like a survey of the situation of the War. I regret very much that my leaders, if I may so call them, on the Front Bench should so far abdicate their proper function as to have left entirely alone, without criticism and without analysis, the speech which was made on behalf of the Government on that occasion. We have had many discussions on points of detail, every sort of question has been raised, but no one has said anything as to the general situation of the War. I hope, therefore, the House will not think it presumptuous if I attempt to survey once more the present position on this the only opportunity we shall have for three or four months.
    The Leader of the House made a most interesting and important speech. He spoke with his usual frankness and with that absence of rhetoric and that businesslike tone which I, for one, very much welcome in his speeches as compared with those which are sometimes made by the Prime Minister. I do not think anyone listening to that speech will say that he drew an unduly optimistic picture of the situation. In fact, those who remember the sort of cries which were raised in the Press when this Win-the-War Government came into power fifteen

    555
    months ago, must be curious to see the tone of the speeches which they now find it necessary to address to this House and the country. The right hon. Gentleman asked us to consider the four main theatres of the War. He took, first of all, the position in Roumania, which he said, rightly enough, was little less than tragic. Everyone must sympathise with the position in which the Roumanians find themselves as the result of the action they have taken in support of the Allies. He said:
    "We can give Roumania our sympathy, but we can give her no help whatever,"
    and he spoke with a certain amount of bitterness, as I thought, of the situation which has arisen in that country. The next theatre of war which he discussed was Turkey, Mesopotamia, and Palestine. He warned us as regards those three countries that the operations could not possibly be decisive. He said, in effect,
    "The expeditions that we have carried out have had very valuable results. They have restored the prestige of this country. They have done something to remedy the blows to oar prestige which were caused by the disaster in the Dardanelles, by the capture of Kat, and by the turst ineffectual expedition to Palestine."
    But, he added, very significantly,
    "You can never have a decisive result from an expedition that gees so far oversea as those particular expeditions,"
    and he warned us not to expect too much in that direction.
    7.0 P.M.
    He then turned to the position in Salonika, which, he said, was in some respects the most unsatisfactory of the theatres of war—
    "it is perfectly true that our troops are engaged in no theatre where the position is so unsatisfactory from many points of view as in Salonika.…. The position there is one which might become very dangerous.…. The Central Powers, through their better means of communication, might be able to send a force which it would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, for us adequately to engage."
    So far as regards Salonika. He then turned to the position in the West, and pointed out how what has happened in Russia has greatly improved the position of our enemies, though it is still difficult to form an estimate of how great that advantage is. At another point he said,
    "What has happened in Russia has completely altered the position on the Western Front."
    About thirty divisions have come from Russia to the Western Front, and though our troops are confident that they will withstand any attack which may be made against them, he implied that they must remain in a defensive position—
    556
    "They have been working with an energy and skill which is beyond all praise to strengthen the defences.…They have used a larger quantity of barbed wire than was used during the whole of the preceding year."
    He went on to say that practically the whole hope of this country, so far as winning the War is concerned, depends on America, and that as regards the American Forces that again depends on the positon with regard to shipping. He said:
    "The value of the American Forces depends only on the success of operations at Sea, which enable those resoures to be brought here for the use of the Allies."
    There you have I do not think an unfair summary of the main points in the speech as regards our military position which was made by the Leader of the House a week ago in introducing this Vote. It really means that there is no longer any doubt that this War is becoming, if it has not already become, a war of attrition, the most cruel and devastating form of war which is known to mankind, that there is no longer now any immediate hope of breaking through, and that all the promises which were put forward when this Government was formed have proved to be unfounded, that the "knock-out" blow cannot be delivered, that the Germans, who we were told by the Prime Minister were squealing for peace—I think those were the very words he used soon after he came into power—are no longer in that position, and that all we can look forward to, if the policy of the present Government is to be carried out, is a long, wearisome, and difficult war, with the hope that ultimately the introduction of the forces of America will enable us to get the success which the Government looks forward to. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the country will not shrink from any effort to secure the result which we set out to achieve when the War began. We are entitled to ask, when we have come to this stage in the War, what are the results which the Government is proposing to achieve? How long are we to continue a warfare of this sort? Until the Government is satisfied that we are in a position to get the victory which they say we must have. The right hon. Gentleman defined, in a single phrase, the aims for which we are to continue this terrible and devastating War. He said:
    "They were summed up in a phrase, very often quoted—the destruction of Prussian militarism.'" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1918, col. 2153,Vol.103]

    557
    We are, therefore, confronted with this policy: We are now to continue this War until we have achieved an aim which cannot be better defined than that, and which, if it were denned, could never be accomplished. We could never destroy Prussian militarism in the true sense of the word in the way the Leader of the House hoped. Prussian militarism can only be destroyed by the German people themselves. No continuation of this War, with all its horrors and all its slaughters, is going to be of any use whatever if that is the only aim which is to be accomplished. I want to see a very different aim and a very different policy pursued. An hon. Member, speaking earlier in the Debate, told us that it is possible we might have an alternative Government, but there was no alternative policy. I utterly dissent from that view. I believe the people in the country are getting more and more determined that we should find some alternative to the policy that is now being pursued—the mere blind continuation of this War for ends which have never been defined in any satisfactory way. If we ask what are the aims, we have first one speech of the Prime Minister and then another. But to this day our war aims have never been denned in a document binding on all the Allies. There is no wonder, as we contemplate the present position of affairs, as we know the sacrifices which have been made by all classes, as we think of the suffering, as we think of the situation of the country, as we think still more of the secret agreements which have made a profound impression upon the country, that there is war weariness such as the Leader of the House admits, and that there is growing up in the country a feeling which is at present very inadequately represented in this House. I believe it is profoundly untrue to say that there is no alternative policy. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) associated himself, I was glad to hear, with the policy connected with the name of Lord Lansdowne. I have always welcomed the courage, the wisdom, and, as I believe, the true statesmanship and foresight which Lord Lansdowne has shown and is showing at this time. His first letter was described by the Leader of the House as a national disaster. I think the true disaster would be if we could find no other set of statesmen and no policy to pursue different from the statesmen and the policy which now holds the field on that bench and in the country.
    558
    Lord Lansdowne, as I understand him, laid down two propositions which might be carried out at once, in regard to the policy of this country. In the first place, he asks that our aims should be defined in a way they have never yet been defined, with all the unnecessary accretions cut away. I do not know how far he would accept what I would accept as embodied in the phrase which has become famous, that in the peace settlement no side should demand annexations or penal indemnities, and that we should have adjustments on the lines of self-determination.
    What is the second change he advocates? He asks that no possible opportunity should be lost of finding out what is the real mind of our enemies and of entering into negotiations with them. In the Debate on the Address a suggestion was made by the right hon. Member for Dews-bury (Mr. Runciman) that it might be possible to have informal negotiations instead of the present system, by which the statesmen of each country answer each other as if by megaphone from various platforms, and that by these informal conferences we should ascertain whether some adjustment of this terrible business could not be reached. That proposal was welcomed by Count Hertling. Lord Lansdowne has, I think very rightly, expressed himself in favour of some such course. What do the present Government say? They say, in effect, "We cannot listen. It is idle to consider what Count Hertling may say on this or any other point so long as Germany continues to wage war as they are now doing." That is what the Leader of the House said a week ago in this House. He said:
    "All this met culous talk about what Count Hurtling means simply ridiculous. We have to judge the intentions of the Germans and those who are ruling Germany not by what they are saying but by what they are doing."
    We shall never get to the end of the War in that way. If all suggestions for negotiations are to be cast aside because the Germans are not carrying on the War in a way that we think it is right they should carry it on, we shall never get any-further. I am not saying, and I do not assert for one moment, that it would be possible immediately to make a satisfactory peace. I have never for a moment contemplated that the end of this War would not include complete restoration of Belgium and security for France. I think we are committed by ties of honour to those two propositions and to some restoration of Serbia. Those are funda-

    559
    mental objects and aims which have to be secured at whatever cost; but I do say that if we can be assured of that, and there seems reason for saying it, it is idle, it is worse than idle, it is criminal on the part of the Government, to say that they will on no account agree to any negotiations because of the manner in which the German rulers are carrying on the War. It is their duty to believe, until it is proved to the contrary, that the German Government who represent a people who are in some ways, as we know, as weary of the War as the people of this country, are sincere, and it is their duty to assume, until it is proved to the contrary, that Count Hertling is sincere in his suggestions. It is in my view utterly criminal as well as foolish to the last degree to reject, as the Government do, all suggestions for bringing by negotiation this War to an end.
    I do not want it to be said that I am asking for peace at any price. I do not know whether immediate peace can be obtained, but I do know that at the present the Government, so far as we can judge from the speeches made, are not using every endeavour to see by what means and by what honourable methods this terrible struggle can be brought to an end. We are in the fourth year of the War which has cost, and is costing all the countries of Europe a degree of ruin and misery and suffering which it is utterly impossible for any man living to estimate. I suppose historians in times to come will be able to estimate something of what this War has cost. It is perfectly clear that on the lines on which the Government are proceeding there is no immediate hope of any end of this War, and it is time that the country and this House should insist on such a change of policy and such a change of Government as would make it certain that no means should be omitted which would bring this devastating and terrible War to an end.
    Major DAVIES: I desire to say a few words in regard to the speech of the Foreign Secretary. I think the House listened to that speech with appreciation, and if any criticism can be directed against the ten our of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks it is that he did not go quite far enough. I think we have arrived at one of the most critical stages in the course of this War, and that the steps which the Allies will have to take in connection with
    560
    the position of affairs in the East will involve one of the most momentous decisions which they have come to during the last three and a half years. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, that if the Germans are allowed to pursue their course of conquest in Russia, unfettered and unhampered, Russia will inevitably be forced back into the old regime, and the Germans, with the state of anarchy in Russia reinforced by German intrigue and German activity, will undoubtedly bring back the old regime under the Czar. I do not think it is possible to realise Germany living alongside any other form of government in Russia. You cannot imagine the Russian Republic living alongside autocracy in Germany. Therefore, the German military party will strain every nerve to produce a state of affairs in Russia under which a return to the old regime is absolutely certain; and for hon. Gentlemen opposite to protest against any intervention on the part of Japan because they apparently wish us to believe that it would result in the restoration of the Czar is a very wrong view to take, and one which is bound to end in disaster. If the Germans are allowed to pursue their policy as they are at present, the Russians will find themselves forced against their will to go back to the system of government which they have abhorred in the past. The Germans undoubtedly have determined to turn the Black Sea into a German lake. They have already reached Odessa, and they are said to be 100 miles West of Petrograd. Their object is to secure control of transportation over the whole of Siberia, and, if possible, secure control over all the foodstuffs and agricultural produce of which, at present there are large amounts stored in Siberia.
    Looking at the matter from the point of view of this country and from the point of view of the democracy of this country, I cannot for the life of me understand how hon. Gentlemen can get up and endeavour to suggest motives on the part of the Japanese people for which they have not the slightest foundation in point of fact. After all, Japan, is the greatest democracy in the East. It has a constitutional form of government which is modelled on the Constitution of this country. Hon. Gentlemen may say that there is a military party in Japan, but there is one in every country, and the Japanese are the greatest democracy in the East and the pioneers of democracy in the East. For

    561
    Members to get up in this House and denounce Japan and suggest suspicion of these people who have been our Allies throughout this War, who, ever since they gained a Constitution for themselves, and threw off the feudalism which had existed in this country, always played the game, and have paid more attention to international law than many European countries, is, to my mind, a very wrong and criminal proceeding. I should have thought that we in this country would have held out our hands to Japan and said to this young democracy, "Come over and help us to redress the balance in the East; now that Russia has succumbed, help us in establishing a new condition of affairs in the world which will make these things impossible in the future." Instead of, that, some hon. Members say "No, they must be watched. We cannot rely on their word." They sow mistrust and suspicion—the very thing we did in Ireland at the beginning of the War when we refused the good offices of certain of the Irish people to raise units for the War.
    That is not the right spirit. This House should send a message to the Japanese people and Parliament, calling upon them to support the cause for which the Allies are fighting in this War. What is the use of talking about a League of Nations after the War if we are not going to hold out an invitation to democracies in the Allied countries who are fighting the cause of freedom and justice? I cannot understand the attitude of some hon. Members opposite, who tell us that they are out to smash militarism, to establish a League of Nations, and bring about disarmament, and yet refuse to accept the assistance of a great nation which is becoming more democratic every day and which will have a great say in the future conduct of the world. If this is the sort of spirit that is spreading in this country, we are simply playing into certain other forces which may be operating in Japan and in the East, and we are inviting them to throw their weight into the other side of the scale. I think that the attitude of the Government is to welcome the co-operation and assistance of Japan in every way possible. We know perfectly well that Germany is, in the most insidious way, doing her level best to undermine our influence in Allied countries, and certain temptations in the shape of territory and other material promises are dangled before the Japanese, as they are before other members of the Entente. I sincerely hope that the Gov-
    562
    ernment will go forward and do everything it can, and that this House will back it up in expressing to the Japanese people that we welcome them as members of the Entente and of the Allied League of Nations which is going to see this thing through, and which is going to see that the aims for which the Allies are fighting are finally victorious in this struggle.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not propose to continue the discussion on the subjects which have engaged the attention of the House this afternoon. I will make only one single reference to the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I do not think that it is really a contribution to the controversy to present an entirely novel and untrue account of the constitutional arrangements of our Eastern Ally. There is no use in saying that a country is a democracy when it is not. As everybody knows, the Japanese Constitution is as nearly as possible a replica of the constitution of the German Empire, and in these circumstances it is wilfully deluding ourselves to talk about democracy in such a connection. I have no desire to deal with the Far Eastern situation. I think that the House is indebted to the Foreign Secretary for his speech to-day, because in regard both to Russia and the East he dealt with the situation in terms of reality, and we too seldom have those subjects dealt with by spokesmen of the Government in terms of reality.
    I will now turn to the subject on which I wish to speak. On the 20th of February last, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) drew attention to the case of a young officer who had been sentenced to death by a court-martial something like a year ago. I think that that was on the 5th January, 1917. I wish to draw the attention of the War Office to that case, mainly for the purpose of obtaining from the War Office certain reforms in respect of procedure at courts-martial. I do not mean to dwell on the rather harrowing and heartrending aspects of this case. The accused was a young boy twenty-one years of age, who about a month before the alleged offence took place had made an application to his commanding officer for a transfer to sea service—he was in a naval division—because he felt that his nerve was giving way. But his officer dissuaded him on the ground that nearly all men feel at times the effect of the strain, and that he would be all right. His division went into action

    563
    on the 13th November. On that day this particular officer and another were left in reserve, the commanding officer knowing the young man's condition. But, as it happened, the battalion suffered very severely, and it was found necessary to call up the other two men into the field. What exactly happened is somewhat obscure. We have an account of the incident given by the young man himself to a friend of his in the Army, and in a letter to his father. We do not know the evidence which came before the court-martial. Apparently in the gathering dusk of the November night he did not carry out the order which had been sent to him. He failed, or appeared to have failed, in his duty, and on account of his failure he was arrested and charged. He was put on his trial on Boxing Day, six weeks later, and after the trial, in which the prisoner's friend had very little time for preparation and had been very ill-informed both as to the evidence and as to the prisoner's condition, the prisoner was. found guilty with a strong recommendation to mercy on the part of the Court. The prisoner heard nothing further of the matter—he was still under arrest, though his duties were to look after the letters of the men in the battalion—until the 4th January, when in the evening he was informed that the sentence of the Court was to be carried out, and he was shot at dawn on the following morning.
    That in brief is the narrative. The young man was a man who had volunteered in 1915. There was no doubt that he was neither a coward nor a shirker. He was a man many of whose relatives, both on the paternal and the maternal sides, had given distinguished service to their country in the Army and the Navy—mostly in the Navy After the incident—and one important tiling to remember in connection with the incident of which at different times he has given somewhat disconnected accounts, is that they can easily be explained by his nervous condition, if it was such as I think the facts point out—he was found at the time at which the alleged breach of discipline took place by another officer who happened to be his one and only enemy in the Army, and it was largely, if not entirely, upon the evidence of this one man that this boy officer was condemned to death and ultimately shot. But the first point I wish to make in regard to this particular case—and it
    564
    applies generally to procedures in courts-martial—is that the prisoner does not receive legal advice at the preliminary investigations. Now we are told—I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on various occasions has told us—that the procedure in courts-martial approximates to the procedure in civil trials in this country, that you have in the first place the preliminary investigation in which a summary of evidence is obtained, and that that preliminary investigation is equivalent to the procedure before a magistrate in the case of a criminal trial in civil life. It seems to me that it is very important, especially under the new conditions, where you have a civilian army, an army of men who are merely there for a short time, that you should, as far as possible give to every accused man, particularly where he is accused of a capital charge, the same privileges as are available to the lowest criminal in a civil Court. I do not think that there can be any answer to that contention. I suggest to the War Office that they may well consider that view, and I believe they would have behind them practically the unanimous opinion of everybody in this country if they made a new Regulation whereby it was provided that when a capital charge was made the prisoner should have, in the preliminary proceedings, the advantage of the assistance of the prisoner's friend, or the assistance of a solicitor, just as a man tried on a criminal charge in this country may have the assistance of a solicitor or counsel in the proceedings of the magistrate's Court. We know that where a man is accused he has the privilege of legal assistance, and that very frequently the proceedings come before the magistrate, who, having made the preliminary investigations, himself arrives at a decision, with the result that the case does not proceed further, and the prisoner does not undergo trial at all. I believe that if you had such a practice as that in the Army, you would frequently have the same result.
    Brigadier-General McCALMONT: So you do.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think, on the various occasions on which this question has been before the House, that was not put forward by the War Office. It may have been the practice in some cases with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is familiar, but undoubtedly there is no such right on the part of an accused man in the Army. It may have been the case as a matter of grace, but not as a matter of practice.
    General McCALMONT: I did not mean to say that the accused person is allowed assistance, but that very often cases are not sent for trial as a result of a review of the summary of evidence.
    Mr. PRINGLE: That may be true, but the result is far more likely to occur frequently if the accused has the assistance of the prisoner's friend, and if he is not left to his own resources, more especially if he is in a somewhat nervous condition, which is very often the case when one of these offences is charged against a man. That is the first point I put with reference to these serious charges, that there should be allowed to the accused person the services of the prisoner's friend at the preliminary investigation. What happened in this particular case was that the prisoner's friend was only appointed on the night of the 24th December, less than forty-eight hours before the trial began, and further that there was only available to him a summary of the evidence half an hour before he went into the Court to discharge his very onerous and responsible duties. I think it will be seen, therefore, that he had inadequate means and opportunities of dealing with the case. My hon. and gallant Friend below me, who is also a lawyer, is well aware that half-an-hour's perusal of the evidence before going into Court is rather an inadequate preparation for the serious duty to be performed. T think that under no conditions should a trial be carried on in that particular way.
    Then we have the point that we have no means of ascertaining the facts of the charge, and that it is now altogether impossible to obtain the minutes of evidence before the court-martial. I know that certain details of this evidences have been published in Mr. Bottomley's paper, and that they have been called into question as being inconsistent with the minutes of evidence. The War Office kept to themselves these minutes of evidence. That is in accordance with the Regulations. The only person to whom the minutes of evidence can be made available is the accused, and in this case the accused is dead, and nobody knows except the officials of the War Office. The court-martial is an open Court, though undoubtedly the bulk of the courts-martial in France are carried out in private; still, any member of the public could have gone into this court-martial, and could have taken a shorthand note of the evidence, which he could have published in any newspaper in this country. But
    566
    simply because of this piece of red tape, the War Office Regulations, the minutes of evidence are not available to anybody but the accused, who is now dead, and nobody now can ascertain the facts as they were presented to the Court. I think it is a stupid Regulation. In these cases it is important to ascertain the evidence taken at the trial, and the minutes of evidence should be made available to anybody interested in the case. Another point connected with this case is that the verdict was not given at the time. I think it is a great blot upon the procedure of these Courts to hold up the decision, as was done in this case, for example, for a period of ten days. This boy still continued to perform certain duties, and it was not until the 4th January, when he was playing cards with some brother officer, that another officer came to him with the communication that he was to be shot at dawn on the morrow. I submit that the verdict should be given at the time. I think that is very important, for this reason, namely, that the prisoner may have some chance of making an appeal against the sentence.
    There is in the War Office Regulations nothing in the nature of an appeal from the military Court. In this case the accused man was condemned to death with a strong recommendation to mercy. Apparently, the sentence was taken from one commanding officer to another commanding officer until finally it reached the Commander-in-Chief. In each instance the papers were submitted, and no effort seems to have been made to ascertain the ground upon which that strong recommendation to mercy was based. It seems to me that in cases of capital sentences the officer or the man in the Army should be entitled to the same right of appeal as the criminal in civil life. I think this is of more importance in view of the fact that cases of shell-shock are now so common in the ranks of the Army. The question of shell-shock has frequently been discussed in this House, and we have had an assurance from the Undersecretary for War that, in cases where the men have suffered from shell-shock and have returned to the Front and have subsequently been on trial and convicted, before anything is done on the conviction, care is taken to investigate the circumstances thoroughly, so as to ascertain whether the nervous condition of the accused could be accounted for. It seems to me that the argument which has led the War Office to take these precautions in respect

    567
    of men who have already admittedly suffered from shell-shock is equally valid in its application to the man in respect to whom there may be a suspicion that shell-shock has affected him. Undoubtedly in this particular case there was ground for the suspicion that the boy's nerves had given way. There was an application by the accused to the commanding officer on that very ground. The prisoner's friend an this case seems to have been very much impressed by the nervous condition of the boy, because of the difficulty he experienced in obtaining a connected account from him, which prevented the prisoner's friend from putting the accused in the witness-box. I think, where these nervous conditions affect officers and men in our Army, that there is a conclusive case in support of an opportunity being given to appeal in the case of all capital sentences. I know that there are difficulties in the way because of the Regulations, and that legislation would be required, but I submit that legislation of this kind would soon pass through this House. If my hon. Friend were to make himself responsible for such a humane reform in the procedure relating to military law,. he would be adding greatly to the immense services which he has rendered to the War Office and to the Army during his tenure of office. These are the main points I desire to make. This right of appeal is possessed by the meanest and lowest criminal in the country. It is denied to men who have freely and voluntarily joined the forces to fight the battles of their country, and who in. a moment of nervous breakdown may have committed offences against military law. Such a discrimination is indefensible. The right of appeal in cases of court-martial exists in France. Bolo Pasha has that right.
    Mr. LYNCH: He has two appeals.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Yes; he has two appeals, but a soldier in our Army, who may be suffering under the conditions I have described, is not entitled even to one. I think the case I have made out is unanswerable. I have endeavoured to put it in the most moderate terms, and I appeal to my hon. Friend who is about to reply—and I wish there had been a larger House to come to his assistance and to give greater weight to the opinions of the House—to do what he can to obtain a reform which I believe he himself approves find the carrying out of which I think he would desire.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I think the House will generally agree that my hon. and learned Friend has made a very moderate statement this evening. Hon. Members will realise that the question is a very difficult one to discuss at anytime, and I hope they will also realise that those of us who are charged with Army affairs are not lacking, so far as it is in our power to show it, in human sympathy. Towards the end of the hon. and learned Member's speech he Struck a note which was a proper one to strike in a Debate of this sort. The country very often thinks that it is the military commanders, the military caste, and the War Office who are responsible for these sentences and these punishments. But my hon. and learned Friend pointed out quite clearly, distinctly, and accurately, that these are not the authorities who are responsible, and that they merely administer the law as it is passed in this House every year. Nothing grieves me more than to see men who cannot defend themselves accused by the unenlightened in this country of gross inhumanity and even callousness in administering a law which, year after year, is passed by this very House of Commons for those men to administer. I am not going to enter into controversy over the facts of this case; indeed, I do not think there can be very much controversy about them as stated by my hon. and learned Friend. When this case was first raised in this House I remember well the painful impression created on my own mind when I heard it stated that the prisoner's friend only saw the accused half an hour before the trial. But I have since had what I feel is absolutely conclusive evidence on this point. After the Report of the Debate had appeared in the papers, I received a letter from the prosecutor, written to me from a Home Command, in which he states that on one day before the trial the prisoner's friend was in consultation with the prisoner from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Mr. PRINGLE: How long before the trial?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think it was on some day before the trial.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Was it not Christmas eve?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think the letter said it was on the Sunday before the trial. In any case, I should like to assure the

    569
    House that the statement as first made here and in the Press was not accurate, and that the prisoner had every opportunity of availing himself of the services of an officer who, I believe, has distinguished legal qualifications. My hon. Friend also made a strong complaint, which appeared likewise in the Press, that no notice was taken of the recommendation to mercy. I want the House to know what was actually the charge against this officer, and I will give a short description of what he did not do. The accused received orders at brigade headquarters to join his battalion, which was at the time heavily engaged in the front line. He did not do so either then or at any time while they were engaged, and he was found in a village behind the line two days later when the battalion was relieved. The House can picture what had been happening in the front line. Every man was needed, every officer was needed not only for his own service but to steady the men, who were being heavily shelled. In these circumstances there was nothing to do but to try this officer on the charges which were preferred against him. The Court found him guilty, and, as is almost invariably the case, recommended him to mercy on account of his youth. My hon. Friend made a strong point on the fact that the verdict was not announced to the accused there and then. I think the House will disagree with that attitude. What actually happens in cases like that is this: A copy of the proceedings having been signed by the President of the Court, with the recommendation to, mercy, they go forward, first, to the Brigadier-General, then to the Corps Commander, next to the Army Commander, then to the Judge Advocate-General, to make sure that there is no legal difficulty, and finally to the Commander-in-Chief. I do not think my hon. and learned Friend would like an accused person to be deprived of any of those revisions. I am quite certain that Army officers and men in the Army would be the first to rise in revolt against the abandonment of that procedure. I have told the House on several occasions what the proceedings are in regard to courts-martial and how they are most carefully followed. No commanding officer wishes to get rid of an officer, and I can assure the House that both Lord French and Sir Douglas Haig are two of the most humane men who ever commanded great forces in the field.
    570
    The next complaint of my hon, and learned Friend was that there was no counsel at the preliminary investigation, and he went on to say that very often in civil life, on the criminal side, the pre luminary investigation by a stipendiary magistrate results in the charge being dismissed. That is perfectly true. But it is equally true in the case of the soldier. Let me tell the House in a very few words what actually does happen. The accused is taken before his commanding officer and the evidence against him is given by witnesses. Sometimes it is parole evidence and sometimes it is a written statement. The rules of evidence do not apply, however, because the proceedings are non-judicial. If the commanding officer is of opinion that the case is one which does not warrant the accused being discharged or one which he can deal with summarily, he may adjourn the case and have the evidence reduced to writing, with the sole object of forwarding it to a superior authority so that the directions of that authority may be received in regard to it. The superior authority has to form an opinion as to whether or no an offence is disclosed under the Army Act and whether it is possible that the evidence would support such a charge. If the superior authority is satisfied on this point, it is open to him to direct the accused to be tried by court-martial, or, on the other hand, it is open to him to dismiss the case. In this case it was decided by the superior authority that this officer should be tried by court-martial. The court-martial which convicted him and added a recommendation to mercy had, under a Section of the Army Act, unlimited powers of punishment. It could act by sentencing the accused to death. It could have dismissed him from the Service, and if it was not convinced that the offence was a serious one it could have punished the officer in other ways than by inflicting the death sentence. Supposing the court-martial had taken upon itself not to sentence this youth to death but to reprimand him, neither the Field-Marshal nor the Commander-in-Chief could have altered the sentence.
    My hon. Friend complains there was no counsel present at the investigation to begin with. I do not think, in view of what I have said, that it is highly important that counsel should be then present. This way of collecting the summary of evidence has for a long time been the established practice in the Army, and I

    571
    understand it is a practice which meets with general favour among both officers and men. My hon. and learned friend also complained very bitterly that the accused's friend had no copy of the evidence until half an hour before the trial. It is the established practice that the moment a summary of evidence is taken in the way I have described, a copy of it is by order handed to the accused person, and I for one cannot understand why if, as is admitted now, two days before the trial the accused and the accused's friend were in long consultation for four hours on the Sunday, the accused did not produce a copy of that summary of evidence which he was bound in law to have.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is there any evidence that he did have it?
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know anything about that, but I am almost certain that he had, because I believe it is the law that the accused person must have it. In any case, he must have known the evidence against him. I have been for some time in the same profession as my hon. and learned Friend, and I am quite certain that if I were called in to defend a man charged on this very grave charge I should first of all ask him whether he had the summary of evidence which it was my duty to see.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Just to clear the matter up, may I say that the statement which has been made to me is this, that the prisoner's friend alleged that the prisoner had not in fact a copy of the summary of evidence, and that he was only able to get it within half an hour of the trial?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If my argument is right that cannot be a reason for blaming the War Office. If the accused, having got the summary of evidence, could not in fact produce it to his counsel two days before the trial the War Office and the Commander-in-Chief in France ought not to be blamed. I am told, on what I regard as most reliable authority, that in every case, particularly in the case of sentence of death, the summary of evidence is always handed to the accused person. My hon. and learned Friend's next point was that it was a great mistake that the proceedings of the court-martial could not be produced. As my hon. and gallant Friends who are sitting in front of me
    572
    know perfectly well, it is the law that the proceedings in a court-martial will only be produced to the accused person, and in my judgment that is a sound rule, because any person might at any time and for the most flimsy reasons ask the Judge Advocate-General, who is the custodian of all proceedings, to hand over the proceedings of a court-martial to him. I think that would be intolerable. I have always taken that line in this House. In the Dublin cases I took that line, and I went further. It is a technical point, and some might call it a lawyer's point, but I said that because he is dead there is no person alive who can compel the Judge Advocate-General to produce the proceedings. I for one, until the law is altered, will not produce the proceedings, of this case.
    Mr. PRINGLE: If you will only allow the accused person to know within eight hours of his death that the result of the trial is death, you practically eliminate the chance of anybody knowing the ground on which he has been condemned to death?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Not at all, because the grounds on which he is condemned to death are published in Orders, a copy of which I have here. Part of the punishment, in the interests of discipline, is the publication of the reason why a man has been charged.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I meant the evidence.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The accused person who is not sentenced to death has the right to get the evidence, but as the law stands I think I have accurately stated it. It is for this House, if 1 hey think fit, if they think that the procedure at the present time, that the rules of procedure—and not the Regulations, as my hon. and learned Friend said—that the rules of procedure, or the Army Act itself, upon which those rules are based, are wrong—it is for the House to create the alteration which they think is desirable either in the interests of justice or of humanity. But so long as the Army Act stands as it does, and so long as the rules of procedure flow from that Army Act, the military authorities at home and abroad have only one thing to do, to use them and administer them to the best of their ability and capacity. My hon. and learned Friend said that in this case there was grave doubt as to whether the boy was not suffering from shell-shock. I personally have a great deal of sympathy with the men who

    573
    have that very serious complaint, and so, I know, has the House. In my judgment it is an exploded idea that shell-shock merely means cold feet, because one has come across case after case of the most gallant fellows who ever drew breath whose nerves are so badly shattered that only half of their whole bodily strength and mental vigour remains. I have been interesting myself in this question, and I should like to read, if I may, a portion of a letter from the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief which bears on this point that my hon. and learned Friend very properly made—that extreme caution should be shown, when there is any question at all or any suspicion at all of shell-shock in a case, that he should be medically examined. This is the quotation from the Field-Marshal's letter:
    "When a wan has been sentenced to death, if at any time any doubt, has been raised as to. his responsibility fur his actions, or if the suggestion has been advance I that he has suffered from neurasthenia or shell-shock, orders are issued for him to be examined by a medical board which expresses an opinion as to his sanity, and as to whether he should he d responsible for his actions. One of the members of this board is always a medical officer of neurological experience. The sentence of death is not tarried out in the case of such a man unless the medical board express s the positive opinion that he is to be held responsible for his actions."
    I do ask the House to believe that so far as the shell-shock cases are concerned, so far as it is humanly possible to be careful of them, the military authorities in France are careful, and I would say with regard to the special case which has been raised that the military commanders in France were only doing their duty by administering an Act which this House has presented the military authorities with; that this trial was carefully and I know humanely conducted, and that if unfortunately—and it is unfortunate—any officer should suffer the last penalty, I would ask the House further to believe that he suffers it having been carefully and humanely tried by the only laws which the military had provided for them, laws humanely administered and justly given effect to.
    Mr. ADAMSON: There are several subjects I wish to raise, some of which I have briefly discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, what practical results have we obtained from the money spent by the Committee on Oil Production? Up to the present time I have received no satisfactory answer to my question. Of course, I am aware that so far as the Scottish shale field is con-
    574
    cerned there is a considerable increase in the amount of oil produced, but so far as exploiting the oil-bearing-resources of other parts of the country is concerned, I have been able to obtain little or no information as to any practical results accruing from the money we have been spending through the Committee on Oil Production. I consider that the question of exploiting the oil resources of this country is one of vital importance to our people under present conditions—first, from the point of view of our being able to keep as large a portion as possible of the money we require to spend for this very necessary commodity inside the country; and, secondly, so that we might by exploiting to the fullest extent the resources of this country save the shipping for other purposes than that of carrying oil. I understand that there is a considerable staff engaged in this Department, that they have been writing numerous letters, supplying numerous Reports, and writing numerous articles, but, as far as I know, up to the present very little practical result has followed from their activities. I am not sure if the Government have appointed the right type of men for this very important duty, and I should be glad if we could have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply that the Government are alive to the importance of the question. There are other people besides myself who are interested in this question. On the 5th of the present month a letter appeared in the "Times" from Lord Glenconner, drawing the attention of the country to the matter. In that letter his lordship goes on to complain about the delay that has occurred in attempting to exploit the oil-bearing resources of this country. He points out that it is more than eight months since the Government were informed officially of the existence of oil in commercial quantities in these islands, and that offers had been made by certain-parties to exploit at their own expense the oil-bearing capacity of the country.
    I understand that the Government have also been informed from another source that there are millions of tons of cannel coal and another kind, and clay or shale lying in colliery dumps in this country, and which, if handled by practical men, could be utilised to obtain oil. In this instance also the parties who brought the matter under the notice of the Government were prepared, at their own expense, to erect plant for the purpose of

    575
    extracting oil from the minerals lying on those pit dumps, which the coal owners of the country would be quite happy to see removed. But I understand that in this, as in the other instance, the efforts of the party in question have been turned down, and there has been no practical issue from the proposal made to the Government. I understand that some seven or eight months ago the Government sent an official to interview certain of the colliery owners of this country, and to inform them that preparations were being made to erect retorts which would produce before the end of December last 50,000,000 gallons of oil, and that by the end of 1918 the production would rise to 100,000,000. But the coal owners were so little impressed by the party that was sent down to discuss the matter that they decided amongst themselves that the Government could not be serious in the proposal. I am convinced that there is a considerable supply of oil obtainable in this country from both of these sources. I do not pretend to have any technical knowledge, but as a mining man with considerable practical experience I am convinced that there is a source of supply to be obtained from both sources. With regard to the two offers, first, that of £500,000 to test the oil-bearing resources of the country, and the other to erect retorts for the purpose of extracting oil from the minerals lying on the colliery dumps, I do not think that those matters should be left to private exploitation. The production of oil, apart from the little quantity that is now obtained in the Scottish shale field, is a new industry as far as this country is concerned, and I am strongly of opinion that it is an industry that should be retained in the hands of the people of this country. Our financial position for years to come will be such that it will be our duty to take advantage of every source of possible income. To my mind this is a source of income which is well worth the serious consideration of the Government. Looked at from our present position, the question is a matter of vital importance, and in view of our financial position in the future it is a source of supply deserving of attention. I think it ought to be the duty of the Government to find the necessary money "to exploit the oil resources of the country, and so secure for the State whatever money can be made out of the venture.
    576
    There is another matter to which I desire to refer. I understand that the Government are giving serious consideration to the proposal that has been put forward by the British Aluminium Company to still further use the water-power of the country, and I understand that a proposal will shortly be before this House in the form of a private Bill to bridle the waters of the Spey for the company's purposes. The subject is one of much interest in the Lochaber district. The crofters and others living in that part of the country are very seriously alarmed at the prospect of their district being robbed of water-power, and consequently the future development of that part of the country hampered and hindered. There, again, I am strongly of the opinion that the Government ought to exploit the water-power of this country themselves. If the Aluminium Company can do so, I am strongly of the opinion that the Government can equally do it. Not only is that my personal opinion, but I may inform the right hon. Gentleman that it is the almost universal opinion of labour in this country that any of the natural resources of the country which are to be exploited in the future should be exploited for the benefit of the whole people and not for the benefit of private companies. I hope that these two questions are going to get the serious consideration of the Government, both from the point of view of at the earliest possible moment doing their best to test the natural resources of this country so far as oil is concerned and getting some practical results from the money that has been spent on this Committee, as I understand a considerable amount of money has already been spent; and that they will also seriously consider the suggestion which I have put forward that these natural resources of the country should no longer be handed over for private profit, but should be used for the benefit of the whole people.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL - MAITLAND (Department of Overseas Trade): I can only say, in reply to the point which the hon. Member has raised, that I am myself entirely in sympathy with the principle which he has enunciated, which is that of utilising the resources of the country for our own ends as much as possible, and, if I am very brief on the; subject of oil, I hope he will not think I am in any way discourteous, because if I had known a

    577
    little earlier he was going to raise the point I would have secured the attendance here of those who have been dealing with it more immediately than I have. At the same time, it is a point of very serious importance, which I will most certainly bring to the notice of those who have the more immediate management of the subject.
    Mr. NEEDHAM:Under whose control is it?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It belongs immediately to the Ministry of Munitions, but is being dealt with by a Special Committee. The point the hon. Member has raised is as to the possibility of obtaining a larger supply of oil in this country, and of utilising some of the spoil heaps which are at present accumulating to a very great extent. Of course, it is an exceedingly important question. It is important from two points of view. First of all, the possession of the oil is quite vital in this country; and, secondly, if we are not able to produce it ourselves, it means that amount of shipbuilding capacity being devoted to vessels which can bring it here. The speech of the hon. Member really raises two points. First of all, there is the question, after the War, of utilising, through means of better retorts, of a good deal of the substances now thrown on dumps and spoil heaps which do contain an amount of oil.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I put seriously to the hon. Member the point that already the Government have had the offer of retorts that are capable of utilising the material lying on the heaps.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If so, I can promise the hon. Member that I will get the matter gone into very seriously indeed, because I can assure him that I, for my part, fully realise the importance of it. There is another consideration which I think ought to be borne in mind. I should think myself it would be wiser at this moment to treat a larger amount of fresh shale than to separate from the spoil heaps, because the percentage to be got from fresh shale is infinitely higher, And, at the same time, one gets a large amount of quite valuable by-products—sulphate of ammonia and others—which are of very great value at the moment, and which have been almost entirely recovered before the exhausted shale is put upon the spoil heaps. Therefore, speaking subject to further consideration, I should imagine, from the point of
    578
    view of increasing supplies and economising tonnage, and if the retortage is available, that the wiser plan might be to use as much fresh shale as possible; but I can really promise the hon. Gentleman quite seriously that I will have the matter brought before the Committee. I could have wished I had the other day a full answer to give my hon. Friend on the subject, but, if he will trust me so fax, I promise him that it will be treated quite seriously, and every proper consideration given to it.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am obliged to my hon. Friend for having given me notice a little time ago that he would raise the question with regard to the Aluminium Company, but, like my hon. Friend beside me, I should have liked a little more notice, if possible, in order to obtain the full facts in regard to the matter. But I think I can tell him exactly how the situation stands. The proposal of the company originated, as all similar Scottish proposals must originate, by way of a Provisional Order. The Chairmen of the two Houses before whom the matter in due course came, decided in respect of the principles involved—and there were other considerations I think—that this proposal should proceed, not by way of Provisional Order before a Provisional Order Committee in Scotland, but should proceed by way of private Bill in both Houses. My hon. Friend may find that that has a considerable advantage, both to him and to those who think with him, because, while I do not express any final view on the subject—and it is not for me to do so—I should have thought there might be some doubt as to whether he and his friends would be held to have a locus to oppose the proposal if proceeded with by way of Provisional Order, whereas there can be no doubt at all that he will have just as full opportunities in this House as are afforded to any Member who desires to oppose a private Bill with regard to the discussion on this particular measure. The decision having been arrived at that the matter should proceed by way of private Bill, the whole control and responsibility passed out of my hands, and accordingly my hon. Friend must not seek to attach to me responsibility in the matter. I have no control over private Bills, nor have I any responsibility for this one. If the Bill is opposed, then I apprehend it will go to a Committee in both Houses, and the very

    579
    fullest opportunity will thus be afforded, as I say, to any person who desires to oppose the measure to do so. That is all on the assumption that the Bill will proceed. It is not for me to say whether it will or will not, or whether it should or should not, but, on the assumption, which was the basis of my hon. Friend's speech, that this proposal is to go forward, I want to satisfy him by these few observations that the strenuous opposition which he promises to the measure will have full opportunity for ventilation in the ordinary way on the floor of the House.
    Mr. CURRIE: The hon. Gentleman will remember that some time ago, when the question of getting petroleum was raised, a difficulty arose because part of the Government's proposal was in the nature of establishing a new system of royalties, and some of us felt that that in itself was rather unfortunate, if, indeed, justifiable at all. I should have been glad if my hon. Friend had given an assurance that, whatever negotiations had been pending at the present moment, the Department had departed from the idea of establishing royalties of that kind. I recognise the hon. Gentleman may not be quite in a position to give an answer, because he indicated that the matter was under consideration elsewhere, but I should like to repeat that, in my opinion, the Government would be acting unwisely if they were proceeding towards the establishment of a new set of royalties of this kind, and I think the hon. Gentleman would make his way assured if he were able to say clearly that, whatever the negotiations are, they do not include an element of that kind. I am sure, also, that in many quarters there is a feeling of uneasiness in case the Government may be forced into delay by reason of negotiations concerning these royalties. I hope that is not the case, and on that point I should be glad if my right hon. Friend could give an assurance.
    Mr. NEEDHAM: I should just like to say that I strongly support what has been said by the hon. Member for West Fife in regard to oil derived from shale, and I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the promise he has made that the whole question will be duly reported to proper quarters. I take it that promise to report also includes the suggestion made from these benches that we regard the matter as very urgent, and-
    580
    that there is a feeling of uneasiness in the minds of a good many members of the public in regard to what they consider is the inaction of the Government with, respect to oil production in this country. I further welcome very cordially the right hon. Gentleman's statement on that point.
    Mr. LYNCH: On an occasion so soon after the passing away of a great figure in Irish politics, that of Mr. John Redmond, I desire to begin my remarks to-night with the expression of a desire for reconciliation; reconciliation as far as possible-between Irish Nationalists. Even in expressing that sentiment I have a feeling that I may be speaking in vain, and that this hope may be unacceptable to those to whom it is addressed. Nevertheless, I will say this: I would like to see united to the great experience and wonderful energy and lifelong devotion of the present Leader of the Irish party, the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and to the popular qualities of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin), so endowed with ability to inspire enthusiasm and give an impetus to a great cause I would like to see united to those qualities the knowledge and fervour of the Leader of the smaller Irish party (Mr. William O'Brien), and the wit and wisdom of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. T. Healy). I will go still further. I would like to see reconciled in one general national movement the Sinn Feiners themselves. I would like to see kept within the limits of a constitutional movement the romantic, and I will say the heroic, figure of Mr. de Valera, because although I do not accept to the full his doctrines, I recognise that such a man is, after all, of the lineage of Irish heroes from Sarsfield to-Wolfe Tone, to Robert Emmet, to Thomas Francis Meagher; and I believe his followers have shown in the highest degree, first and foremost, the quality of undying patriotism which has always characterised Irishmen. So much for the question of reconciliation amongst Irish Nationalists. But I would go still further. What I would aim at eventually is a complete and cordial reconciliation between Ireland and this country, laying it down, however, as essential that the reconciliation should only take place on a basis entirely honourable to Ireland, completely concordant with aspirations of Irish patriotism.
    Having spoken thus, I will proceed to one or two matters of great interest in

    581
    Ireland itself, and which I have no doubt seriously occupy the mind of my right hon. Friend opposite, namely, the unrest in the country. In county Clare we hear there is unrest of various degrees, that there is cattle-driving, raiding for arms; he himself asserts that there is a criminal conspiracy to defeat the law in the county. I have heard county Clare spoken about recently in another place as if it were a county where crime were rampant and all sorts of lawlessness were encouraged, and I could hardly recognise in those terms that county Clare, with which I am so familiar, and those good people so fundamentally honest, so truly law-abiding in the best sense, so kindly in their nature. I would venture to say that an entirely false impression has been given of the country and of the state of affairs in county Clare. Even amidst the sensational occurrences of cattle-driving, or raiding for arms, I venture to say that any citizen of this country could go to any part of Clare unarmed, and find himself not only unmolested but received with kindness and hospitality such as is universal in that county. No man is in any danger there—no stranger, no native of the country. No property is in any danger there, except in certain cases which I will touch upon. There has been raiding for arms, but I notice that the responsible leaders of the Sinn Fein party have lately discouraged those proceedings. There have been instances of cattle-raiding and of entering upon grass lands. I think I am likely to rouse the ire of my right hon. Friend, as I did the other day, yet I will repeat what I then said, and I will maintain it, that for these occurrences the original fault is not with the people of Ireland but with the Government.
    The state of affairs is this, that not only Ireland but this country also is face to face with a grave shortage of food. In this country, and particularly now as we are dealing with Ireland, there are thousands of acres of rich arable land which would supply an abundance of food of which the country has not now the advantage. Contiguous to these tracts of fine arable land are numbers of uneconomic holdings, that is to say, of poor tenant farmers, hard-working men, men capable of bringing up honourably large families upon a tract of land which would be thought very inadequate either in this country or in Wales. They are men who farm fifteen or ten, or even a less acreage, and there are few
    582
    countries which show such good results as they produce with their resources. These men, in a time of stress, where food is becoming scarce, where the pinch of poverty is felt, and who are willing and able to work, see lying adjacent to them large tracts of land available for their labour, and yet they find that that land is prohibited to them, locked up, even in opposition to a law expressly passed for their benefit, namely, the Land Act of 1909, and locked up because of the policy of this country, which is still dictated largely by that small class of landlords in Ireland whose career has been disastrous and even disreputable, and yet who cling now so tenaciously to the remnant of their power. The proper manner of approaching this problem is not high and lofty indignation against what is called the crime of these people, but rather the intention to look at the root of the unrest and try to remove it. It is unnecessary to introduce new legislation because legislation has already been passed; it has been purposely defeated with the connivance £ Dublin Castle, and that bad faith is one of the main causes of the unrest, and one which goes far to justify the action of these people. The phrase "criminal conspiracy" has often been heard in Irish history. It was heard at the time of the Parnell movement, it was used as a deterrent, and I would like to ask, Would the right hon. Gentleman care to undo any one of the Acts which have been passed in this Parliament due to the pressure of the Parnell movement, but which were opposed so vehemently by the use of the opprobious term of "criminal conspiracy"? I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman would look upon those Acts which were the product of the Parnell regime as beneficial, not only to Ireland, but to this country; they have, indeed, been a sort of cement binding the two countries together, as far as mutual benefit is concerned.
    I do not know whether it is in order to refer to what has passed in another place. I think it is rather out of order to refer to the Debates in the Lords, so all I will say in general terms is that the prevailing tone amongst those who are still vehemently opposed to Home Rule is that Ireland is a place where unrest is continuous, where that unrest is totally unjustified, and where the one remedy for that unrest is considered to be violent and brutal repression, with no

    583
    consideration for the sentiment of the people or for the causes of that unrest. Recently I was indignant at hearing such expressions put forward with a great show of authority. It was asserted that what was necessary for Ireland was respect for the law, good faith in maintaining the law, and particularly regard for great Imperial obligations. The Government itself has been showing disrespect for the law by failing to carry out that Act, which was expressly passed by this House for dealing with a state of affairs as I have described. Instead of meeting the case face to face, the Government have allowed dilatory methods to prevail for years and years, thus discouraging the men who wish to work, turning them at times from hopeful, active men to broken-down, idle men, waiting for opportunities which again and again have been delayed. Consequently, the difficulties I have mentioned have been in great part due to the action of the Government.
    When we come to the consideration of good faith, we also find that the Government is mainly to blame. The people of Ireland were defeated in their hopes of the Home Rule Act. Most of my political life in this House has been spent in an endeavour to forward an Act brought in by the Government itself after due deliberation. We supported the. Liberal Government for years—in fact, we kept them in office—and we supported them at great sacrifices, even to certain interests in Ireland, being content to obtain compensation in the greater hope of Irish autonomy, and yet, at the end, when the moment came to complete the other side of the contract, then we began to find this bad faith, and this evasion, this refusal to carry out the contract, and that on the part of two of the principal members of the present Government. It is my own opinion that the bad faith was in their minds months, if not years, before it was actually revealed. The Irish people remember that, and that has been one cause of that state of affairs which has been so disastrous, not only to this country, but to the cause of the Allies, which has prevailed, not only in Ireland, but in all countries where Irish sentiment exists—in Australia and in America. There has been a Nemesis in this matter, and that has been the cause of the delay of the entrance of the United States into the War, and per-
    584
    haps future history will record that this year's delay was of vital importance. Yet, in spite of all this experience, we find amongst men of great authority, men whose counsel prevails with this country, only one manner of viewing the Irish question here. They say that Ireland is a nation of rebels or disturbers of the peace, and there is only one remedy, that of coercion. The time has passed for that, not only because it is a wicked doctrine itself, but because the power of this country to enforce that kind of doctrine has also passed away. This country has now merged its forces with the other great nations who are now associated with us, and such sentiments as those are repugnant to their national ideal. Not only that, but such a policy will be ineffectual. Irishmen may have many faults, but at any rate they can fight. I put that quality very high even as a great national characteristic, because if Irishmen had been unable to fight generations and centuries ago they would have been trampled out under the brutal heel of this country. But they can fight, and they are hopeful, and they believe in the end that they will win and realise their century-long aspirations.
    I will try to set out simply a possible solution of this difficulty. I would advise the Government not to tinker with that worn-out machine, Dublin Castle. I would like to see Dublin Castle effaced, or, if preserved at all, kept as a kind of national museum which would admonish all future Governments of Ireland of the blunders which have been so disastrous to the interests of this country during the last century. I would also warn the Government against any designs, that they may harbour of increasing the power of the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant is the simulacrum of a sham, or, at all events, of a decaying system. The Government should beware of the notion that they can settle the Irish question simply by tinkering up or ameliorating here and there the present system. The time has come for large thoughts and great ideals. That has been borne in upon us again and again by the external circumstances which have brought this country to its present condition. Let the great minds that are in the Government rise out of the mere rut of the petty passions and politics of the day, look far ahead, see what is coming, recognise the value of democracy, recognise to the full the desire of nationals for their own

    585
    nationhood—a desire certainly as vivid in Ireland as in any country in the world—and having inspired themselves by these notions strike out once and for all a bold scheme of autonomy, one so bold and so full that it will catch the imagination even of Ulster itself and yet safeguard the interests of Ulster on the two points on which Ulster desires to be safeguarded, namely, the religious question and the financial question. I would say, although it has been the dream of my political life to help to win liberty for Ireland, yet if I thought at this stage that the granting of the most glorious form of autonomy would mean, I will not say the persecution of any man in Ulster, but the disparagement of any Protestant North or South on account of his religion, I would, even now, turn against Home Rule and fight vehemently against its realisation as ever I have fought for its acceptance. I believe that represents the mind of most Nationalists, so that the religious question is not an insoluble question. If there be any grounds for the fears or apprehensions of any Ulsterman they ought to be safeguarded to the full.
    With regard to the financial question, it is quite possible that prosperity would flow into Ireland when once this political turmoil was settled and that all parts of Ireland would reap advantage. The Government then could be carried on quite well without weighing unfairly upon Ulster on the financial side. It would be quite possible to make provisions so that there should be no undue taxation of Ulster: in fact, we could formulate a scheme on the financial side that would be acceptable to Ulstermen. Having removed those two main causes of difference between the North and South, the demand for autonomy would become a national demand, and it should be carried up to the point at least of giving Dominion Government, at the same time leaving the door open to the future political development both of this country and of Ireland.
    9.0 P.M.
    This War will have marked the end of the old regime. Arising out of the experiences of this War, we see two things. First of all, the desire becoming more and more intense for complete national expression, or what has been called "self-determination." That is excellent and that is undefeatable. On the other hand, we see, equally so as the result of the experience of this War. that no one nation,
    586
    not even a great nation, can stand alone. Therefore, we have a development towards liberty on the one hand, and we have a development towards federation on the other. Yet those two lines of development are not incompatible, and it is those principles that we must apply to Ireland. I do not desire that Ireland should finally break away and become isolated from all this great ring of Condominiums and at the same time I wish to see the aspiration for liberty among Irishmen gratified to the full. Those two principles are not incompatible, and, if a solution be found on those lines, it will be not only beneficial to Ireland, but will also redound not merely to the credit but ultimately to the strength also of this country.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRE-LAND (Mr. Duke): It would be impossible that a man standing in my place should complain in any way of the tone and temper of the speech that has just been delivered. I should be the last man to complain. Urgent questions which touch causes of the deepest feeling among all Irishmen, and which have been the subject of controversy and age-long division, are being handled to-day in Ireland, and I confess that many of the phenomena to which my hon. Friend referred do not alarm me as they alarm some people who have not been so close to the facts in recent times. It has been said that there is nothing abnormal in many of the incidents with which we have had to deal in Ireland. If that were so, it would be easy to discuss in a whole-somer atmosphere some of the questions to which the speech we have just heard has been mainly directed. On many of those questions few Nationalist Members, I believe, and certainly few English Members who desire a settlement of the Irish question, will find ground for controversy with the hon. Member. There is a note of universal assent in the appreciation of the services of the late hon. and learned Member (Mr. John Redmond), who for so many years illustrated the genius of Ireland and Irishmen's indomitable courage and devotion to the causes which they have at heart, and who sat in the seat immediately behind the hon. Member. We are all united to-day in the expression of our admiration of Mr. John Redmond. I only wish myself that the appreciation which his services command to-day had been a little more evident in some quarters when it would have been more useful both to England

    587
    and to Ireland that there should have been that recognition. Reference was made to the earnest desire there is for reconciliation among Irishmen North and South, among Irishmen in the various sections of Irish opinion, and between Irishmen and the people of this Island. So far as regards the Empire at large, I gathered from the speech we have heard that Irishmen are content with their position and their neighbours are content with theirs.
    Mr. LYNCH: I would enter one little caveat there—I do not like the word "Empire."
    Mr. DUKE: Perhaps the hon. Member can find another description of what I think he called "congeries of Do minions"—
    Mr. LYNCH: Condominium.
    Mr. DUKE: By whatever name he can describe it that will commend itself to the affections of the great mass of people than the name of the British Empire commands, I am with him in extending that affectionate regard. The great mass of the citizens of the Condominium in which we live value the thing, and do not concern themselves much with the name. I am not going to enlarge upon these topics. I share the desire for the reconciliation of all the citizens of Ireland and of all the other parts of what I must still call, for want of a better name, the Empire, and 1 hope a solution may be found for the differences which have divided Irishmen, and have hindered Ireland and the Irish people from taking the part which their natural genius qualifies them to take in our common affairs. I am sure every reasonable man in this country desires that a solution should be supplied. I do not think there is any Irishman in this House who accuses me of any lack of interest in this matter or of putting any obstacle in the way of the peace of Ireland, the prosperity of Ireland, the contentment of Ireland, or the honour of the Irish people. It has always seemed to me that the Chief Secretary is a trustee of power for the people of Ireland as well as for all the other subjects of the Crown, and that his business is to reconcile those great powers which the State exercises, not only with all the interests in Ireland, which are regarded
    588
    with natural affection and jealous regard, but with all the interests of those with whose fate and fortunes he is concerned.
    Reference was made to disorders which had taken place in various parts of Ireland, in particular, in county dare. I do not think that even there there was a note of severe reproach in respect of anything I have done. I gather that there was a dissentient listener where it was most prominent on a recent occasion. What has been most prevalent has been the note of censure of the Administration for lack of that coercive vigour which in some quarters was supposed to be a remedy particularly applicable to Irish distresses. I do not take the view that you can make valuable political changes by force of arms. I do not think you can cure Bolshevism by Czarism. I believe that the remedies for disorders such as have occurred in Ireland must be of a constitutional kind. Although my hon. Friend pays a testimony to the habitual good temper and good feeling of his constituents, and to the habits of order which prevail in many parts of Ireland, I must state, in answer to the speech the House has just heard, just a few facts upon the particular matters to which he has referred. I will deal with county Sligo, Roscommon, parts of Galway, parts of Kerry, and parts of Tipperary, but especially county Sligo. In county Sligo there are many grazing farms. There is the usual variety of population, there is a large agricultural community, which ordinarily is free from crime, good tempered, and observant of the common restrictions of social life. But in county Sligo and in county Roscommon, and in other areas to which reference has been made, during the latter part of January, and then conspicuously during the early part of February, culminating towards the middle of February, the ordinary state of things was reversed, and, following upon the advice of mischief-makers. of people who did not desire tillage, and did not desire land distribution, so far as I can judge, but who desired disorder and were willing to face anarchy and upset the Government, a large number of the population of Sligo and great bodies of men in Roscommon and elsewhere were found entering by force of arms upon the possessions of some of their neighbours, whose mode of conducting their affairs and managing their property did not commend itself to them and dispossessing those neighbours, thus upsetting the

    589
    canons of conduct in every civilised society—possessing themselves of property which did not belong to them and holding it against all comers. By the seizure of arms, by the driving of cattle, and by disturbances of the most various kind which were calculated to occupy the attention of the police in every part of a large area and to obstruct them, they prevented anything like the maintenance of common order.
    When you find that state of things systematically brought about in the widespread Western Counties of Ireland and find populations which ordinarily are law-abiding converted into systematic breakers of the law, you have no alternative but to vindicate the authority of the law and to make it clear to all comers that in the last resort there is power enough in those who are responsible for the Administration and for the safety of life and property in Ireland to secure that property and life shall be safe and that law-breakers shall be punished. That is what is being done in Sligo and Roscommon and in some other districts. While there was nothing to render it impossible to give protection to life and property these manifestations could be dealt with as mere matters of police. When it became impossible to deal with them as matters of police, when the disorder was on such a scale that the efforts of the police were ineffective to afford any kind of protection to those who were assailed, stronger measures had to be taken. I cannot conceive that any man who has a regard to the future well-being of Ireland, to the character of Ireland as a law-abiding country, or to any of the permanent interests to which attention has been called in the hon. Member's speech, could complain of any action which has been taken on behalf of the Government. On the other hand, I am not surprised that those who are not familiar with the true character of what has been going on, of the nature of the conspiracy, and of the want of certainty as to the mode by which it could be effectually controlled, could suppose that the Government had been supine in dealing with the matter until it came to a head and was capable of being dealt with not only promptly, but, I hope, effectually.
    It is quite true that under ordinary circumstances Clare has the reputation—and, I believe, the deserved reputation—of being a county where one can spend as pleasant a time as anywhere else in these Islands among hospitable and pleasant people. But the picture which the
    590
    hon. Member drew of the county of Clare from his recollection of it on many visits, not of the most recent date, has not been a true picture during the last two or three weeks. It has not been true that life and property were safe and that a man might move about in absolute security. I will tell the House the kind of thing which came to a culminating point in Clare two or three weeks ago. It was not merely that the unpopular owners of the class of land to which reference has been made found themselves in a position in which it was almost impossible for them to carry on their business—the lawful occupation of their lands. It was not merely that there were scattered and isolated instances of disorder. Means have been taken by emissaries who have perambulated Clare from one limit to the other to raise in the minds of the young men of the county the belief that they would serve the cause of their country if they would overturn the British Administration, and, not with the view to any such amelioration of their condition as has been mentioned, but obviously with a view to render the Administration impossible, you had a course of organised crime, you had terrorism practised upon people living in remote places by midnight visits of masked parties to their houses for the purpose of making search for arms. It has been impossible to prevent it by any vigilance of the police, and has only been defeated when the natural courage of the victim came to his aid and there was resistance offered, which was of a sufficient defence in some cases to drive off the assailants, who were not prepared to follow up the attacks they had made as desperately as in some other cases they have been followed up. But in the majority of cases terrorism prevailed, arms were given up, no one appeared to disclose, if the names were known, who were the aggressors, and there was a sense of insecurity created by offences of that kind where it was impossible for the police to bring the offenders to justice. On the hillsides, or in remote places, sometimes in the presence of a little police patrol of two or three men, hundreds of young fellows were brought out to drill and parade, not for any purpose of national defence, not for any purpose of benefiting Clare, or for the present benefit of Ireland, but for the avowed purpose of rendering government impossible, not by the persuasive means to which the hon. Member referred, but by force of arms when the occasion arose.

    591
    Complaint is made that the small parties of police could not arrest the hundreds of men who were drilling on the hillsides of Ireland. It is impossible for two or three men to compass the arrest of scores, or to deal with hundreds. To make an attack upon them would have been to invite misfortune. They did take the names of the offenders, and several of the ringleaders have subsequently been dealt with, but a state of disorder was created by them purposely, and following up the creation of that state of disorder the young men who had been taken out to the hillsides, where they could drill without any prospect of being immediately arrested or suffering any immediate damage, were made the agents in attacks upon farms and properties held according to law in various parts of the county. Cattle were driven, lands were forcibly occupied, the owners were put out of them for the time being, and the police were defied. That went on for ten days or a fortnight, and during that time a state of friction naturally arose between the police and law-breakers of that kind, and about the middle of February a state of things had been brought about, as part of the combination which was being used for the purpose of making government in Clare impossible, in which it was quite evident that the police force in that county—absolutely exiguous, a tiny force, having regard to the area of the county, the scattered centres of population, and the geography of the county—was in danger of being overwhelmed, and it was intended to overwhelm it as part of the conspiracy which was being pursued. When it became apparent that police measures were no longer proper measures for securing common decent order in Clare, for securing the safety of life and some sort of regard for the law relating to property, means were taken which I do not doubt will restore order in Clare, although they will not help to solve any of the questions to which the hon. Member has referred. It was thought, apparently, that if you drive cattle with sufficient disregard for life and decency, if you could disturb scattered landowners, and if you could terrify the people on the hillsides of Clare and get half a dozen or a score of fowling-pieces or weapons of one sort or another that that was a means of overturning the authority of the British Government. Anything more ridiculous is
    592
    not to be conceived. But it was a mean of making life impossible in Clare for-decent people, and when it had reached a point at which it was quite apparent that: police protection was insufficient for giving the men of Clare, the law-abiding people of Clare, that to which they were entitled, other means were resorted to, and those means are now in operation.
    Although it is exceedingly inconvenient for the great mass of the people in Clare to interfere with the operations of life and to make it apparent that it is a far better thing that men should be restrained by regard for justice and honesty and fair dealing than that they should be restrained by police or other action, yet, where the ordinary self-restraint of the population has been broken down and when the authority of the law does not find the local support which it usually finds in a civilised country, and which it finds to-day in the greater part of Ireland, however much you may regret it, the time comes, be it soon or be it late, when control must be taken and must be taken with such certainty and with such force that an end is put to the disorder. The time came in the county of Clare, and when I am asked when was the time at which it was imperative that action should be taken, I say that in my judgment that time came when it was known that action could no longer be safely delayed. That period was reached something like three weeks ago, and I am happy to say that there is a very good prospect of the return of the people of Clare, under the better advice which they have recently been receiving, to the reasonable habits with which their Parliamentary representative has credited them. Xo one will be better pleased than I shall when there is evidence from within the county of Clare, and the sober citizens in the county of Clare, that there is no need for exceptional restraint in that county. When that evidence is. forthcoming it will be possible to consider what is the time at which this exceptional restraint, called for by exceptional circumstances, can be properly removed. There was nothing of a precipitate kind in. the-imposition of the restraint which has been imposed, and I must say, on the other hand, that, not having been precipitate in interfering with the strong hand for the prevention of the further progress of disorder, I do not think it would be a wise course on the part of the Government to be precipitate in the

    593
    removal of that restraint before it is clear that the cause for its existence has in the first place been removed.
    Mr. McKEAN: Before proceeding to deal with the subject about which I have risen to speak I wish to refer briefly to the speech that we have just listened to from the Chief Secretary. He confined his attention to two counties in Ireland—Sligo and Clare. He drew for us a picture of the conditions existing in those two counties. I confess that I do not exactly follow his reasoning. I do not know what conclusion he wishes us to draw from the state of things which he pictured in Sligo and Clare. If there is any point whatever in his references to the state of things in Clare and Sligo, it seems to me that it justifies up to the hilt all the strictures and criticisms that were passed upon him a few evenings ago in another place. Their Lordships did not confine their strictures to two counties. The burden of their speeches was that here you have a country absolutely abandoned to lawlessness and anarchy. I deny that that statement applies to the rest of Ireland. I do not know Sligo and I do not know Clare, and therefore I am not prepared to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman as to his statement of facts. What I have got to deal with to-night is not two counties in Ireland, but the whole of Ireland and the condition of the whole of Ireland as it exists at this moment. It is a very remarkable thing viewed in the abstract, but viewed with regard to their Lordships, and what we know of them here it is not remarkable, that they drew no distinction whatever as to the character of the cause of lawlessness and anarchy in Ireland. The Chief Secretary in that connection seemed to misinterpret or misconceive the position of the hon. Member for West Clare. I understood the hon. Member for West Clare to take up this position, and it is the true position, that whatever lawlessness prevails in Clare—and I apply the same principle as was embodied in his remarks to the whole of Ireland—it arises from an economic reason, namely, the existence of large grazing tracts in Clare and the non-division and non-distribution of these grazing tracts among the landless men in the county. That is a matter of first-rate importance.
    The character of this so-called lawlessness in Ireland is only lawlessness in the artificial sense of the term. There is no
    594
    criminality, no moral guilt whatever attaching to this lawlessness in Ireland. I will tell the House what the lawlessness, arises from. It is due to the neglect of the Irish Government to fulfil its primary duties in Ireland. It is a gross scandal, the way in which the Irish Government, as at present constituted, has abdicated all the functions of government in Ireland. Here we have a country with gaping wounds, with running sores, and there is no remedy, no balm, no remedial legislation being applied to those wounds, and those sores. For at least twenty-five years we have never had such a period of utter sterility in the way of constructive legislation and remedial measures for Ireland. That is the root cause and practically the only cause of all the unrest and so-called lawlessness in Ireland to-day. It is characteristic that in the House of Lords two nights ago not one single speaker diagnosed the case of Ireland. Not one laid his noble finger on the sore spot in the body politic of Ireland. Not one of them referred even remotely to the necessity for remedial, legislation in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech the other evening in this House, in replying to the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Cork, put forward a sort of defence of his administration. He went on to tell us what he was doing in Ireland. The only thing that he was able to say that he was doing for the benefit of the country was that there was one branch of a railway in process of construction, and that it was proposed to construct some others. If ever there was a country that needs the healing hand of a. constructive statesman it is ours.
    I may proceed to give some examples. I have a cutting here from the "Freeman's Journal" reporting a meeting of Ulster farmers from Derry and other places, which was held in Derry, to urge the Government to deal promptly and effectively with the flooded districts bordering Lough Neagh and the river Bann, in which many thousands of acres; are rendered useless every year through flooding. The meeting passed resolutions, protesting against the inaction of the Government in not having the Lower Bann cleared of obstructions so as to carry away the surplus water from Lough Neagh as rapidly as it enters the Lough from the Upper Bann and ether rivers.. We have every year in Ireland large tracts of land flooded, and thereby great

    595
    loss is incurred, loss of something that Is becoming very precious now—loss of food. What is the Government doing to cure this ill in Ireland? The "Freeman's Journal" says:
    "The floors are estimated to cost this country some millions a year. In the present emergency they cause a serious diminution in the food supply. In no other country in the world would a Government refuse the comparatively small loan that would restore these acies of fruitful soil to the production of food."
    That is something for the right hon. Gentleman to turn his attention to. It is not like the speculative matters with which he dealt the other night. I say with regret and hesitation, but truth compels me to say it, that a more unconvincing and unbusinesslike statement than the right Turn. Gentleman's speech the other night I have seldom, if ever, listened to. There was an air of unreality, I might almost say an air of insincerity, about it. He said:
    "If I thought it would advance the interests of Ireland, and I were under no obligation of Cabinet secrecy, there are many matters when I could disclose which would carry him a long way to understanding designs which at present are in progressive stage towards completion, but the progressive of which it would not be proper that I should spoil by disclosing completely proposals which have been finally decided."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th March, 1918, col. 278.]
    Why this secrecy? How can the premature disclosure of future beneficial projects prejudice them in any way? The King's Speech every Session announces or foreshadows forthcoming legislation. How does this prejudice the chance of these measures passing into law? Yet that is the position of the right hon. Gentleman. He said:
    "First of all, 'here is his proposition that Ireland must have separate and Irish treatment, I accept it absolutely.'
    Of course, but before the treatment was decided upon what are the doctors going to make out of the prescription? Doctors who have never seen the patient. The right hon. Gentleman is in favour of reconstruction for Ireland being dealt with by a mixed committee made up principally of Englishmen with a small infusion of Irishmen. That is not business. There are some other measures, war measures, that seem to be urgently necessary in Ireland. In Ireland we consume coal that is principally imported from Great Britain. Out of 184,000,000 tons of coal mined in the year 1914 in England, 177,000,000 tons were brought from the mines by rail. Out of 92,400 tons mined in Ireland in the same
    596
    year only 13,025 were conveyed by rail. In England the railways run up to the mines and the trains take away 96 per cent, of the coal raised. In Ireland the nearest stations are eight, ten, sixteen miles from the minefields. Surely that is a small matter, and might very well be dealt with as a war measure. Coal has to be carried in ships. The Prime Minister told us that the winning of the War depends on ships. Why should ships be devoted to carrying coal from Wales, Scotland, and Ireland when we have plenty of coal at home? We cannot utilise our own coal because we have no railways up to the mines. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other evening that there was one railway being constructed, and others in contemplation. He did not even mention what the one was. I would like to quote from a speech to which I had the pleasure of listening some time ago, and it has struck me with amazement that it has not been quoted many times before. Lord Northcliffe, at the Irish Club last year, made a statesmanlike speech, the most statesmanlike I ever heard in my life. It revealed Lord Northcliffe as a personality that we have not known before. It was like a new light thrown upon him. His speech revealed him as a constructive statesman, which is what we want in Ireland, and England also. He said:
    "Every country amongst the Allies has got a war bonus in the shape of important legislation, better economic conditions and other benefits, except Ireland."
    Further on he says:
    "I do not know to whose neglect it is due, but of the.£40,000,000 spent weekly on the War but little goes to Ireland."
    I will state one or two ways in which the Government can do something to justify its existence, which it is certainly not doing to-day. The compulsory taking over and equitable sub-division of grass ranches is an absolutely urgent matter. No Government really worthy of its existence, and which has any reputation to maintain, would leave this matter as it stands at present. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech the other night, drew a picture of a certain district and how it had been changed under the new regime. What did it all amount to? What was the achievement of the Government in Ireland last year? It was that out of 11,000,000 acres under grass they have converted 700,000 acres to tillage. What an achievement! Here you are crying out for increased food production, and in Ireland

    597
    you have 11,000,000 acres under grass Then you come here and say that there is lawlessness and anarchy in Ireland, at the very time that these men are waiting for land to cultivate. The Conservative Government in 1905, and all Conservative Governments, have been peculiarly identified with the great work of getting the land in the hands of the people, and I call upon the Government to continue that course. It is a most extraordinary thing that food production is being called for in Ireland by the people here, and yet, in that country, where all the conditions are favourable to food production, practically nothing except a mere bagatelle has been done, except this 700,000 acres out of 11,000,000 acres. I submit that the Government are wholly wanting in the discharge of their duty to the people of Ireland in regard to Irish industries. The Government have taken no steps whatever to promote the industrial welfare of the country. The British Government is under a special obligation to Ireland to deal with the industries of Ireland, because by its penal legislation in the past it has extinguished a number of industries, and by its policy has prevented the introduction of many other industries that might have arisen and grown up. Lord Northcliffe made some remarks that are deserving of the attention of the Government. He occupies a very great position in this country; he has built up a wonderful institution here, and a man such as he ought to be listened to by the Government. Here is what he said:
    "I regret most deeply, more deeply than I can say, that the War has given practically no development to Irish industry. In the matter of Living I eland a share of industrial development in the last two and a half yea s we have been strangely neglectful."
    When is that neglect going to cease? When is the Irish Government going to justify its existence? How long is Ireland to be put off with plausible phrases of which we heard so many the other evening? The right hon. Gentleman in a speech the other night, talking about what was going to be done, but it was all in the future; he talks in terms of the future always. There is another department in regard to which I wish to make my position clear, and to offer a suggestion to the Government. I charge the Government with neglecting its primary duty to the people of Ireland. Last year our country paid over to Great Britain £23,000,000 of hard-earned money, and we are not getting back our fair share. When an English-
    598
    man pays money in the shape of taxation he gets it back again. Capital is the life-blood of a country. You are draining out of Ireland its very life-blood, and the nation is getting nothing back in return. It is not merely that you are not doing your duty by the country. You are doing it a great injustice, and I call upon the Government to amend their ways and to justify their existence. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of himself as a trustee for the interests of Ireland. A trustee is bound by the strictest law in English jurisprudence. I do not know of any law that is more strict than the law dealing with trustees. Is the right hon. Gentleman discharging his duty as a trustee for the people of Ireland? I say deliberately he is not. We usually cannot get these subjects discussed in this House except in the dinner-hour. I claim they ought to be discussed on their merits, and I am standing on my rights as a Member of this House when I call upon the Government to take this work in hand and to do something for my country. We have the opinion of Lord Northcliffe that there has been a gross dereliction of duty. How long is it to continue? When will the Government begin to discharge its duty in a conscientious way?
    10.0 P.M.
    I have something else to propose. There ought to be a Reconstruction Commission appointed for Ireland. It is a farce to suggest that a Reconstruction Commission sitting in England can cover the case of Ireland. More than that, the head of the Reconstruction Commission in this country is a man of only fourth-rate legislative ability; he may be good enough for England, he is not good enough for us. I want a man of real constructive ability do this work in Ireland. I want a man who can force on the Government the measures that are necessary for the good of Ireland. I want those measures to be considered first by Irishmen. Is it not a perfect farce to have a number of men sitting here in London, most of whom are-Englishmen, who may have the best intentions in the world—I do not deny that—is it not a farce, I ask, that such men should be called upon to do this work for us? We want men who can give a more adequate period of time and more attention to the affairs of Ireland. It is only Irishmen sitting at home on the soil of Ireland who can deal with this question. If there is one country in the world that needs constructive statesmanship that country is Ireland. It is a

    599
    country of immense possibilities; those possibilities are not being developed. Let me take one Department alone in which this Reconstruction Commission which I suggest—and I do suggest a Commission because greater prestige attaches to it than to a Committee, and its recommendations carry more weight—could do work of great value. Take the question of Irish Education. If ever there was a question which needed discussion by a large and representative body of men it is the education question. Education in Ireland is in a most chaotic state. Primary education is run there on totally false lines, it is a purely artificial and mechanical system. Why should we not have a Commission to examine witnesses as to the merits or demerits of primary education in Ireland? In the Bill discussed in this House yesterday provision was made for one great principle—the continuation of education. Why should we in Ireland have no thought given to this great principle? But not a word is said about it for Ireland. All that is done there is to propose to appoint two Committees, one of which is to deal with the question of teachers' salaries. But nothing is said about education itself. The interests of the teachers are not the sole interests. What about the country? What about the children of Ireland? If education is important for England it is doubly important for us in Ireland. It is practically the only thing you have left us in Ireland, you have robbed us of everything else. We want also a Commission in Ireland to examine into the question of technical education and to see how far it is in touch with industrial wants and with the realities of the situation in Ireland. That reminds me of a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the other evening. He said that on a question where you want millions of expenditure it is not the surest way to get the money to press the matter when you have a war expenditure of from £6,000,000 to £7,000,000 daily. That may be so, but when the Minister for Education in England wants money the position is altogether different, and no objection is offered to his having it, it is only in the case of Ireland that this obstacle is set up.
    What I demand is this: You took from us last year £23,000,000, you gave us back by way of expenditure less than
    600
    £12,000,000, the remainder you kept for yourself, and it represents so much hard-earned Irish money. If we were rich, people it might not matter much. But we cannot afford it, and surely it is only natural for us to ask you, a rich nation, to give us back at least a fair proportion of our own money which is urgently demanded by the necessities of the case in Ireland. I have asked for a Reconstruction Commission. If this Parliament is honest it will grant my request. Every member of the Government is pledged to the principle of Home Rule, and I ask hon. Members to give an earnest of their sincerity in the application of this principle. In this case apply to us the principle of Home Rule. There is no question of setting up a Parliament in Dublin. There is no question of expenses except the infinitesimal sum for the expenses of this Commission, and I say that it is urgently and absolutely required. I say further that if you want to restore peace and order in Ireland you must do something for the country. Does any man on that Bench, imagine that if you were really looking after the interests of the country in a serious and conscientious way these disorders could take place in Ireland? I say it is impossible, because if you were really doing useful constructive remedial work for the country you would rally to your support the best elements in the country, and the best elements in the country constitute the overwhelming majority of the population. The people of Ireland are naturally a law-abiding people. It is only when the laws are bad laws, when the country is being neglected that there is lawlessness, and that is the cause of this lawlessness in Ireland. I call for remedial legislation for Ireland. I call on the Government to wake up.
    I hear that the Chief Secretary is going to get a high law position. I hope he will get it soon. I hope he will get it very soon, because, if ever we had a Chief Secretary who failed utterly to justify his existence he is the one of them all. I hear it also suggested that a certain Member who spoke here to-night is going to be the new Chief Secretary for Ireland. I hope he is not going to be the new Chief Secretary for Ireland. We want a man in Ireland who means business, a man with some sort of constructive genius. We want a man not merely of imagination, such as George Wyndham—there was an ideal Chief Secretary—but

    601
    a man with the vision of a statesman, not a Government under-strapper, or whipper-snapper, and we are not going to be put off with these things. The proper man to send to Ireland—and I am not afraid to say this—is a Catholic to be Chief Secretary for Ireland. The majority of us Irish are Catholics. You cannot rule religion out of the life of Ireland, try as you may. You have sitting on that Bench—he does not know I am going to say it—a man who would make an ideal Chief Secretary for Ireland, under whose rule I have no hesitation in saying you would have peace restored in Ireland, and that is the Chief Whip (Lord E. Talbot), a man who does not exploit himself, or push himself. I have not compared notes with him; I say this on my own responsibility. I say that it is time for you to send to Ireland a man who will be in sympathy with the people, and, I say, there is the. sort of man we want, a man like the Chief Whip. If you want to carry on the government of Ireland successfully, if you want to justify your existence, if you want to preserve your character as a trustee, you must do this work in a totally different way and in a totally different spirit from that in which you have done it for the last two years. I am very sorry if I have delayed hon. Members who want to approach other subjects. It is always a source of regret to me to stand in the way of other people, but I think the hon. Members who have still subjects to bring forward will recognise that this is a very important matter. We are dealing with the claims of a nation, and with the utter neglect to deal with the affairs of that nation. So it required somebody to speak out, and that must be my apology and excuse to hon. Members whom I have delayed.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Arthur Samuels): I am afraid the hon. Member who has just addressed the House would think I paid him a very poor compliment indeed if I attempted, at this hour, and having regard to the very pressing business that must still be discharged, to enter into the several topics of enormous importance on which he has addressed the House. It is not the time or the occasion to do so. He has quite properly drawn the attention of the Government to very pressing and important matters, and I think he will understand my position when I say
    602
    that I do not intend to enter into the most interesting personal allusions which he more recently made—
    Mr. McKEAN: It was because I wanted to apply the principle practically. I say the time has come to appoint a Catholic Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    Mr. SAMUELS—except that I have been for some time associated with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, and I am convinced of this, that there is no man, either in Ireland or the United Kingdom who is more desirous of the progress, prosperity, and peace of Ireland than the Chief Secretary—
    Mr. McKEAN: What is he doing?
    Mr. SAMUELS: or who is more anxious, so far as he possibly can, to urge forward that constructive policy on which he has dwelt, and of which he is so earnest an advocate. He speaks in this way, as I know, for multitudes of quiet, peaceable, and industrious men and women in Ireland who care little for our party cries and politics, and who wish only to devote themselves to the interests of their country, to their businesses, and to promote its prosperity. I am not going to dwell on these questions. Nearly every one of them would require not one night but several, but I would just deal with the point of the hon. Member regarding the railways that are being constructed. There is the Wolthill line, joining up the Queen's County collieries with Athy; the Arigna mine in the West of Ireland—and I am sure, the hon. Member is aware of the great solicitude of the Chief Secretary with regard to this matter—and the Castlecomer mine, which were probably in the mind of the hon. Member when he was addressing the House.
    Mr. McKEAN: There are several other mines.
    Mr. SAMUELS: Those are the three main collieries. With regard to the flooding of the River Bann, I would refer him to the very important Commission which reported in 1907 on the whole system of drainage in Ireland, and if he will look into it he will see that that Commission was composed of two very eminent Irish engineers, Mr. J. H. Ryan and Mr. James Dillon, presided over by Sir Alexander Binnie, President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Mr. Stephen Brown and the right hon. Thomas Andrews being other members. He will find there the enormous difficulties with

    603
    which the Government would have to deal, not only financial difficulties but difficulties arising out of the change that has been effected by the alteration in the tenure of land in Ireland, and tremendous difficulties in connection with the local bodies dealing with different areas. It is a matter which we hope will be dealt with at some time, but to launch out on it in the middle of war would not be possible or satisfactory. I have listened to the suggestions which the hon. Gentleman has made, and I am sure there are many people who have listened and will agree with his views that a policy of conservative construction is the healthiest and best policy we can pursue in Ireland. I hope that when peace is restored all the Members from those benches will assist to the best of their ability to develop that idea, and I hope we shall have the assistance of the hon. Member.

    SHIPBUILDING.
    Mr. SHAW: I desire to refer to a topic which we are informed is to be the subject of most grave decisions affecting the future of this country within the next few days. I refer to the question of the publication of tonnage losses, and, more especially, to the question of the ultimate control over mercantile shipbuilding in this country. We have often been referred by right hon. Gentlemen who occupy the Government Bench to the parallel between this War and the Napoleonic Wars. That parallel is applicable in some respects. No doubt the tenacity and determination of the people are the same, but there is one great difference. During the Napoleonic Wars our trade increased, and at the end of the Napoleonic Wars our tonnage was greater than at the beginning. Now the volume of our foreign trade is decreasing and our tonnage is rapidly and cumulatively diminishing. That is the difference between the Napoleonic Wars and this War, and if the country and the Government are not very careful in this decision which is to be taken it will be the difference between victory and defeat. It is a comfortable doctrine that this country is destined to victory because it has always been victorious in the past. No doubt, as an historic fact, that is so, and history is good, but we must regard the actual facts of to-day. There is no use telling a man whose jugular vein is severed that he need not worry about it because he has previously recovered from fits of bleeding at
    604
    the nose. The situation is grave under those circumstances, and the only sensible thing to do is to take instant action to save that man's life.
    It is necessary to speak on this subject at this time with brutal frankness, and, though I do not propose, until the Government says the word, to give away any figures of tonnage losses even in the most guarded way, yet it is necessary to speak as frankly as possible about this subject now. If this problem were really insoluble, and if the country were not only bleeding but destined to bleed to death, then, no doubt, the more wise and patriotic course would be silence. But we believe that this problem is not insoluble, and that it requires only the application of the same vision, the same energy, the same tact, and the same methods as were applied by the present Prime Minister to the production of munitions of war. What was done in that case? In that case the production of munitions of war was taken from the War Office and placed in a civilian Department, the result being that the broad view replaced the narrow view, and that co-operation took the place of dictation. Here with regard to this vital matter you have absolutely reversed that process. You have taken what is essentially a civilian service, and you have placed mercantile shipbuilding at the caprice of a fighting Department. What has been the result? So far as I can gather, the output of mercantile tonnage has during the last few months been low, alarmingly low, and thoroughly unsatisfactory, although this matter was taken over from the Ministry of Shipping as a going concern. We were some time ago given to understand that mercantile shipbuilding was to have priority—not, indeed, over necessary naval repairs, but priority in its claims on account of the gravity of the situation—on men and materials for the shipyards, and now to-day rumour has it that this policy has been quietly reversed —reversed by the Admiralty at the Admiralty dictation, and that now—I give these figures with all reserve, but I believe them to be substantially true—in this great crisis, in which mercantile shipbuilding is the most vital necessity to the nation, about 70 per cent. of the men and the material in the shipyards is devoted, under the aegis of the Admiralty, entirely to naval construction, at the time when the American Fleet has joined ours, when to have the command, of the sea will be

    605
    almost ridiculous if we are not able to do that which is necessary to the continuance of the existence of the nation. Only 30 per cent., or something like that, of that material and labour is available for the most urgent and vital of all our national needs, so that, whatever be the proportions, there is a strong and indignant feeling growing up in the country that naval construction, which has always been the most severe competitor of mercantile construction, now claims and receives—graciously receives—a dangerously unfair proportion of our men and material. Admiralty men, who are necessarily trained to think only along the grooves of naval construction, now really dominate the whole situation, and, as a matter of fact, they have mercantile shipbuilding at their mercy.
    Speaking as a member for a shipbuilding constituency who has just returned from a visit to the Clyde, I take leave to say that the present management of this matter—and I say it with all gravity, and a due sense of responsibility—is having a most disheartening effect both upon masters and upon men. How can the masters settle down to do their best when almost every day brings its fresh crop of new orders and alterations involving endless expenditure and waste of effort, energy and time? And, then, how can the men give their best when, after they have, perhaps—I am speaking from what I actually know, and it is vain to tell me these instances do not occur, for I have seen them with my own eyes—given for weeks and months their best efforts on the construction of a hull, they are suddenly told one morning that they have to commence at once undoing what they have done? What can we say to convince them that their energies and efforts at the bottom of the scale are not being frittered away by the muddling of those at the top? To get the best out of these men, I venture to say, you must do two things. You must convince them that their efforts and energies are being used to the best advantage of the State. You cannot convince them of that so long as such a situation as I have tried to depict continues Then you must tell them the real truth about the tonnage situation. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will remember a certain interview which we had with him a good many months ago. Those of us who have for months past known the actual facts about the cumulative loss of carrying capacity, and who
    606
    desire to bring home to shipbuilding constituencies and to the nation the reality of the need for a supreme effort, have found ourselves always up against this embargo upon the publication of tonnage-figures. The German people are allowed, to believe the inflated figures published by their own Government, but the British people are denied access to the real facts.
    What is the remark which Members for shipbuilding constituencies have so often, heard when they have discussed this-matter with their Constituents? It is. this, "We don't know what to believe." I heard that last week-end. I am sure I have heard it scores of times. Optimism flashes across the stage, and then comes-the dark shade of pessimism. What are we to believe? These men are sensible men, who have done their very best in the dark, but they work best in the shipyards, as elsewhere, in the full light of day. It is no use lecturing these men. They are patriotic men. It is no good delivering tart lectures to thorn from a supreme height. If you could go down to the yards and tell them the situation, tell them how it looks at present, that unless efforts are made of the most gigantic character this nation will bleed to death, that we have no margin left over the wants of Government Departments, and" that all depends upon their efforts—if you tell them these things there is some chance of that effort on which the life of the nation depends.
    Those of us who feel most strongly on this matter have hitherto kept silent. We have never at any time either embarrassed or harassed the Government, but we do in all sincerity say to them now, "Let there be an end to this absolutely intolerable situation." The crisis is too grave for half measures or half truths. If the matter is allowed to drift as at present it will mean the loss of the War. It is too big and too vital a matter to be any longer a mere-Admiralty side-show, a mere minor and auxiliary branch of a fighting Department. It demands at its head a man not under the thumb of a competing Department, but vested with real power and authority; and, above all, I would venture to say it demands that the truth be told. To tell the nation the truth about these matters will be to brace it to new efforts. It is ignorance and uncertainty that lead to discontent and sap the energies of the people. I venture to say that from the moment the Government

    607
    takes these two steps we shall have begun to turn the corner in this matter, and that tonnage, which is now the most dark and menacing factor of the situation, will begin to become what it has always been in past wars, and what it can be made to-day, our surest guarantee—in fact, our only guarantee—of ultimate victory.
    Mr. FRANCE: Like my hon. Friend, I make no apology for raising once more this question of merchant shipping. We wish to enter a protest, and to offer arguments why this Department of merchant shipbuilding should be taken from the Admiralty and put, as my hon. Friend said into a Department which thoroughly understands the details of the question and is independent of the control which the Admiralty at present wields. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Admiralty said the other day that he welcomed a discussion on this subject, and would like it to be ventilated in the House. He advanced an argument which some Members thought was a very good one, and to which he attached considerable importance, that to remove at this stage this Department from the Admiralty to another Department would -cause considerable delay and prevent the output of ships. I wish to confine myself to dealing with that point, and to address arguments, which I hope will influence his mind and also the Leader of the House and members of the War Cabinet, to show that this is not a sound view. It seems to me to arise from an entirely false conception of what control is. This Department is not building ships. It is not a business on which the right hon. Gentleman is engaged. If he was starting a new business, if he was transferring a business from one hand to another, then I could understand his argument. It is for the improvement of control we are asking. We have heard it very often said that you must not swop horses when crossing a stream. There is no proposal here to swop horses, but there is a proposal to change the man on the box; to substitute for the irritating use of the whip and the heavy hand upon the reins the light touch of proper, efficient and enlightened control. There is no real need for any delay if these Departments were changed. There was no delay, on the contrary there was an improvement when the Shipping Controller took over the work which hitherto I do not say had been badly
    608
    conducted but had not been so completely controlled when it was in the hands of the Board of Trade. An improvement of control there improved the output. There was a steady increase in shipbuilding during 1916; it was not a rapid and sufficient increase, but it was going up. At the end of 1916, when the control came into the hands of the Shipping Controller, that increase went on steadily. Nevertheless the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty had to admit failure, and that is the gravamen of our charge. The right hon. Gentleman had to admit that although the merchant shipping output had increased of late it had not steadily increased. Those who have seen the line of shipbuilding know that in the middle of 1917, when the control passed from the Shipping Controller into the hands of the Admiralty the line instead of steadily going up began to wobble. First it went up and then down. In November and December, 1917, it went up rapidly, but in January and February it fell tragically, and the First Lord of the Admiralty came down here a few days ago and admitted to the House and the country the most tragic failure in the output of shipbuilding in January and February last. He looks where to put the blame, and then he puts it upon the masters and men; but they are the same masters and men who turned out a record in 1913, and if the control had been properly managed, if there had been an independent control with regard to the placing of the men in merchant shipbuilding work then, the men and masters who could turn out in 1913 a record could, under proper management and control, have done the same, thing in 1917. and they can do it now.
    The control that is required appears to me to be that the Government should interfere as little as possible with the actual management, or with the knowledge and experience of the men engaged in this highly technical, highly scientific, and specialised trade. But the Government must supply the two elements necessary for success, namely, men and material. What has happened with regard to the men? My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench (Mr. H. Samuel) in the Debate last Wednesday pointed out that although certain promises were made with regard to men they have not been fulfilled. A most hopeful estimate was presented last year with regard to the output of ships. I firmly believe

    609
    that that estimate might now have been in course of realisation if the conditions attached to the estimate had been fulfilled. The War Cabinet know perfectly well that that estimate of 2,000,000 tons, Increasing eventually to 3,000,000 tons, was accompanied by conditions that so many thousands of men should be supplied to merchant shipbuilding and so many thousands tons of steel should be supplied for that purpose. Then there comes in Government control and the assistance which is required by the masters and shipbuilders in time of war, and the man-power and materials are not forthcoming in that direction. Those promises have not been carried out. My hon. Friend pointed out the reason. The representation in the War Cabinet of the need of merchant shipping must inevitably come at present through the personnel and through the mouthpiece of the right hon. Gentleman who is First Lord of the Admiralty. I am not making any sort of attack upon the right hon. Gentleman, far from it; but I do say that when the question of man-power and of material has to be presented to the War Cabinet it could be presented better, more independently, and more strongly in the interests of merchant shipbuilding if it were presented by a man whose first and sole interest it was to see that vital necessity of the country wag put before them. So long as the First Lord of the Admiralty is the mouthpiece, he will be influenced in his representations 'by the fact that it is his primary duty to look after the naval fighting forces of the country.
    When the First Lord of the Admiralty spoke a few days ago, a very strong appeal was made that this matter should be looked at by the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet as the munitions question was looked at in the year 1915. I cannot find words sufficiently impressive to urge upon the War Cabinet that at this time this question of merchant shipping stands infinitely more important in the life of the country than the question of the control of the War Office over the supply of munitions stood in 1915. What happened then? The late Prime Minister made a speech in the country with regard to the supply of munitions, which has been often referred to. He made that speech, I have not the slightest doubt, supported by information which was given him by the experts upon whom he then relied. It turned out that "there was a necessity for a change. There
    610
    was no question raised as to the delay that would be caused by making a change from the War Office to a new Ministry of Munitions. The change was made, and the increase came immediately. I would ask the War Cabinet and the Prime Minister to remember that incident. The Prime Minister, having given an estimate of shipping, having relied upon statistics as to the supply of men and of material, and having been faced with an admission of failure by the First Lord of the Admiralty, should see to it, no matter at what cost, no matter at what personal inconvenience, and no matter at what risk of any personal reputation, that a change is effected without loss of time, without loss of power, and without any loss of output, but with an increase of output, for, as my hon. Friend has said, the Admiralty's business is to obtain command of the sea, and the command of the sea is not the slightest use if you cannot use it for the life of the nation.
    Mr. ACLAND ALLEN: I do not often trouble the House, but, as the representative of a Clydeside constituency, I should-like to say a word or two on this subject. Yesterday I received from my Constituency, which, I suppose, is one of the most important from the point of view of munitions, an urgent letter and a telegram saying that Labour trouble was threatening owing to the shortage, of food. A letter and a telegram of that kind are sufficient to impress upon everybody the great urgency that there is in this great question of shipbuilding. I cordially agree with what the two last speakers have said with regard to the absolutes necessity for handing over the management of the construction of shipping to an independent Department if for no other reason than that only if it is in the hands of an independent Department will there be sufficient strength at the head to cope with the demands for man-power which are made in every other direction. I am told, and I believe it is the fact, that at the present moment combing-out is-still going on in the shipyards. If that is so, it is really trifling with the future of the country. At this time there should be no combing-out going on in the shipyards. I am told that there is, and I should like to hear from any representative of the Ministry of National Service whether or not that is so. I should also like to hear whether, in fact, at the present moment a sufficient number of men are being returned from the front to take the

    611
    places of those who are being combed; out and what is the quality of the men who are being returned. We all know that commanding officers are not very anxious to part with their best men. I had an example of that last year when I tried to get men to help in agriculture. It was not the beat men who were sent to me to help in agriculture, and so it will be in this case unless there is a very strong line taken to see that the proper men are sent home for the purpose.
    The question of combing-out is really a very serious one, because it affects the work of the men who are left in the yards. If the men see their brothers combed out and taken for service abroad they will say to themselves, "After all, it cannot be of so very much importance that the construction of shipping should be kept up if they are still taking men out of the yards for service abroad." This question of the supply of men for the yards is the most important question at the present time. I firmly believe that it will not be properly dealt with until you get at the head of ship construction a man of independence and force, who is independent of every other Department, and who is able to hold his own with every other Department in the struggle for man-power. We all know what a good effect on the use of shipping was obtained by the appointment of Sir Joseph Maclay at the head of that work. An equally good effect would be produced if we had an equally efficient man at the head of ship construction. I am perfectly certain that the country now depends, first and last, upon the production of merchant shipping. You will get these complaints from all over the country in increasing number as to the shortage of food, and those complaints will be aggravated unless the country is assured that the utmost is being done to see that merchant shipping is produced.
    Mr. WATT: Like my hon. Friends who have preceded me, 1 represent a shipbuilding constituency, and I am therefore desirous of making a few observations on the same lines that they followed. I make no apology for repeating figures which have been put already before the House, because they are so appallingly serious that they cannot too often be brought to the attention of the Government. The House is aware that the shipbuilding figures have fallen off in a very ominous fashion during the last two or three months. In the month of December
    612
    the output of mercantile tonnage was 140,000 tons. That output fell in January to 55,000 tons. That figure multiplied by twelve brings the total for the year up to something like 700,000 tons, so that the annual output, reckoned on the January output, is something like 750,000 tons. That falling-off in the output of mercantile tonnage unfortunately follows a change of policy on the part of the Government, a change in the control of the mercantile marine. The control was in the hands of the Shipping Controller.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamare): Not at all. It has been in our hands since May last.
    Mr. WATT: The change was made at an earlier period, but the result was visible in the January and December comparison. We are entitled to infer that it was due to the change of control from the Shipping Controller to the Admiralty, and if that is so we are justified in assuming that in this great crisis of the country, for the country's welfare beyond a doubt depends entirely on the output of mercantile marine, that the previous system should be revived. It almost follows from the fact that the Admiralty have to look after naval shipbuilding that it gets more consideration, and that the yards are gradually but surely diverted on to naval shipbuilding to the neglect of the mercantile marine, and that is so, as I understand that between 60 per cent, and 70 per cent. of the work in the yards is at present engaged on naval construction and that, therefore, there is comparative neglect of the mercantile marine. That is my first suggestion, that the control should be put into the hands of that Department which is responsible to-the country—to the world, indeed—for the management of our shipping, namely, the Shipping Controller. The second suggestion 1 would make is that the workmen in the yards should be told the exact facts of the situation. Week after week, this morning, in the newspapers we are told the number of vessels which have been sunk, but that conveys to no man in the country any idea of the tonnage that has. been lost. We are told there are fifteen vessels in the last week over 1,600 tons which have been sunk. We are not told whether they are near to the 1,600 or near to 30,000 or 40,000 tons, and, therefore, the tonnage that is sunk is not in the mind of any of the men in the street, and not in

    613
    the minds of the men who are working in the yards. I believe if they were told the destruction of tonnage and the seriousness of the situation they would buckle to in a thorough fashion and do their utmost to save the country. Another suggestion I would make to the Leader of the House is this: He has found that the idea of competition between one city and another has been most successful in getting in money. Why should he not institute a system of comparison of yard and yard in this struggle? I feel certain from what I know of the working men on the Clyde, who have a sporting instinct, that the idea of competition, with perhaps something in the shape of a prize offered for the yard that did the best, on the lines of the tank competition, would lead to great results. I feel certain that the Government will seriously consider this great question of the output of shipbuilding and will take some steps to have the rather disappointing figures of this year remedied as early as possible.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara) has spoken so often in the last week on this subject that he suggests that I should say a few words, especially as I am sure the House will not expect a full reply at this hour to-night in view of the fact that we are to have a discussion on this subject alone next Wednesday. But I wish for another reason to say a few words to the House now that the subject has been raised again. I wish the House to realise that it is not and has not at any time for I do not know how many months been regarded as a matter for the Admiralty alone. It is a great mistake, if anyone does entertain that idea, to suppose that not only the Admiralty, but the whole Government have not realised for a very long time that this very problem which we are discussing to-night is perhaps the most vital of all these problems which we have got to consider, and that it is something for which the Government as a whole, and not any particular Department must be held responsible. Although I am quite ready to admit that in view of the seriousness of the situation no one could find any fault with speeches such as we have heard to-night, or could regret that the subject is constantly ventilated in the House of Commons, yet while that is true I do think there has been some misapprehension as to what the situation is. I wish to say this, for what it is worth, that as a rule when difficulties of this kind arise they are brought to light by
    614
    questions addressed to the Government, or in some way of that kind. The House will remember that that was not the case in this instance. Our attention in the Government had been called over and over again to the seriousness of the situation, and we ourselves gave the House and the country the first information and gave the House the first opportunity of itself directing attention to the serious crisis that had arisen. In addition to that, I wish to say that if any hon. Member imagines that the Government or the Admiralty are under the impression that the way to get ships is to quarrel with and not to get the best out of the shipbuilding fraternity in the country they are entirely mistaken. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the statement which he made on this subject, referred to the fact that the output had fallen, and he expressed, I think in very mild terms, the idea that the cause of that, to a considerable extent, was due to the fact that labour had not been as active as it might have been. He referred, also, incidentally to what I should have thought would be recognised as true by everyone, that the strain of the War is, perhaps, telling even on shipbuilders, and that they, like the rest of the population, must bestir themselves to the utmost if we were to get the best results
    I wish the House to understand precisely why it was that the change was made as to the building of ships. It was not at all because the Government were in the least dissatisfied with the work which was done by the Shipping Controller. On the contrary, I am expressing only what is felt by every member of the Government when I say that whatever may be said about the experiment of bringing business men into high positions in the Government, anyone who has come in contact with the work that Sir Joseph Maclay does knows that anything he undertakes will be done efficiently, and that has been the case. That was not the reason. Rightly or wrongly, the reason for making the change was this—the labour and the steel for building warships and ordinary merchant ships is the same. The yards where merchant ships are turned out are to a large extent the same yards in which not battleships but ships used for war purposes are being turned out now. Anyone with any knowledge of Government Departments, or of the conduct of

    615
    government at all, knows that with the demand for steel and labour there is a difficulty in dividing it up correctly. That was the idea—that inasmuch as it was the same class of labour, the same material employed, and the same yards, you would greatly lessen all that friction and get better results by putting the whole of shipbuilding, merchant ships and warships, under one control.
    It is certainly a great mistake to suppose, as has been hinted at in many of the speeches to which we have listened, that the Admiralty, because they are a fighting force, look upon the building of merchant ships as something of secondary importance in comparison with the building of ships for war purposes. I can tell the House, what anyone of common sense would realise must be the case, that when this subject has been discussed at the War Cabinet, as it has been dozens of times, not only we felt, but the First Lord of the Admiralty himself over and over again made us feel, that there was no good in getting ships of war if the life-blood of the nation was to be stopped for want of the material for carrying the goods. My hon. Friend, in the interesting speech with which this Debate was initiated, spoke of the Admiralty as if it were all gold braid, as if it were thinking only of warships. The First Lord of the Admiralty has not been brought up in that way, and, more than that, this Department of Shipping Construction was the Department which was placed under his control first of all, and it is not an unreasonable assumption to come to the conclusion that the man who had himself directed it would, on his afterwards becoming First Lord of the Admiralty, realise that that Department was as important as any other over which he had control. I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words, just to let hon Members know that all of us have been following this matter most closely for a very long time, and that I am not merely speaking of it because it is raised in the House.
    In reference to the speech of my hon. Friend who spoke last, the House knows that this new arrangement was made in June last, and it must not be forgotten by the House that in the last quarter of 1917 the results were very good, but these results were under the same management which is condemned now. Is it not reasonable to suppose that there is some other
    616
    explanation than bad management for the falling-off in January and February as compared with the great improvement in the previous year, when the management was precisely the same. The real truth is that whatever you do about management, if you make it as perfect as it can be made, you come down to this root fact, that unless the men who are engaged in producing ships are made to realise that it is something on which the fate of the War depends in which they are engaged you will not get the results which the country has a right to expect. My hon. Friends who have spoken dwelt very largely on the necessity of publishing returns. My hon. Friend who spoke first alluded to an interview which he and a number of other Members had with me. I told them then in a way in which I could not tell the House of Commons why we could not publish these figures. This Government has never been desirous of concealing them. But we are fighting the War with Allies, and the House must realise that we are not free agents altogether in a matter of this kind. It was mentioned to the House by myself a week or so ago that we had the hope that it would be possible to publish accurate figures. We have been discussing it with our Allies since, and I have the hope—I think it is stronger than that—that on Wednesday my right hon. Friend the First Lord will be able to give the actual figures. I am convinced that nothing but good now can come of that. In the first place, if the enemy attached any importance to them at all, the figures are so much less than the estimates which he was putting upon them that they will not damage our cause. But the real reason why I wish to see them published is because I am certain they will have an importance which was experienced when the Munitions Department was created, when the men were made to realise that what they were doing was as vital in the War as what was done by their brothers in the field. It is much hoped, by giving these details to the men in the shipyards, not merely by figures, though that will be done, but by going throughout the yards and putting the case frankly to them that we will succeed in making them realise that what they have to do is vital, and I am certain that we will find results which will astonish everyone who is now in any way responsible for what is going on.

    617
    11.0 P.M.
    My hon. Friend who spoke last (Mr. Watt) made a suggestion as to local competition in merchant shipbuilding. Nothing could be better than that, but that has already been determined upon by the Admiralty. We do realise the necessity of it, and the stimulus of local effort is one of the best suggestions we can have in regard to the building of merchant ships. I am convinced that the results are going to be very much better in the months ahead. Do not let the House imagine that it is only since this subject has been raised that we have tried to make improvements. We do realise that the first thing to be done is not in connection with the national yards, though I hope they will turn out to give good results later on; but the first thing to be done is to get ahead, with the co-operation of the men, with the building of merchant ships, and, one way or other, that is what the Government intend to do. One of my hon. Friends said it was the duty of the Government to take the matter up. Of course, it is, and I do not think there is any harm in saying that even to-day the Prime Minister, whose time is very, very much occupied, has, accompanied by the First Lord of the Admiralty, seen a number of representative shipbuilders, and he is trying to do what he personally can in regard to this matter.
    Mr. FRANCE: Is the Prime Minister doing anything to increase the number of men in the shipyards in accordance with the promise he has made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, a number of men are being got. The combing-out is going on, and all I can say is that the number of men has been steadily increasing in the shipyards. Do not let the House forget that in January and February there was no scarcity of material, and the amount of labour was far greater than in the previous three months. As regards the Army, more men are being brought back from the front, but I need not tell the House that it is not very easy to get that done. It is not, as the House will understand, a very simple question. The men themselves often do not like to be taken away from their comrades in the trenches. But the fact remains that it will not be for want of men if shipbuilding does not improve. I do not say that further organisation may not be necessary, but I can assure the House that if there is a failure in
    618
    this matter it will not be because the Government have not realised their responsibility, or because they are not doing, to the best of their ability, everything they can to meet the grave crisis in which this country is involved.
    Mr. T. WILSON: May I suggest to the Leader of the House that there are a large number of skilled men in Home camps, many of whom have returned from the front, who are now employed on work not skilled at all. I had a letter this morning from one of the new shipyards in which the writer informs me that while there is a lot of woodwork and machinery lying idle, thirty or forty skilled carpenters are employed in mixing concrete. That is not utilising the skill of these men. I am also informed in another letter from a man, forty-seven years of age—an extremely skilled workman—a shipyard carpenter, that he cannot get his release to go on skilled work, and that during the last two years he has only used his tools for three hours. I urge that instead of leaving the selection of these men to the military, it should be done by civilians who are practical men, and that this should be particularly the case to the men in Home camps. Until something of that kind is done we shall get nothing like the number of men released who are available—and the right sort of men, too. I have had some figures given me with regard to the number of men released, and they are very discouraging. The returns with regard to merchant shipping, too, are not encouraging. It is not altogether due to slackness on the part of either employers or employed. There may be some slackers among the men and among the employers also. I do not think it would be impossible to find some among the Government. But it is not the cause of the reduced output; the cause is to be found in irritating Regulations and decisions—decisions which intend to allay unrest in one quarter simply to create it in another. I am told, too, by workmen—by foremen—that there is undue interference by officials sent by the Government to the yards. Men who know nothing about shipbuilding have been attempting to teach the foremen their business, and anyone can understand that such interference is resented. These people may be competent to give military orders—to call people to attention—but they do not understand shipbuilding, and the more trust you put in the foremen, who do

    619
    understand the men who have made a study of it, the better will be the results you will get. To accuse the men of slacking without being able to prove it can only cause bad feeling and a bad spirit in the yards, and it would be far better to remain silent than to make these charges. I am going to suggest that in the combing-out process men are being asked to send in their protection cards and certificates. These men are told that their cards are not being called in because they are going to be called up; but they believe they are going to be called up, and I suggest that when a calling in notice is sent to the men they ought to be informed that some other form of protection is going to be given. It is because they do not know from day to day whether they are going to be called to the Army or not that there is some slacking, or that the men do not give of their best. I hope that all the men on national work will put their hearts and souls into the work, and that they will do their utmost to increase the output as far as they possibly can.
    There is another matter to which I should like to refer, and that is this: The walls are placarded with bills asking for men to work in the shipyards and aeroplane works, and these bills say that men applying must have some experience, must be accustomed to aircraft work and shipbuilding. But there is nobody in this country out of employment now who is accustomed to this work. It is the men who are not accustomed to this work, men from the cabinet makers' shops, pattern makers' shops, and carpenters' shops, who have not been on this work at all, you want, because the men who have experience of this work are on it already, It is extremely foolish to ask men to offer their services for aircraft and shipbuilding work, and to tell them that they will not be engaged if they are not accustomed to the work, because there are none of those who can be obtained. I say that any man who offers his services should be given employment, and particularly so if you want to comb-out the Grade 1 men. It is only by getting substitutes, men very often over military age, that you can afford to release any men from the shipbuilding yards or aeroplane works at all. As a matter of fact, I do not think it is wise to comb men out of shipbuilding yards at the present time at all. We know men are urgently required, but it is
    620
    equally true that ships are required, and that being so we ought to go very carefully indeed in the combing out of these men. I conclude by saying that I hope the Government will do all they possibly can to inspire confidence in the minds of the men working in shipyards, aeroplane works, and all national works, because I believe that if they can only gain the confidence of the men they will put their backs into the work and do all they possibly can to help the country in its hour of need.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (SECRETARY) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND:I beg to to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  I have been asked just to say one word as to the reason for bringing in this Bill at the present time. That; word need only be brief, as the whole principle which underlies this Bill was debated the other day in Committee of Supply. The object of the Bill is not so much the creation of a new Department in itself as a matter of regularising procedure. The principle of the new Department was debated and an explanation given of its existence in some detail. Why the Bill is needed is because in the New Ministries Act of 1916 it is not clear whether any power was given to create a joint appointment of an Undersecretary; and, secondly, of course, the new Department is intended to be permanent, and the whole of the New Ministries Act had reference primarily to temporary Ministries and Departments created only for the period of the War. Consequently, I am sure the House will agree that far the wisest course was to regularise the proceeding, and to put the whole question beyond dispute by bringing a Bill forward in order to make the position clear and established. The object of the Department, as is known, is simply to take in hand the overseas services of the Commercial Attaches, Consuls, and Trade Commissioners, and to deal with them jointly instead by two different Departments, having, as it were, a rather debatable condominion over them. The previous procedure as to foreign trade

  621
  for many years had been found unsatisfactory in this country, and the division between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, or its equivalent, in other countries was found unsatisfactory in other countries as well, such as in both the United States and in Germany.
  Therefore experience has shown everywhere that some new method of management, if possible, would be desirable. Consequently, the, expedient has been devised not by way of compromise, but as the better method of achieving results, that the two Departments interested in it should manage, the matter jointly. That is the whole essence of the existence of the new Department, and it is hoped that under such management there. may be greater efficiency for the purposes of our commerce. I am sure the House at this late hour will not want me to say more in explanation of a subject which was debated at some length in Committee of Supply. I only rose to say these few words because I would not wish the House to think there was an intention of slipping the Bill through secretly. I hope, if any hon. Member had that impression that what I have said may suffice. For the rest, I do not wish to detain the House at this late hour of the evening.
  Mr. D. MASON: What about the amount of the salary? Is it £2,000?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is proposed that the sum paid to the Secretary should be £2,000. That actual sum has already been paid and approved by the House in Committee of Supply when the subject was before debated.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not rise to oppose the Bill, but I think the commercial community should be given some further time for its consideration. I must say there is a feeling as to a want of efficiency in the Departments dealing with this subject, and if we are to stereotype the same lot of fossilised officials who have hitherto had the management of this business then instead of improving overseas trade, the effect, I think, will be of a retrograde character. The Colonial Office is the greatest example of the obstruction of overseas trade in the British Empire—I do not hesitate to say. I am not in the least criticising the hon. Gentleman, but a more hide-bound Department could not possibly exist than some of the gentlemen who are at the head of the Colonial Office, and it is impossible to get anything done.
  622
  Instead of benefiting the overseas trade of the country, and doing anything' to-Advance it, their great idea is to obstruct, and do nothing. I could give instances of, that. Therefore, while I fully accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman that he has no intention whatever of slipping a. measure of this kind through the Houses for he is the last person to lend himself to any such procedure—Ithink sufficient time should be interposed before the Committee stage. I also say that the name of the Minister who is to have this important work ought to be known at an early date and, what is more, ought to be canvassed. If he is to be a good man, the salary to be paid to him is utterly inadequate. A salary, of £2,000 a year is a third-rate salary to a man who has to deal with this vast, Comprehensive subject, involving the super vision of hundreds of millions of money If you begin with miserable salary, a miserable view will be taken of the office, and you will not get a man of real competence to devote his time and attention to it. The salary is grossly inadequate to the greatness of the task. Also, let us know who are to be the minor officials. If you are going to pitchfork men from the Colonial Office into this job, I prophesy for it failure at the start. You are now starting on a most important and desirable reform. I say that the three Kingdoms ought to have a little further time to realise what the real scheme is, who are the officials, what has been their experience, who is to be the man at the top, and that we should approach this as being one of the most important Departments to be created in the interests of the three Kingdoms.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I should like to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken that this matter has received for some months past the very careful attention of the commercial community. It has been considered by the important group called the Commercial Committee of this House, who have given great attention to it in all its aspects. It has been considered by the London Chamber of Commerce, by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, by the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, and by a number of other bodies, and we are all agreed that the time has come when a measure of this kind ought to be passed in order to carry out almost all those objects which the hon. and learned Gentleman desires as much as

  623
  anybody else in the House. We all trust this measure may be passed at the earliest possible opportunity.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. James Hope.]

  OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (SECRETARY)— [SALARY].
  Considered in Committee.
  Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of an annual Salary, not exceeding £2,000, to the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department appointed under any Act of the present Session, to make provision for the joint
  624
  appointment by the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of a Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department."—[Sir A. Steel-Maitland.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now Adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five-minutes after Eleven o'clock till Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February.

WAR.
  BRITISH GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.
    EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION.
    EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION.
  COMMERCIAL ATTACHES AND TRADE COMMISSIONERS.
  COMMERCIAL ATTACHES AND TRADE COMMISSIONERS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFF).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFF).
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (OFFICIALS EXTRA WORK).
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (OFFICIALS EXTRA WORK).
  WAR DEPARTMENT, ISLAND BRIDGE.
  WAR DEPARTMENT, ISLAND BRIDGE.
  TIMBER FELLING (IRELAND).
  TIMBER FELLING (IRELAND).
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
    SUGAR.
    SUGAR.
    RATION COUPONS (RESIDENTIAL HOTELS).
    RATION COUPONS (RESIDENTIAL HOTELS).
    FEEDING STUFFS.
    FEEDING STUFFS.
    CHILDREN'S RATIONS.
    CHILDREN'S RATIONS.
    ARMY HOUSES (FARM WORK).
    ARMY HOUSES (FARM WORK).
    STORE CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
    STORE CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  SHIPBUILDING (FEBRUARY, 1918).
  SHIPBUILDING (FEBRUARY, 1918).
  NAVAL OFFICERS (VICTUALLING ALLOWANCE).
  NAVAL OFFICERS (VICTUALLING ALLOWANCE).
  COURTS-MARTIAL ("SOLDIERS' FRIENDS").
  COURTS-MARTIAL ("SOLDIERS' FRIENDS").
  ROYAL DEFENCE CORPS (CAPTAIN HALL).
  ROYAL DEFENCE CORPS (CAPTAIN HALL).
  GERMAN PRISONERS (MILITARY TUNICS).
  GERMAN PRISONERS (MILITARY TUNICS).
  ARMY OFFICERS.
    PAY AND PROMOTION.
    PAY AND PROMOTION.
    REMOVAL FROM REGIMENT.
    REMOVAL FROM REGIMENT.
    PROMOTION.
    PROMOTION.
  ROYAL IRISH RIFLES (CADET PLATOON).
  ROYAL IRISH RIFLES (CADET PLATOON).
  PENSIONED SOLDIERS (READMISSION TO HOSPITAL).
  PENSIONED SOLDIERS (READMISSION TO HOSPITAL).
  SOLDIERS LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS LEAVE.
  CORPORAL WATKINS.
  CORPORAL WATKINS.
  ARMY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  ARMY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    AGRICULTURAL WORKER (RELEASE).
    AGRICULTURAL WORKER (RELEASE).
    BOYS OF EIGHTEEN.
    BOYS OF EIGHTEEN.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  WOOL.
  WOOL.
  RUSSIAN ALIENS.
  RUSSIAN ALIENS.
  DISCHARGED SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
  DISCHARGED SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
  MESSRS. LEYLANDS AND COMPANY.
  MESSRS. LEYLANDS AND COMPANY.
  WAZIRISTAN FIELD FORCE.
  WAZIRISTAN FIELD FORCE.
  INDIAN KIP COMMITTEE.
  INDIAN KIP COMMITTEE.
  ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
    STEEL HELMETS.
    STEEL HELMETS.
    COMPENSATION.
    COMPENSATION.
  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION (LOCAL INQUIRIES).
  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION (LOCAL INQUIRIES).
  INCREASE OF RENT (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  INCREASE OF RENT (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE.
  DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE.
  WASTE PAPER (IRELAND).
  WASTE PAPER (IRELAND).
  Poor Persons (Hospital Treatment).
  Poor Persons (Hospital Treatment).
  Swine Fever (Serum Treatment).
  Swine Fever (Serum Treatment).
  Lunatics Maintenance (Government Contribution).
  Lunatics Maintenance (Government Contribution).
  Parka, etc. (Local Authorities' Powers).
  Parka, etc. (Local Authorities' Powers).

ST. OLAVE'S CHURCH, SOUTHWARK, BILL. [H.L.]
Debate upon the Motion for the Second Reading, resumed (according to Order).
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am sorry to say that the question of the St. Olave's Church, Southwark, Bill, which came before your Lordships' House last week, has not been settled, and I shall have shortly to bring to your notice the difficulty which still exists. The proposal is that the site of the church and the disused burial ground shall be sold in order that the proceeds may be used for the erection of a new church where it is very much wanted in a congested district in Southwark. A statement is before your Lordships' House which shows, first, that the church is not required in its present position and that the attendance is almost negligible; secondly, that the Report of the Attorney-General has been given in favour of the Bill, and that all the various authorities who have to be consulted, including the Crown as the patron, the Bishop of the Diocese, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, have given their assent to the proposals contained in the Bill.
The only point in debate arises in reference to the Instruction which my noble friend Viscount Bryce proposes to move after the Second Reading, namely—
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 promoters of the Bill are as anxious as any one else to preserve and protect open spaces where they are required within the metropolitan area, and I shall read to your Lordships shortly—as I do not intend to deal with the matter at any length—
430
the terms of an arrangement which has been come to between the promoters and the London County Council, who are the statutory authority for protecting and safeguarding open spaces within the metropolis.
The difficulty in this case arises in this way. The site, so far as the church is concerned, opens upon Tooley-street, and so far as the disused burial ground is concerned it opens upon the river; and the value of the site depends really on its frontage to the river and not on its frontage to Tooley-street. I do not like to quote figures, but I will give two in illustration. It is said that the site, dealt with as a whole, would be worth something like £50,000 because the wharfage is of great importance, but if the proposed Instruction was carried the site facing on Tooley-street would have but a mere nominal value in comparison to the frontage on the river. The result would be, not that an open space would be obtained, but that the whole scheme would come to an end; the new church could not be erected, and there would be no open space for the benefit of the dwellers in the neighbourhood. At this particular point an open space is hardly wanted, because owing to change in occupation it has now become, not a residential district in any sense, but a district of warehouses.
To make the matter as short as I can, may I tell your Lordships what the terms are which have been agreed upon with the London County Council, who are, as I have said, the statutory authority to deal with open spaces and to safeguard the rights of the public. The terms are in these words. First, that the church shall be removed to a new site without any addition to it. The church is said to have been erected by a pupil of Wren's, and the desire is to maintain his architecture exactly in the same way by removing the church stone by stone and erecting it on the new site. Secondly, £5,000 is to be contributed to the Open Spaces Fund. That is to say, out of the money derived from the sale the London County Council will be handed £5,000, which will be contributed to the Open Spaces Fund of which they are the guardians. Thirdly, a suitable memorial is to be put up on the wall of the building erected on the church site to be approved by the Council. That is in order to keep an historical record of the old St. Olave's Church. Fourthly, there is to be a slight setting back of the frontage of the site. This is a matter of detail

431
The London County Council pointed out that the frontage site could be improved by a small proportion being put into the street, and this suggestion has been consented to. Fifthly, the name of "St. Olave" is to be preserved in the title of the daughter parish of St. John, Horsleydown. You have there what appears to be a suitable adjustment of all suggested difficulties between the promoters on the one side and the London County Council on the other.
I have consulted the Lord Chairman, and he tells me that it is quite out of accord with the ordinary procedure of your Lordships' House, after a Bill of this kind has been read a second time, that an Instruction should be given to the Committee to insert certain words. You will notice that the form of the Instruction is mandatory, so that the Committee would have no option in the matter. I wish to make this suggestion on behalf of the promoters. They are desirous that the best should be done in the interests of all parties. They are quite prepared, if your Lordships would allow a Second Reading of the Bill, to give an undertaking that as far as they are concerned they will take no objection to any necessary suspension of the Standing Order so that those interested in proposing the Instruction may be heard before the Committee upstairs. It will be quite impossible to explain in detail the special peculiarities which surround this Bill, but it appears to me to be a perfectly fair suggestion that if those who are in favour of this Instruction want to bring their views before the Committee the promoters should facilitate their desire in every way. The Act of 1884, on which I think those who desire the Instruction rely, has a section in it which says, "Nothing in this Act contained shall apply to any burial ground which has been sold or disposed of by any Act of Parliament." I sincerely hope that your Lordships will follow the ordinary practice and not allow a compulsory Instruction to be inserted.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I desire to move the Instruction which stands in my name. My noble friend Lord Parmoor has stated in a general way the purposes of the Bill which is before your Lordships, but I wish to say a little more in order to explain the position. I move this Instruction upon several grounds, which I will
432
state. First of all, let me remark that the Bill deals both with the church and with the churchyard. The case is quite different as regards the church and the churchyard. Those on whose behalf I put down this Instruction are interested only in the churchyard, and whatever arrangement the Committee may make with regard to the church is a matter with which we do not propose to interfere. The Instruction relates only to the churchyard.
I say nothing against the objects which it is proposed to effect by the Bill. The objects in themselves are sufficiently laudable; but what the Bill proposes to do is to override several Statutes, to override the Act of 1884 and the subsequent Act of 1887 which amended and extended the Act of 1884, and to override the Open Spaces Act of 1906. These Acts were passed with the general concurrence of both Houses of Parliament, and they have been found extremely valuable. Under them a very large number of open spaces have been secured for the people of London. I believe that there are 140, or about that number, at the present time. These open spaces are very largely used even in places in which the population is, as has been said of Bermondsey, mainly a population engaged in business during the day, in counting houses and warehouses. People go out during the day, and are able to resort to these open spaces and sit down, and have a little time of quiet. To be able to do that is a very great boon to the men employed in the warehouses and offices as well as to such children as there are in the neighbourhood. Some one has well said that there is nothing more melancholy about the life of those who are engaged in daily toil than the difficulty of obtaining a place where they can be alone and in which they can be quiet for a short time. During the day these open spaces have proved very valuable in the most crowded districts of the city for that purpose, and those of your Lordships who sometimes pass through the city will often have noticed the numbers of people who are taking advantage of these open places, especially during the luncheon hour.
It is a strong thing to override these public Acts, and I think that your Lordships will feel that it ought not to be done unless there is a far stronger case than has been presented here. We ought not to sacrifice local interests, which the Acts were particularly intended to guard, and

433
the interests of the working class population of London merely for the sake of an improvement, however laudable its ultimate objects may be. That is the first ground upon which I submit that this Instruction is one which your Lordships' House may properly pass. I say nothing—though I know that is important—as to what is in the minds of the people of Bermondsey about the removal of the graveyard. The people of Bermondsey naturally feel that they do not wish the remains of their forefathers to be taken up and removed from this place and planted somewhere else.
I want to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is a spot of quite unique interest in London, a spot of that historic interest which it is desirable to preserve as much as possible and which we think is not an inconsiderable asset in attaching the people of London to their city. This place is the site of a famous battle which was fought in the early part of the eleventh century between the Norwegians under King Olaf, who came up with the fleet, and those who were then holding London Bridge. There is some doubt between the different authorities as to what was the respective position of the Danes and the English in this war, but there is no doubt that it was King Olaf's attack upon the bridge which turned the issue of the campaign and which drove those who were holding Southwark out of it, and practically settled the matter that was then in conflict. I will not trouble your Lordships with the details of the different authorities, but it is unquestionable that this is a place of unique and special interest.
We know that the church of St. Olaf existed before the Norman Conquest. There was a large population of Norwegians and Danes at that time in London, and there is every ground for believing that the reason why this spot was chosen whereon to build the church of St. Olaf was that it was associated with this great exploit which he had performed and which his Norwegian compatriots were anxious to commemorate. Curiously enough, exactly on the other side of London Bridge—the north side—there stands a church dedicated to St. Magnus, Who was a son of St. Olaf and who subsequently attained the crown of Norway. So these two Norwegian saints, the one on the north side and the other on the south side of the river, commemorate the association of this part of London with the con-
434
flicts of those days in a way which is of the greatest interest from our early history, and which I thinks deserves to be commemorated.
I would like to add further that the place has another interest. It is almost the only spot along the central course of the river where it passes from Westminster down towards the Isle of Dogs and Greenwich where access to the river is not entirely closed by warehouses. This little open space—this churchyard—just under the south corner of London Bridge, with its quaint little tower looking out upon the river, affords a singularly charming, interesting, and peculiar prospect. You see London Bridge and the spires of the city opposite, and you see the lofty walls of The Tower. It is ore of the places which an artist desiring to draw a picture of the river and the bridge would choose as the very best place for the purpose. It is a place which any one who wants to get an idea of London, or the highest part of the port, would seek, and from which he would obtain a perfectly unique and charming view. Moreover, it is one of the very few open spaces that exist in Bermondsey, and I think the only open space in Bermondsey which fronts on to the river.
My noble friend Lord Parmoor has suggested an arrangement which might be made if this Bill were allowed to go through without the Instruction, and he has mentioned a compromise which seems to have been suggested to the London County Council. I have to remark upon that that it is by no means satisfactory to those who desire to preserve the open space. The promoters have offered to give £5,000 to the London County Council. That apparently would be applied in purchasing some open space elsewhere, perhaps at a considerable distance, and would not be likely to confer any benefit at all upon the people of Bermondsey, and would be without the special advantages and charms which, as I have endeavoured to show, this open space possesses. We are not at all prepared to go before the Committee and take our chance there. We have no locus standi before the Committee. If we were to have a locus standi, as it is suggested we might have, the society which undertakes the charge of these cases would be put to a very considerable expense in engaging counsel and endeavouring to argue its case there. We conceive that, where a general public Act is involved, it

435
is before one of the Houses of Parliament, or both Houses, if necessary, that this matter ought to be brought—that it ought not to be left to the chances of a Committee, but ought to be disposed of by your Lordships as a question involving the interests of the people at large and as a question of the general law.
It would be very little comfort to the people of Bermondsey to have an open space perhaps five or six miles from the place where they live. The borough council of Bermondsey, which, of course, is specially interested in the matter, has prepared a Petition, which it has addressed to your Lordships' House, asking that the Bill be not sanctioned in its present form, and supporting the Instruction which I am now moving. They say that what they want, and what they care for primarily, is the interest of Bermondsey; that any thing that may be done in the way which the promoters have proposed to the London County Council would be of no benefit at all to themselves and to the people of Bermondsey, of whose interests they are the appointed guardians. And therefore they conceive that this scheme ought by no means to be accepted, but that it is now our duty to secure their interests by making this a mandatory Instruction. They feel that their interests are primarily concerned, and that it is for this House, for Parliament, which has placed their churchyard under statutory protection, to continue that statutory protection to them.
I submit to your Lordships that it is a very dangerous thing to set a precedent of this kind. Two attempts were recently made to overset the general law which preserves the disused burial grounds, and in both those cases the House of Commons passed an Instruction of this nature and secured for the people their local burial grounds, and also vindicated the general principle that the Statute should be maintained. It would be a most dangerous thing for us to set a precedent the other way, and in this case to overthrow what I believe to be not only the local interests but also the interests of the people of London at large, by allowing the Bill to pass without the Instruction. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will see fit to support the Act, and to support also the interests of the working classes of London, and especially those of the people of Bermondsey, who have expressed their wishes to their borough councillors.
Moved, 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.—(Viscount Bryce.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the Instruction which has been moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce. I do not propose to say anything about the merits of this Bill, because I am not forming my opinion upon the merits of a Bill which would naturally go to a Private Bill Committee upstairs to be thoroughly considered. But there is a principle involved—the principle which has been mentioned so forcibly by the noble Viscount. That principle is that Parliament has expressed its opinion in an Act of Parliament that disused burial grounds should not be built over, but that, especially in the London area, they should be kept as open spaces for the benefit of the public. Of course, there is also the sentimental reason referred to by the noble Viscount. I dare say Parliament had that in view too, and that the Act was also passed for the reason that specially in crowded areas of the metropolis, it was of very great importance that these open spaces should be retained, and by a subsequent Act they made it clear that they should if possible be so retained. I am not sure how many, but I believe there are certainly two instances when the House of Commons refused to pass a Bill of this nature without some Instruction of this kind. Parliament, therefore, may be taken to have reviewed this question on more than one occasion and to have deliberately determined to adhere to the general principle of the Act of 1884.
The question of principle is to my mind a very important one. If this Bill were passed without some Instruction of this sort, it seems to me that a Committee upstairs would naturally say, The House has sent this Bill upstairs to us; there can be no question of any important principle being involved, and we presume

437
that the House desires that the Committee should deal with it on its merits. And they would no doubt take evidence upon it on those lines. But I do not think that we ought to leave it in that way to a Committee upstairs to decide the case simply upon its merits. This principle, if it were infringed, would create a precedent that might be continually brought before the House, and a very great deal of harm might accrue to the metropolis as a whole in losing, in consequence of this precedent, disused burial grounds which ought in the interests of the public to be kept unbuilt upon. I think this principle is so important that I give my hearty support to the Instruction which the noble Viscount has moved.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, both the noble Lords who have spoken from below the gangway have mentioned that the London County Council are specially concerned in this case, although we are by no means the promoters of the Bill, and it probably is advisable that at this stage I should say one or two words on behalf of the London County Council. As the noble Viscount observed, this is not altogether a simple matter, because various interests are involved—not, I mean, in the material sense; but there is the archæological interest of which the noble Viscount gave us some indications, there is the architectural interest attaching to a church possessing very peculiar characteristics, as this does, and there is the quite separate interest which has been emphasised by my noble friend Lord Plymouth—namely, that of the general question of the preservation of open spaces in London. Those are all separate matters, and have, indeed, to be dealt with separately. The London County Council are directly interested in all three. There are different committees of the Council which are specially concerned with these three aspects of the question, and therefore it is natural that the Council have given the closest consideration and spent a great deal of time in looking through everything that could be collected on this subject, which we all agree may be shown to involve questions of principle, and is, therefore, of no small moment. I am able to say, as was indicated by the noble Lords who spoke, that on all these separate matters the London County Council have been, generally speaking, satisfied by the promoters of the Bill, and that therefore, although they have peti-
438
tioned against it, they will not pursue opposition upstairs, on the terms which have been suggested to them on behalf of the promoters.
As regards the archæological interest, the history of the site, and so on, it is understood, I am told, that care will be taken that any objects of archæological interest which may be discovered in making the change will be available for one of our museums. So far as the historical interest is concerned, it is proposed that this should be satisfied in two ways—the one by placing some form of tablet, or similar memorial, on the site, explaining that this is where St. Olave's Church stood; and, secondly, what is also an important matter, by transferring, or adding, the name of St. Olave to the new parish of St. John's, Horsleydown, or, rather, the old parish which is to take over the existing parish of St. Olave's. It is true that we do attach great importance to the retention of the name. The name is, as a matter of fact—so I am told, though I had no idea of it before—enshrined in the name Tooley-street, which is, in fact, St. Olave's Street. Most people associate Tooley-street either with the three famous historical tailors who claimed not only to represent but actually to be the people of England, or with the great fire of 1861—perhaps the most famous fire that occurred in London since the Great Fire—when the then chief of the Fire Brigade lost his life, and the feat of "setting the Thames on fire," which is so often spoken of but so rarely witnessed, was actually carried out on a very large scale. Now the name of St. Olave's will be preserved, not only in a degraded form, but will be continued in the new parish.
With regard to the architectural interest, which is considered by those who are able to judge to be very substantial, the proposition is that the church should be removed precisely as it is, stone by stone, and re-erected on a site where it will be of more value for religious purposes than it can be in its present position. I understand that the Royal Institute of British Architects, who were consulted on this point, have expressed warm approval of this proposal. The church, although not of great antiquity, is of peculiar interest as representing one of the not numerous London churches of the pure basilica type, built by Flitcroft, by whom, I think, only one other church

439
now exists in London; and therefore its preservation is a matter of serious interest. One difficulty only arises over this question of re-erection. It may appear that, although the church has a large seating capacity, it is not considered quite large enough for the new position in which it is to be placed; and it may consequently be desired to add to it. It is a serious question, I understand, whether such an addition could possibly be made without destroying the architectural characteristics of the church; and I believe, therefore, that it is agreed that this matter shall be left open, and that the architectural features of the church should not be interfered with without agreement with the London County Council.
Then we come to the question of open spaces, in which, of course, the Council is supremely interested; and, considering who the promoters of the Bill are, I cannot believe that they too do not both feel, and will express, an equally keen desire that an open space should, if possible, be found if this improvement takes place. The main difficulty, as I understand, of turning this particular churchyard into an open space is this—that if you propose to do this you destroy all the motives for the demolition, or the re-erection elsewhere, of the church; and that, unless it is possible to sell the very valuable ground space which is involved, no money can be forthcoming for the removal of the church or for assistance towards the erection of the church elsewhere. Therefore, though I have no right to say so, because I have not been informed or instructed to that effect, I assume that, if Parliament decided that this has to be kept as an open space, the Bill could not proceed, that the whole transaction must fall to the ground, because the original motive in respect of which it was initiated would no longer exist.
The County Council, consequently, after full consideration, agreed not to oppose the proposal to sell the site—presumably for building purposes—provided that an open space, or a contribution towards an open space, could be supplied from the large sum of money which the site is likely to produce. It obviously is not possible either for the London County Council or for the promoters or for anybody else to say where such an open space could be provided. It is evident that it would be impossible to make any statement of that kind. So far as my own personal opinion is concerned—I cannot say more than that—I think
440
that every effort should be made to find and to create that open space as near as possible to the site of St. Olave's Church, in order that those who might have received some, although as I am told not very much, advantage from the turning of this particular riverside churchyard into an open space, may get some parallel advantage by a provision near at hand. As I have stated, it is quite impossible now to say where an open space could be found, but for myself I certainly hope that it would not be in an entirely different part of London but as near as possible.
In these circumstances, my Lords, the London County Council desire that the various points at issue should be left for the consideration of the Committee upstairs without their being bound by such a preliminary Instruction as that which my noble friend suggests. It is true that it is unusual in the case of a private Bill to fetter the Committee upstairs by an Instruction such as this. I am far from saying that cases might not arise where it would have to be done. I quite agree it is an exceedingly difficult case, because the notion of destroying what appears to be a possible open space and handing over such a space to be built on in apparent contravention of the Act of 1884 is undoubtedly a course which Parliament would not as a rule be disposed to take. But the circumstances are very special indeed in this case, and for that reason I think the Bill ought to be allowed to go to the Committee in order that they may have an opportunity of examining it from every possible point of view.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I do not intend to take up much of the time of your Lordships' House, but I think you would wish to hear from me something in regard to the scheme which has occupied my most careful and anxious consideration for some five years past. I should also be unwilling even to appear that I was in any way opposed to the principle that has been so eloquently advocated by the noble Viscount who moved that this Instruction should be given to the Committee. I need not—perhaps it might not be in order—go over the grounds of the merits and the origin of this Bill. Its one and only purpose is that the resources and opportunities of the Church should be economised and husbanded to the best advantage not only

441
of the Church but also of the whole community.
The parish of St. Olave's is one of those parishes with which we are quite familiar in which the parochial system can no longer be applied. The church has been closed for some months, but the needs of the parish can be fully met by the neighbouring churches. There is another parish in my diocese which a few years ago was a Surrey village, somewhat thinly populated, and which now contains some 30,000 people, and in that parish there is a district containing 10,000 people who are unprovided with any kind of religious or spiritual ministration not only by the Church of England but by any other religious body. The only purpose of this Bill is to use what is not required at St. Olave's, but is so urgently and obviously required in this other part of my diocese.
The point that I would like to bring before your Lordships is that this scheme has not been at all an easy one to formulate. You have already heard this afternoon that there are a great many interests and problems involved. We have heard of the historical associations connected with the place. No friend of mine will accuse me of depreciating the value of historical association and beautiful buildings in educating and refining the community. You have heard of the archæological interest of the place, and of the possibility of archæological discoveries. We have not heard of the complications also involved in the parish connected with the redemption of a Statutory rate levied under an Act of George I. This has been a most difficult matter to deal with, as there was no corporate body that could undertake to redeem the Statutory rate. You will see from the Bill how it is proposed that this should be done. I do desire to say more than anything else that no one has been more anxious than I have been from the first to safeguard the principle that disused burial grounds should be as far as possible utilised and kept for open spaces. As I travel about my diocese in my work in Bermondsey and other areas, again and again I have ample reason and I take every public occasion to express my great thankfulness for the work done by those who have been keeping these open spaces, and particularly by the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association
442
I have said enough to show that this scheme really must be considered as a whole, and stands or falls as a whole, if the main purpose for which it is formulated is to be carried out. Therefore my desire is that the whole scheme should be submitted to the consideration of the Committee of the House, and that they should have full, free, and unfettered discretion in dealing with it. My only objection to what the noble Viscount has moved this afternoon is that if this Instruction were added it precludes the possibility of even considering some arrangement which would satisfy the principle for which he stands, and which I understand is an arrangement which would not be at all unacceptable to those whom he represents. This Instruction would preclude the possibility of even considering any such an arrangement as I have in my mind. Therefore, I ask the house to allow the Bill to go before the Committee of the House unfettered and to give the Committee full and free discretion.
I will only add one further word. Something has been said this afternoon which might give the impression that there was a great deal of opposition. I can only say that the rectory ratepayers have all been consulted, and they have heartily accepted the arrangements. Meetings of the parishioners and business men have been held and they have shown the heartiest approval of the scheme, while the rectory trustees also support the proposal before us.
I speak, therefore, not only for myself and not simply as a representative of the Church interested in this matter, but of the people themselves who are on the spot and directly concerned with the scheme which has been formulated in this Bill.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, as chairman of the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, which has laid down about sixty-five of these burial grounds, may I be allowed a few minutes in which to explain our side of the question? There are two points on which great stress should be laid. The first is that the burial ground is absolutely distinct from the church. Those who support the noble Viscount who moved the Instruction do not desire in the smallest degree to interfere with the sale of the church or the rectory or any property the church may possess in Bermondsey or the neighbourhood. We are interested

443
only in the preservation of the burial ground as an ultimate open space for London.
The Association with which I am connected was largely responsible for the passing of the Open Spaces Act, 1881, and the Act of 1884, by which it was made illegal to build upon burial grounds. Why was that done? It was done because between 1881 and 1884 it was found that some of these burial grounds were being built upon at a very fast rate. The result of that Act has been that although London has lost 115 burial grounds, almost all these were lost before the Act of 1884. We have only lost one burial ground since that date, and that was the one upon which the General Post Office is built. It was Christ's Hospital burial ground. We opposed it, but, of course, we could not expect to win against the Government. We opposed it upon principle. Parliament has supported us in two other cases which have been mentioned—St. Bride's and St. James's, Piccadilly—and perhaps I might draw your Lordships' attention to the Resolution of the House of Commons in the case of the St. James's Vestry Hall Bill, which was defeated on the Second Reading. The Resolution was—
"That this House, having regard to the policy of Parliament as declared by the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, and the Open Spaces Act, 1906, is not prepared to entertain a Bill authorising the erection of buildings on disused burial grounds in contravention of such Acts."
They took similar action in the case of another Bill with which I will not trouble your Lordships.
I want to point out that the burial ground which the Church at this moment wants to sell is of no value because it is subject to the Burial Grounds Act, 1884, but if Parliament overrides that Act, it immediately obtains a very considerable value.
What is going to be done with the money? Is it going to be given to Bermondsey? No. It is no doubt to be devoted to very excellent objects to which no one in this House would object, but there is a principle involved. There are now 283 grounds unbuilt upon in London, of a similar character, owned by the Church, and many which are supposed to be in the hands of private owners, and what is to prevent speculators and great corporations buying up these burial grounds when they find they are of such an enormous value. The sum of £50,000 has been mentioned this afternoon. I ask your Lordships' House, is it wise, is it right, to give powers to the Church of England or to any other great corporation, excellent no doubt as the objects may be, to take the value from a district like Bermondsey, where open spaces are wanted more than in any other part of London, except perhaps Lambeth? I quite agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, that from his point of view he gets £5,000. But he is responsible, not for Bermondsey, but for the whole of London. Therefore it is absolutely right and proper that he should have his £5,000. But what would happen, supposing we had half a dozen of these grounds being put up, as it were, to auction? Are you going to allow it in each case? I hope your Lordships will recognise, as I was very pleased to hear the noble Marquess say, that this is a matter of no small importance. It is a very important matter. It is not a question of one little burial ground, it is a question of 283 burial grounds. I hope that your Lordships will pass the Instruction.
On Question, whether the proposed Instruction shall be agreed to—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Iveagh, V.

Farrer, L.

Knollys, V.

Hylton, L.

Knutsford, V.

Joicey, L.

Salisbury, M.

Leigh, L.

Loreburn, E.

Barrymore, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway)

Strafford, E.

Blyth, L.

Burnham, L.

Strachie, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Cawley, L.

Sumner, L.

Bryce, V. [Teller.]

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Sydenham, L.

Chaplin, V.

Colebrooke, L.

Weardale, L.

Churchill, V.

Coleridge, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Haldane, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Lichfield, E.

Forester, L.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lindsay, E.

Harris, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Peel, V.

Lamington, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Crewe, M.

Southwark, L. Bp. [Teller.]

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Newton, L.

Armaghdale, L.

Parker of Waddington, L

Balfour, L.

Rhondda, L.

Camperdown, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Sudeley, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Instruction agreed to and ordered accordingly.

THE EASTER RECESS.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl who leads the House whether he is now able to tell us anything of the proposed course in regard to business and the adjournment for Easter?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, in reply to the Question which has been put by the noble Marquess, I have pleasure in stating that I propose to move on Thursday next, March 21, that this House should adjourn until Tuesday, April 9. The Consolidation Fund (No. 1) Bill is expected to pass in another place this evening, and as it must receive the Royal Assent not later than Tuesday, March 19, I shall have to ask your Lordships on that day to suspend Standing Order XXXIX for the purpose of that Bill. The only other matter that I propose to mention is that before we adjourn for the Easter Recess we shall receive from another place a measure entitled Overseas Trading Department (Secretary) Bill. That is a Bill to regularise the position of the new office to which Sir Arthur Steel Maitland has been appointed in the Government, and it is held that that measure should be passed through both Houses of Parliament in the course of next week.

INCREASE OF RENT, &c. (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I rise to propose the
446
Second Reading of this Bill. It is introduced in consequence of certain proceedings which have been considered by various Departments of the Government with regard to the working of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act of 1915. Representations have been made to various Government Departments, and the matter has been brought particularly to my attention by the Home Office, by the Local Government Board, by the Admiralty, and by the Scottish Office.
Your Lordships are aware that the Act of 1915 was passed for the purpose of preventing an increase of rent over the amount which was paid at the commencement of the war in the case of certain houses of no very great annual value. The value of the houses to which the Act applies is in the country generally £26 per annum, in London £35, and in Scotland £30. Those figures were selected as affording the best available limit at which a line was to be drawn. The effect of that Act, as I indicated, was to prevent the rent being raised above what it had been at the commencement of the war. In order to carry that out it was necessary to give something in the nature of security against the tenants being turned out to make way for other persons who would pay more rent. That was carried out by subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 1915, to a few lines of which I will draw your Lordships' attention. They are—
"No order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be made so long as the tenant continues to pay rent at the agreed rate as modified by this Act, and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, except on the ground that the tenant has committed waste, or has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupiers, or that the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for the occupation of himself or some other person in his employ, or in the employ of some tenant from him, or on some other ground which may be deemed satisfactory by the Court making such order."

447
There are other provisions which for the present purpose I need not trouble to read.
The complaints which have been made, and which I am informed are exciting very great feeling in many parts of the country, arise in this way. Your Lordships will observe that the section I have read provides that the landlord may say that he wants the premises for his own occupation, and that is a ground for determining the tenancy. It was never contemplated at the time that the Act was passed that the power should be exercised by a person who bought for the express purpose of turning out the occupying tenant in order that he, the purchaser, might himself occupy the premises, but purchases to a great extent have been made in different parts of the country owing to a variety of causes, and they have occasioned, and they are occasioning, I am informed, very extensive hardships, very often in the case of the wives and families of soldiers who are serving at the Front who, in consequence, lose the occupation which they had under circumstances where it is very difficult to find another house. This is manifesting itself near London, very largely, I am informed, in consequence of the air raids. There are a great many people who have money to spare who very naturally wish to have a cottage near London for the occupation of themselves and their children, where they would be safe from the danger either of German bombs or of our own protective shells while an air raid is going on. The result has been that in districts to the west of London particularly—I believe the case first brought to my attention was in Buckinghamshire—a great many purchases have taken place by persons who bought only for the purpose of ejecting the tenants.
The same thing has manifested itself in other parts of the country, not always for the same reason. In many cases it has been where there has been a good deal of money going, where people desired to acquire a cottage for themselves, and have bought for the purpose of evicting the tenant who was occupying under the Act. This has manifested itself to a very great extent, I am told, in Scotland, particularly in the neighbourhood of Glasgow. Then, having bought, they proceed to exercise the right reserved by the Act to the landlord of saying that he wants to occupy the premises himself, and that therefore the tenant must go out.
448
But this is not quite the whole of the case, because, according to the information supplied to me by the Department, in a very great many cases the sales are of a somewhat peculiar character. They often take this form, that there is a conveyance of the cottage, and the consideration consists in the payment of a comparatively small sum down, and then so much to be paid per week. It seems pretty obvious that that is really very like a tenancy, and that it is adopted for the purpose of avoiding the provision that the Act has made against disturbing a tenant. The person who entered into what I think may without offence be described as a colourable purchase of that nature intends to eject the tenant and occupy the premises himself. That is the mischief to be dealt with, and I am informed by the various Departments I have mentioned that it is exciting a great deal of feeling and occasioning a great deal of hardship in many parts of the country, distant a long way from one another. I need hardly say that it was never contemplated, when the Act of 1915 was passed, that such sales should take place. What was contemplated was that the lessor might want the premises for the occupation of himself and his servants, and the right of resumption was reserved. It was never intended that it should apply in the case of a person who bought merely for the purpose of turning out the tenant and occupying, and still less where the sale was of the nature I have described as not uncommon.
The proposal in the Bill for the purpose of remedying the evil is this. The Bill is extremely short. Its effect is to confine the power given to the landlord to the case of the landlord who let—the lessor—and any one who takes from him by descent or by will or under a settlement made before the day on which this Bill was introduced. His successor under a settlement made before the introduction of this Bill will be entitled to exercise the powers which are conferred on the landlord by the Act of 1915. But a purchaser from the lessor will not be entitled to exercise these powers, if the purchase is made after the date fixed for the commencement of the Bill. That is the scope of the measure, and I will read it to your Lordships. The Bill provides that subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, shall have effect as if at the end

449
thereof the following provision was inserted:—"For the purposes of this subsection the expression 'landlord' shall not include any person who since the twelfth day of March nineteen hundred and eighteen has become landlord by the acquisition of the dwelling-house or any interest therein otherwise than by devolution thereof to him under a settlement made before the said date, or under a testamentary disposition or an intestacy." The provision as to the date of the settlement is inserted in order to prevent the possibility of settlements being got up which are intended merely to get round the Act. It is intended to confine it to the case of general settlements, and the test selected is that it was made before the date of the introduction of the Bill. I venture to commend the Bill to your Lordships' favourable consideration, and I now move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this Bill is apparently to deal with certain cases which have already taken place. As the Bill stands, I do not see that it has any retrospective effect. Of course, if it has no retrospective effect, it really will not deal with a great many of the hardships which have arisen from the present law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend is quite right. The Bill, as drawn, has no retrospective effect. It stops the thing for the future. But I am bound to say, now that attention is called to it, that very recently a good deal of information has come to me which leads me to think that it may deserve consideration whether to a certain extent the Bill might be made retrospective. The state of things in some parts of Scotland, I am told, is such as to make anything of that kind, if it could be done, very desirable.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have seen in the newspapers statements made by officers' wives and widows that they have been turned out. Unless this Bill refers to those cases which have already taken place, it really will not meet the evil.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

MEAT PRICES AND SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask the Controller of Food—

1. What is the total number of cattle, either immature or otherwise, which have been killed for civilian or other purposes under his Orders since the prices recommended by him were adopted by the Cabinet, apart from those which were slaughtered for the Army.

2. Were any two-year-old cattle included among them; and how many cattle over that age suitable for slaughter are there left now; and to move for Papers.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before I put the Question which stands in my name, I wish to be allowed to say a word to account for the disappearance of another Question* which was on the Paper for to-day, but which disappeared last night. I felt it my duty to remove it on being asked by the Government to postpone it on the grounds, first of all, that the representative of the Board of Agriculture (the Duke of Marlborough) was ill, and, secondly, that Lord Milner, who would otherwise have taken the place of the noble Duke, was engaged on important war business in the Supreme Council. I therefore had no alternative except to take the course I did. I desire to say this because I had received many appeals and letters entreating me to raise the subject, and I wish to add that I have put that Question
* To ask His Majesty's Government the following questions—

1. How many acres of grass land have been broken up by the orders of the Government during 1917 and 1918; and how much of this has been done by tractors, steam ploughing, or horses respectively.

2. How much of the land so broken up has been properly cleaned and prepared for the spring sowings this season, or is being so prepared now; and whether the requisite labour for its care and good cultivation afterwards has been arranged for and will be forthcoming.

3. Is any more grass land, not broken up already, under orders for ploughing, and if so, how much; and in view of the probable serious loss in the crops to be sown so late in the season, will the Government reconsider the order for ploughings by which the hay crop would be lost until after that crop has been taken, and thereby ensure one crop of value, weather per mitting; and to move for Papers.

451
down for Thursday next, when I hope that we may hear something that will reassure many of those who are extremely anxious on the subject, before we separate for the Recess.
Turning to the Question on the Paper, after the extremely interesting historical reminiscences we have heard this evening with regard to St. Olave's Church, I feel that your Lordships will not thank me for entering upon the somewhat prosaic question of the shortness of meat; but it may relieve the House to know that I have put down this Question solely for the purpose of obtaining information, and that I have no intention whatever of raising a debate on the subject if I can get the information—which I hope and believe I shall do—without a debate.
I notice with great regret that the toll of the submarines appears to be rising again, and I think it is very desirable, in view of the present shortage of meat, that we should know as far as possible how we stand in this country with regard to our own resources. I have raised the question of the two-rear-old cattle because I am informed upon very high authority that this is a matter of great importance. I understand that it is only the cattle two years old and upwards which fatten at all readily without concentrated food. It is most important, in my opinion, that we should know to what extent our stock has been called upon already; because the fact that undoubtedly a great number of the cattle that have been slaughtered under these Orders were immature has naturally meant that cattle in greater numbers have been killed than would have been the case in ordinary circumstances. I mean that if you kill numbers of immature cattle, you sometimes have to kill two where in the ordinary course you would kill only one. I do not think that I have anything further to add by way of reasons for asking this Question, and I now beg to put it to the Food Controller.
THE FOOD CONTROLLER (LORD RHONDDA): My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Viscount means in the first part of his Question. He asks what is the total number of cattle, either immature or otherwise, which have been killed for civilian or for other purposes; and he says later on that he does not refer to Army purposes.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I say quite apart from Army purposes.
LORD RHONDDA: You say "civilian and other purposes," apart from Army purposes. What are the "other purposes"?
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I class them all under your Orders.
LORD RHONDDA: I want to be clear. The figures I am going to give to the noble Viscount now are estimates.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Estimates?
LORD RHONDDA: Yes, they are mere estimates. The noble Viscount refers in his Question to the prices "recommended by me which were adopted by the Cabinet." I think, after Lord Milner's recent explanation, the noble Viscount will accept the circumstances under which these prices were adopted, and the circumstances under which the Order was issued.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Perfectly.
LORD RHONDDA: The Order was issued on August 29. Between September 1 and February 28 (both dates inclusive) the number of cattle slaughtered is estimated at 1,378,000, apart from those killed for Army purposes. About 75,000 were killed for Army purposes in addition. The period I have given is one of six months.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: They were killed under your Orders?
LORD RHONDDA: Since the date of the issue of the Order. Of these 1,378,000 cattle, it is estimated that 1,100.000 were two years old and upwards. That is an estimate based on the Board of Agriculture figures. Therefore the number under two years old is 278,000. It is very difficult to give even an approximate estimate of the number of cattle available for slaughter and now being fattened in the, country. The best estimate—and really I do not know that one can regard it as more than a considered guess—is that there are 260,000 cattle being fattened at the present time in this country, plus the number which have been added for fattening from stores between December 4 and February 4. I cannot make even

453
a guess at that latter number, but it is in addition to the 260,000 which it is estimated were being fattened on December 4. As it has some bearing on the question, it may interest the noble Viscount to know that the number of cattle slaughtered during the twelve months ended June. 4, 1917—before any restriction was placed on prices—was 2,744,000; and that figure compares with the slaughter of 2,490,000 cattle in the twelve months ended June 4, 1916. My point there is—and I wish to draw the noble Viscount's special attention to it—that before any maximum prices were fixed at all by my Department there was an increase of something like 10 per cent.—250,000—cattle killed in twelve months.

GENERAL SMUTS'S VISIT TO SWITZERLAND.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the statement of The Times of March 1, that General Smuts, a member of the War Cabinet, had met Count Albert Mensdorff (formerly Austro-Hungarian Ambassador to Great Britain) in Switzerland; and to afford His Majesty's Ministers the opportunity of explaining this episode.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord puts the Question which stands on the Paper in his name, I feel it to be my duty to ask your Lordships' permission to make a very brief statement as to the circumstances in which this Question is put, and as to what has happened with regard to it. It was only on Saturday morning last that I saw the Question for the first time on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House. I considered the matter very carefully, and I came without hesitation to the conclusion that a Question of this sort might lead to a discussion here which it was exceedingly undesirable should take place.
Your Lordships know—no one knows better—that a Question in this House is a very different thing from a Question in another place. There a Question in definite form is put by an hon. Member; it is put in a formal manner without addition, and to it the Minister responsible for the Department gives such reply as he chooses, or, if he so desires, declines to give any reply at all. Here, under our strange but
454
long-standing procedure, we act in a different way. The Question upon the Paper is not necessarily a Question alone. It is apt more frequently than otherwise to expand into a speech, which may be the precursor of other speeches; and there may arise out of what looks like a simple Question a debate of a prolonged and even exciting character, and the Minister concerned may find himself at the end in a position in which it is almost impossible without incivility to give a curt reply.
My Lords, I was further aware of the fact that the subject alluded in this Question had been mentioned by an hon. Member speaking in debate in another place, and on that occasion the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Balfour, took the same view as I did. He declined to make any reply whatsoever to the subject alluded to in the Question. Accordingly, my Lords, having come to this conclusion, I ventured to write a letter to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. In that letter I said that I was a good deal surprised at his having put this Question on the Notice Paper of your Lordships' House without giving me an opportunity, as representing the Foreign Office here, of expressing an opinion as to the propriety of it—all the more so that I happened to know that I was in the House and on this Bench when the noble Lord handed in the Notice of this Question to the Clerks at the Table. I went on in this letter to say that I was sure the noble Lord, from my long experience of him—which will be endorsed by all your Lordships—would not wish to do anything injurious to the public interest; but I said that I thought it would be obvious to him, upon reflection, that to answer such a Question was quite impossible, and that to put it could only do harm.
In these circumstances I expressed the hope that my noble friend would consider the propriety of withdrawing his Question from the Paper; and I added, in conclusion, that if he was unable to take that course—which I did not for a moment believe—I should be reluctantly driven to tell the House that I had asked him to do so, and to decline myself to give any answer to the Question. That, my Lords, is the letter which I wrote to my noble friend on Saturday morning last. I took steps—such steps as were open to me—to place it immediately in his hands, but finding some difficulty in ascertaining his whereabouts (because I know that he is actively engaged in the public service) I left the

455
letter at his club, with instructions that it should be handed to him at the first possible moment. There, I believe, it remained over Sunday, but I have every reason to believe that it was handed to my noble friend in person on Monday-evening.
Three days have elapsed since then. During that time I have received no communication from my noble friend. I have not received even an acknowledgment of my letter, and not until two minutes ago, in the precincts of your Lordships' House, did my noble friend approach me to tell me that he had received my letter and was disposed to take certain action upon it. No doubt there must have been some good reason why my noble friend refrained from extending to me, on a matter of considerable public moment, the courtesy of a reply. He will be able to explain that if he desires to do so. All I wish on the present occasion to say is this, that I earnestly renew to him now at this moment the appeal which I ventured to address to him in my letter on Saturday last, and that I am certain that his regard for the public interest—on which no one counts more confidently than myself—will induce him to give an affirmative reply to my appeal.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, if the noble Earl thinks that I have been intentionally guilty of any discourtesy to him in not having answered or acknowledged his letter before, all I can say is that I beg his pardon, because no discourtesy of that kind was intended. I came down to the House this afternoon for the purpose of publicly acknowledging that he had written to me, because I thought it due to this House and to the noble Earl to give some explanation of why I had put the Question upon the Paper. The noble Earl has read me—I do not mean to say this in an offensive way—something like a very friendly lecture with regard to the propriety of asking his permission to place a Question on the Paper. If he says that that was the proper course for me to have taken, I accept what he says.
But, my Lords, I have been placed in this position before by Ministers with regard to Questions that I have tried to put. When I have privately consulted with Ministers before, I have been turned down more than once; and although personal affairs should not interfere in a matter of this kind—in putting a Question upon the
456
Paper—I will be perfectly frank with your Lordships and say that I was prompted by previous experience in the procedure of the House. My experience has been that if you wish to bring forward a matter here the wisest and safest plan was to put the Question on the Paper and see what happened. I put this Question on the Paper, and then I received the letter from the noble Earl, for which I thank him. I also thank him very much for saying that he was sure I had no wish to do anything injurious to the public interest. If your Lordships will allow me to say so, that exactly describes my position. I rather wish that he had not used any threat about what he was going to do to me supposing I persisted in my Question.
If I kept the noble Earl in a state of suspense, the reasons for that I need not go into. I was obliged to take some time to consult with my friends about what would be the proper course, and I have come to the conclusion to withdraw the Question unreservedly, and not attempt to press it either in the House or out of it. No other course is open to me; and I am quite sure that the noble Earl will give me the credit of wishing to do so independently of any pressure he may have placed upon me by saying what he would do supposing I refused to comply with his request. Now, I am not going to say anything about the subject-matter of the Question, because it would not be fair; but I might be allowed, perhaps, to say that in general terms there could not be very much secrecy about it. I was not, in my judgment, attempting to disclose anything which could be of value to the enemy. The incident to which it referred had already taken place some time ago. It was evidently thoroughly talked about on the Continent, and the news that this interview had taken place appeared in The Times, which it is not unfair to describe as one of the official organs of His Majesty's Government. Something had already been stated about it in the House of Commons, and I assure your Lordships, with the greatest sincerity, that I thought it was not improper that some notice should be taken of it in your Lordships' House. His Majesty's Government could then take what course they thought right as to what they would tell your Lordships about the incident itself. As it is judged by the noble Earl to be inimical to the public interest to say anything more about it, I have nothing more to say.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of March 13.]
BRIXHAM GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on Wednesday last and yesterday discharged, and Bill committed.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bills ought to be dispensed with:

Alliance and Dublin Gas Bill.

Basingstoke Gas Bill.

Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill.

Sheffield Corporation (Consolidation) Bill.

Read, and agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons, that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House to consider the said Bills do meet the Lords Committee in Committee Room A on Wednesday next, at three o'clock, as proposed by their Lordships.
Moved, That the House do adjourn except for Judicial business, until Tuesday next.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock.