Sitting of 19 March 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
Copy presented of Statute made by the Governing Body of Oriel College, Oxford, on 28th November, 1917, and sealed on 15th December, 1917, amending Statute III., Sections 3 and 20, of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MERCHANT TONNAGE AND THE SUBMARINE.
Copy presented of a Statement issued by the War Cabinet, at the request of the Board of Admiralty, showing, for the United Kingdom and for the World, for the period August, 1914 to December, 1917—

1. Mercantile Losses by Enemy Action and Marine Risk;

2. Mercantile Shipping Output;

3 Enemy Vessels captured and brought into service;

together with Diagrams, showing Mercantile Losses and Shipbuilding Output for the United Kingdom and for the World, for the same period [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

WELSH CHURCH ACT, 1914.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:
Copy of Account of Cash Receipts and Payments of the Welsh Church Commis-
782
sion for the year 1917, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 33.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    NEW ZEALAND REINFORCEMENTS.
    Major DAVID DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council, without any pressure on the part of the New Zealand Government, authorised a reduction in the reinforcements from New Zealand; whether he can state when, and on what grounds, this decision was arrived at: and whether, in view of the existing conditions, when the need of reinforcements is greater than ever, the Secretary of State for War is pre pared to reconsider his decision in this matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The number of reinforcements periodically asked for from New Zealand are such as are found necessary to maintain in the field, at establishment strength, the formations which the New Zealand Government has placed at the disposal of the Imperial Government.
    Major DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the drafts are sufficient to keep the forces up to full strength?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe that is the case.

    GENERAL ELLIOT.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state that General Elliot will shortly be appointed to a suitable post?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not in a position yet to make any statement.

    GLAMORGANSHIRE ENGINEERS (SAPPER D. M. JENKINS).
    Major DAVIESasked the Under secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to communicate the

    783
    results of his inquiries into the case of the late David Morgan Jenkins, No. 454830, sapper in the Glamorganshire Royal Engineers; and whether he has taken steps to bring this case to the notice of the Minister of National Service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The investigation in this case will necessarily take some little time, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to reply to my hon. and gallant Friend. Telegraphic inquiries have been made, and I will communicate with him at the earliest possible moment.

    MEDICAL SERVICES (FRANCE).
    Major DAVIESasked the Under secretary of State for War whether he has now received the Report of the Army Council on the Committee of Inquiry into the Medical Services in France; whether he is now prepared to state whether this Report is to be published or not; and what action the Army Council proposes to take upon it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Report has just been received from France, and it is being considered.

    MILITARY BARRACKS, BUTTEVANT.
    Captain SHEEHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can now state if the proposal for converting the military barracks at Buttevant, county Cork, into a hospital for the treatment of venereal disease has been dropped?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; as I informed my gallant Friend, it has been decided to abandon this proposal.

    JEWISH BATTALIONS (PALESTINE).
    Mr. CARADOC REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can give an assurance that all Jews recruited for Jewish units will, as far as is reasonably possible, be utilised in the Palestine area?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am pleased to be able to give this assurance. All recruits enlisted for Jewish battalions will be drafted to Jewish units in Palestine if medically fit. As long as the exigencies
    784
    of the Service permit, Jewish battalions are definitely intended for employment in Palestine.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether the Government have any special reason why the Jewish battalion should not be subjected to the ordinary risks on the Western Front?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think the risk in Palestine is very often as great as on the Western Front.

  AIR RAIDS INTO GERMANY.

    STATEMENT BY MR. MACPHERSON.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a lieutenant of the Royal Flying Corps was recently sentenced in Germany to twelve months' hard labour for referring in a letter to the Germans as Huns; and, if so, what steps the Government proposes to take?
    Mr. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): The officer referred to by my hon. Friend is presumably Sergeant E. A. Boyd, Royal Naval Air Service, who was reported by the German Press to have been sentenced to a year's imprisonment for referring in a dispatch previous to his capture to the Germans as "Huns." According to the official German report, Sergeant Boyd was sentenced for "insulting a superior and a subordinate." His Majesty's Government have asked for full details of the trial. I regret that so far no satisfactory reply has yet been received.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I take it that the Government will continue to press for proper information?
    Mr. HOPE: Yes; I think my hon. Friend may rest assured of that.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if ho can now give any details as to our recent successful air raids into Germany?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Since October we have made thirty-eight effective raids into Germany, and we have dropped 48 tons of explosives—a remarkable achievement under the circumstances. The conditions under which these raids have been carried out during the winter have been extremely difficult. In the

    785
    Lorraine region, throughout the winter, it is only on rare occasions that flying can be successfully carried out.
    Low clouds, high winds, rain, and snow are the normal features of the weather in this area, whilst, when the weather is otherwise fine, heavy mists lie over the valleys and render the location of targets extremely difficult. This is particularly so in the case of the valleys in which the German ironworks and factories are situated. Intense cold has been experienced, machine guns have been frozen, and there have been several cases of frostbite. Stress must be laid on the difficulty of finding the way in an unknown country, more particularly where clearly defined landmarks are absent.
    Approximately 250 flights have been made in the course of these raids, during which only ten machines have been lost.
    There has been a steady increase in the number of raids carried out and the amount of explosive dropped, whilst the increased distance to which raids have been carried into Germany is most satisfactory. This is particularly so in the case of the recent raids during March, which have so far been eight in number.
    I would point out that the majority of raids by British machines have been carried out in broad daylight, and photographs have been taken of the bursting bombs, placing the accuracy of the reports received of their effect beyond all shadow of doubt. Further, by attacking in daylight, it has been possible to concentrate attack on objects of actual military importance—a striking contrast to the promiscuous methods adopted by the enemy.
    During the night raids our machines have descended to low heights, and fired at searchlights, trains, and railway stations. A steady increase has been observed in the enemy's anti-aircraft defences, the number of searchlights, guns, and aeroplanes. These latter have been defeated with loss whenever they have attempted to intervene.
    On other occasions our pilots have attacked enemy machines drawn up on the aerodromes, preparatory to making bombing raids into France. The following report on a recent raid is typical of the results obtained:

    DETAILED REPORT OF OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT 10TH MARCH, 1918.
    Twelve aeroplanes left at 9.35 a.m. to bomb the railway stations, barracks, and Daimler Motor Works at Stuttgart. Eleven of these
    786
    machines reached, the objective. One machine failed to return, being seen to lire a green light on the return journey, and go down under control, apparently with engine trouble, southeast of Oberkirch.
    The following bombs were dropped on the objective with excellent results:

    3

    230

    lbs

    16

    112

    lbs

    9

    40

    lbs

    (phos.)

    Total

    …

    2,842

    lbs.

    Several bursts were seen on the Daimler Motor Works, and several on the railway lines. Mettingen Station was hit, and set on tire. A train which was standing in the station wag also set on fire. Two bombs burst near the electric power station in the town, one beside the railway sidings, one near the gasworks, and five or six bursts in or around the Gare de Triage. Two bursts were seen by the bridges over the river, and two beside a large munition factory south-east of the town. A total of thirty-six plates were exposed of Stuttgart, which have come out very well, and which show bombs bursting on objectives.
    Three enemy aircraft attacked our machines, over the objective, one being a 2-seater and the other two Albatross D3 type.
    After the first combat, the enemy aircraft followed our machines, shooting at long range, and then withdrew.
    The most recent report is to the effect that our bombing machines attacked military objectives at Mannheim, on the Rhine, on 18th March. Over one ton of bombs were dropped, with excellent results. Eight direct hits were obtained on the Badische Soda Factory, causing an abnormally large columns of black and white smoke to ascend. Also two bursts were seen on the docks, and one on another large factory.
    The bombers were attacked by two formations of enemy machines, of which two were driven down out of control over Mannheim, and the remainder driven off.
    Our machines all returned safely."
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask my hon. Friend whether it is possible to tell the Field-Marshal Commanding how enormously proud we all are here of the work recently done by these gallant airmen?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I shall certainly make a point of doing that.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether we may now consider that these raids are carried out as ordinary acts of war and not by way of reprisals?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it our policy to attack only military objects?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will my hon. Friend say whether he believes that the weather conditions in the spring and summer will enable us to bomb successfully the ironworks and other works in Lorraine?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am hopeful that will be so.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether these raids are carried out by way of reprisals or as ordinary acts of war?

  BRITISH PRISONERS (GERMANY).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the under-Secretary of State for War whether he has any record of the number of British prisoners of war in Germany who are undergoing special imprisonment or punishment for alleged offences; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; there is no such record available. The number constantly varies. In cases which come to our notice and which appear to call for explanation inquiry is made of the Netherlands Ministry at Berlin. An agreement has recently been concluded whereby notification of an impending trial is given by the German authorities to the Netherlands Minister, who is empowered to delegate a representative to attend the trial and to appoint counsel for the defence, if he considers it advisable.
  Colonel THORNE: Has my hon. Friend any information as to how our prisoners of war are being treated in Germany?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have answered several questions on that point, but I am quite willing to give any more recent information on the point if my hon. and gallant. Friend will put down a question.

  MAISONS TOLEREES.
  Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he has any statement to make with regard to the proposal that the maisons tolerés in France should be placed out of bounds for British troops?
  Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can now state, as the result of his promised inquiries, whether brothels in France in the vicinity of American camps are placed out of bounds to American soldiers by the American military authorities?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: It has been decided, with the permission of our Allies, to place these houses out of bounds for our soldiers in France. I do not intend to take any notice of the unscrupulous
  788
  attacks made upon myself either personally or as the mouthpiece of my Department—attacks based upon the dishonourable process of extracting an isolated sentence from an argument and making a conditional sentence absolute—but I should like to remind the House that it was not the British military authorities, as has been asserted, who established these houses, or who provided the women in them, nor can I find, as has been asserted, any justification for the statement that any part of the French civil population protested against any of these institutions established under their own laws; nor did our military authorities in France receive any such protest. While this step has been taken, the House must not think that the very grave problems of venereal disease which confront the military authorities in France have been disposed of. My military advisers have grave doubts that the contrary may be the effect. This question, which, it must be remembered, is not merely a military one, but a great social and national one, will continue to be watched with anxiety by us. I have not yet received the information asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke.
  Brigadier-General McCALMONT: Are we to understand from my hon. Friend's statement that this decision has been come to without the concurrence of the military authorities?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: It has been come to with the concurrence of our Allies.
  Mr. GULLAND: What is the punishment for being out of bounds?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: One great effect of this Order is that we are now adding to the many punishments which will be inflicted under the Army Act.
  Mr. PRINGLE: When will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch)?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have an Order, but I understand that that does not meet the point which my hon. Friend raised. I hope to be in a position within the next two or three days to answer it.
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: Will the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases be taken into consideration?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know what are those recommendations.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Major DAVIESasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Postmaster-General is compelling discharged soldiers in his employment to refund small sums said to have been paid as Army gratuities on discharge; whether this is done under War Office instructions; and whether, having regard to the terms under which these men enlisted, he will explain the reasons for such deductions?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making inquiry, and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member later.
  Major DAVIES: Is my hon. Friend aware of the answer which the Postmaster-General gave yesterday?
  The HON. MEMBERasked the Pensions Minister what steps he intends to take for the provision of medical aid for the widows and children of soldiers; and whether he is prepared to include the wives and children of soldiers who are now serving in the Army under the contemplated scheme?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen): The special arrangements which were at one time contemplated for providing medical aid to the widows and children of soldiers out of their pensions are, as I recently informed the House, not being adopted at the present time. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, widows and wives of soldiers are entitled to medical attendance and treatment if they are employed contributors under the National Health Insurance Acts, and where such or similar entitlement does not exist, and there is pecuniary need, a recently extended Regulation of the Special Grants Committee allows substantial grants, extending over a considerable period in cases of serious illness of the wives, children, and dependants of serving soldiers, and the widows and orphans of soldiers deceased.
  Sir H. HARRISasked the Pensions Minister whether the Local Government Board has issued to councils of areas for which local war pensions committees have been established a circular letter stating that the estimates of the administrative expenses of local war pensions committees for the financial year beginning 1st April, 1918, are to be submitted to the Board for approval not later than 18th May,
  790
  1918; whether the circular letter in question states that there is no legal authority for the payment of administrative expenditure in excess of an approved estimate; and what steps are to be taken by local war pensions committees to obtain funds to meet their administrative expenses between 1st April, 1918, and the date upon which the estimates for the financial year 1918–19 are approved by the Local Government Board?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The facts are as stated in my hon. Friend's question. I understand that the period between the 1st April and the date of the approval of the estimates is covered by funds already in the hands of the local committees or by advances obtained from the local authorities concerned. I share the opinion, which my hon. Friend suggests, that the present position of dual control over local committee expenditure is unsatisfactory, and I hope to introduce legislation which will place the financial position of local committees on a more satisfactory footing.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Pensions Minister if Private Rose, M/2, No. 020,997. late of the Army Service Corps, was discharged from the Army on the 15th September, 1916, on account of nerve shock; that this man was granted a conditional pension of 17s. 6d. a week for the first six months, after which it was reduced to 5s. 3d. a week conditionally; that on account of the inadequacy of this pension Ross was obliged to return to his former occupation as a motor driver, and that in consequence of his nervous condition an accident occurred on the 24th August, 1917, for which he was held responsible, and was sentenced to 60 days' imprisonment; whether at the trial strong medical evidence was brought forward to prove that Ross suffered from neurasthenia and lapses of memory; whether his pension of 5s. 3d. a week has been stopped from the date of his arrest, namely, the 25th August, 1917; and what further action it is proposed to take m the matter?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Private George Ross was invalided on the 27th September, 1916, on account of mental instability which, in the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board was not due to military service, but was aggravated thereby, and he was awarded a pension of 17s. a week, which, after his examination by a board of doctors, was reduced after

  791
  six months to 5s. 3d. a week. In accordance with the usual practice, Ross's pension is forfeited for a period equivalent to the term during which he was maintained in prison at the public expense. Since the incident referred to by the hon. Member the man's condition has been found to have materially worsened, and his pension has been increased.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. KINGasked whether Private Ashton, 3/10th Battalion, County of London Regiment, a, conscientious objector, now an inmate of Long Grove Asylum, has been discharged from the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I should be glad if my hon. Friend would furnish the soldier's regimental number.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if he will have immediate inquiry made into the state of health of William Sandles, a conscientious objector, confined in Newcastle Prison, and who is reported to have been confined to bed for the last month; and whether lie will consider the man's discharge?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT(Sir George Cave): I have called for a report on this prisoner's health, and find that his present condition affords no ground for discharge. He was under treatment for a time, apparently for rheumatism, but it appears that he is now fit for exercise and is doing his work.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary why Geoffrey E. Hicks, a conscientious objector, employed at the Works Centre, Wakefield, and who has a record of twelve months' good service, has not been permitted to take up exceptional employment under the new concession; and will he reconsider this case?
    Sir G. CAVE: A conscientious objector qualifies for exceptional employment by twelve months' good conduct and industry. It is for the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors to decide after full consideration of each man's record whether he is so qualified, and I cannot interfere with the exercise of their discretion in this matter.
    Mr. WATT: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why a distinction is made between
    792
    these conscientious objectors, some of them being given and others not being given the opportunity of exceptional employment?
    Sir G. CAVE: If the privilege is refused, it must be because the man cannot qualify by good conduct and industry.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will have immediate inquiry made into the physical condition of James Boyd, a conscientious objector, in Barlinnie Prison; if he will ascertain if the prison doctor has declared him to be medically unfit for the Army; and whether, in the circumstances, he will follow the precedent adopted by the Home Office in similar cases and recommend to the War Office the man's discharge?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am obtaining a medical report on the case referred to, and will consider the suggestion contained in the question when I receive it.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general opinion held is that he is not quite so lenient with these conscientious objectors as his colleague for England?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am quite unaware of that fact, if it be a fact.

    TRAVELLING MEDICAL BOARD (MULLINGAR).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he is aware that at Mullingar, where the 3rd Royal Scots are located, a travelling medical board was held recently, and that the commanding officer sat with the board, and when the men were brought forward he gave information in regard to the duties the men were performing; and if, in view of the influence which the presence of the commanding officer is likely to have upon the decision of the medical board, he will give instructions that commanding officers must not be present at these medical examinations?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am unable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. The commanding officer knows more of his men than any other officer, and if is in the interest of the Service and of the men that the regulation was made.

    PENSIONS (CLASS P RESERVISTS).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how much money has been expended on the printing of Army Form 3,529; whether the

    793
    expenditure has been of practical Army use; and, if so, in what way it has been useful?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The purpose of the Army Form was to acquaint Class P Reservists with their position under Army Order 366 of 1916 in case of recall to the Colours. The notification was made in the interest of the men affected, so as to avoid misapprehension, and thus was of practical Army use. The Regulation prohibiting the issue of pensions on recall to the Colours was subsequently revised, thus rendering the form in question obsolete. The first part of the question should be addressed to the Treasury.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the men were required to sign it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must ask my hon. Friend to put that question to my right hon. Friend.

  WAR OFFICE MATERIALS (INSPECTION).
  Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it has been arranged that all War Office materials, including clothing, shall be inspected in the examining and receiving depot, Dublin, so that the business of inspection may be complete in Ireland; whether the buildings in Westland Row have now being taken possession of by the War Office; and, if so, whether the fitting up of the premises has been delayed owing to the non-arrival of necessary imported material?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, the whole of the Westland Row premises have been taken over by the War Department, and there has been no delay in fitting them up owing to the non-arrival of necessary imported material, but the outgoing firm have not been able to vacate the whole of the building as their new premises have not been completed. At a conference on the 14th instant between the All-Ireland Munitions Committee and a War Office Committee, the former expressed themselves well pleased with the progress made, and published Press announcements to that effect.

  CARNARVON ASSIZES (SENTENCE ON EPILEPTIC).
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can have an inquiry made into the circumstances of the case at Carnarvon Assizes in January, when D. G. Davies, though certified by medical evidence as having been an incurable epileptic for fourteen years, was sentenced to three years' penal servitude, and has since become insane?
  Sir G. CAVE: This prisoner has not been certified insane. As the result of his trial (at which he pleaded guilty) and of the sentence he suffered a severe shock, but I am informed that with careful nursing there is a good prospect of his health improving in prison. There is already some improvement.
  Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man was certified as insane within a fortnight of his conviction, and that the judge at the Assizes disregarded all the medical evidence?
  Sir G. CAVE: I cannot believe that to be so, and it is not a fact that he has been certified as insane.
  Mr. DAVIES: He was.

  ENEMY ALIENS.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how many of the 6,700 uninterned Germans have married English wives and have sons fighting in our Army; and whether he has taken any and, if so, what steps to intern all the others in accordance with the arrangement arrived at in the Debate of the 17th December, 1917?
  Sir G. CAVE: No figures are available to show how many of the uninterned Germans have married British wives or have sons serving in our Army, but it is believed that the great majority of them are in that position. In the Debate of the 17th December last I did not accept these as the only reasons for exemption from internment, and stated expressly that other considerations, such as membership of a friendly race, ill-health, or employment on work of importance to this country in connection with the War, had been

  795
  taken into account by the Advisory Committee and successive Secretaries of State. I have continued to act upon the principles which I laid down in that Debate.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that membership of a friendly race applies to uninterned Germans?
  Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir, to some of them; for instance, the Alsatians.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are there very many?
  Mr. BUTCHER: Have the exceptions to internment been recommended by the Advisory Committee?
  Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that in spite of the Debate of the 17th, and the arrangement we thought had been arrived at, he is not going to alter his policy at all?
  Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir. I explained the lines upon which I was acting. I have not made any change.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it not a fact that a number of these interned Germans are Hanoverians, who are more bitterly hostile than we are to Prussia?
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right lion. Gentleman state how many of these 6,700 uninterned Germans have taken over the one-man businesses of soldiers who are serving in France, and will he see that this practice is not continued?
  Sir G. CAVE: I could not give the number, but as soon as I hear of such cases I look into them at once, and in many cases I have taken action.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how many German alien enemies have been interned since the 17th December, 1917; and how many have been let out?
  Sir G. CAVE: Since the 17th December, 1917, twenty-one male German subjects have been interned, and, apart from those sent out on licence to agricultural employment or other work of national utility, two have been released. These two men were released to join the British or Allied forces.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the men sent out for this purpose are paid a wage; arid who receives that wage?
  Sir G. CAVE: Yes, they are paid a wage, and they receive the wage themselves.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how many alien enemies still reside in prohibited areas?
  Sir G. CAVE: Excluding British-born women, the total number of persons of alien enemy nationality who have permission to reside in "prohibited areas" in England and Wales is, according to the latest available returns, 1,809, of whom about half are women. All these cases have been the subject of careful inquiries by the military authorities and the police, and practically all were specially investigated by the Committee appointed for the purpose, and I would refer the hon. Member to their Report, which has been circulated. All alien enemies whose presence in prohibited areas could be regarded as in any degree dangerous to the State have been removed.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether any inquiry has been made into the character and disposition towards this country of the 10,000 to 12,000 alien enemy women now in this country and uninterned; and whether any reason exists against the repatriation of such of these women as are unable to prove that their presence here is an advantage to this country?
  Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Alien enemy women are not interned, but are repatriated unless they have been granted exemption from repatriation on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee after a careful inquiry in each case, both of the police and of the British-born referees supporting their applications. The reason for exemption varies according to the circumstances of each case. Speaking generally, it is because it would be inhumane to expel them to enemy countries having regard to such considerations as their long residence here, their British-born children, many of whom are serving-in the Army, and the absence of any friends or relations elsewhere. If and when circumstances arise which affect the merits of their exemptions, the women are removed from this country. Since July, 1916, upwards of 700 have gone.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether those people who appeal on their behalf have found any sureties, and, if not, will he see that they do so in the future?
  Sir G. CAVE: In special cases a bond is given.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether he can state, approximately, how many of the 6,000 or 7,000 uninterned Germans in this country have sons who are engaged in the active fighting forces of this country and how many of the 5,000 or 6,000 uninterned Austrians in this country have been definitely ascertained to be, by reason of their nationality and sympathies, actively friendly to this country?
  Sir G. CAVE: The figures asked for in the first part of the question are not available. As regards the second part, I cannot give the exact number, but it exceeds 3,000.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Advisory Committee to reconsider from time to time these cases of alien enemies who have been exempted from internment?
  Sir G. CAVE: Wherever the least cause is shown for reconsideration, I personally consider it.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the Debate, would the right hon. Gentleman not ask the Advisory Committee how many of these men have sons fighting in our Army?
  Sir G. CAVE: If my hon. Friend presses for them, I can have the figures got out, but it means the examination of many thousands of cases, and it will occupy the time of a considerable number of the staff.
  Mr. MOONEY: May I ask whether it is not a fact that pure Germans are a very small percentage of the total number of interned prisoners, and that the fact, to which the hon. Member referred, of them having sons serving in the British Army is one of the essential points considered by the Advisory Committee?
  Sir G. CAVE: I believe that is so.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry that there is an. unfortunate misunderstanding between the right hon. Gentleman and myself as to the Debate. Could we not have the Home Office Vote put down, so as to clear it up by a brief discussion?
  Sir G. CAVE: I will certainly communicate my hon. Friend's suggestion to the Leader of the House.
  Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether a number of aliens are permitted to address public meetings?
  Sir G. CAVE: Not enemy aliens, but a neutral or a friendly alien is entitled to address a public meeting unless there is an Order prohibiting him from doing, so.

  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (ELECTRICAL TRADE).
  Sir HENRY HARRISasked the Pensions Minister whether the failure on the part of the Ministry of Pensions to issue to local war pensions committees any instructions with regard to the training of discharged sailors and soldiers for branches of the electrical trade is due to the fact that the representatives of employers and employed in this trade have not yet agreed as to the conditions under which it is desirable to train discharged men for electrical work; and whether he recommends local war pensions committees to train men for this trade peniding an agreement being arrived at between the representatives of the trade?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Trade Advisory Committee appointed for this trade by the Minister of Labour in conjunction with the Minister of Pensions have had under consideration the question of training disabled sailors, and soldiers in the electrical engineering trades, and the representatives of the associations of employers and of workpeople have just completed their recommendations in regard to dynamo and motor manufacture and cable manufacture. These proposals are about to be considered by the two Departments. Schemes in regard to other branches of these trades are now being dealt with by the Trade Advisory Committee. In the meantime local war pensions committees have been recommended to proceed with schemes of training conditional upon their being brought into line with the recommendations of the Trade Advisory Committee when approved and issued.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say when these recommendations of the Trade Advisory Committee are likely to be approved?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I cannot say for certain. Negotiations have to proceed first of all between representatives of employers and workpeople, and

  799
  the proposals then have to be submitted to the two Ministries, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no undue delay.
  Sir H. HARRIS: Have not these negotiations been proceeding for many months without any result?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes; but some of these negotiations are very difficult. I hope that they will lead to satisfactory results.

  ORIENT STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY (STEAMSHIP "ORMONDE").
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether, during the stay in the port of Bombay of the steamship "Ormonde," of the Orient Steam Navigation Company, four of the stokehold department were alleged to have attacked the chief officer of the vessel, and, in consequence, were arrested and lodged in gaol; whether, on the following day, forty-seven other members of the crew were also arrested and charged with mutiny and have received sentences varying from six months to three years; whether twenty of the petty officers of the engine-room department were discharged from the vessel at the same time, and have returned to Glasgow; whether he is aware that many members of the crew charged with mutiny were in no way implicated and were unaware of what had occurred, and, seeing that these men are now in gaol, whether anything is being done for their wives and children who are suffering hardship, in consequence of the stoppage of payment and allowances; whether he is aware that the twenty men who have returned to Glasgow, who were not even charged with being implicated in the mutiny, have not received the wages due to them; and whether a thorough investigation will be made into the facts of the case, with a view to the release of such of these men as were innocent, some of whom had been torpedoed frequently before joining the steamship "Ormonde"?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I find it is impossible to deal adequately with the points raised in my hon. Friend's question within the ordinary limits of an oral reply. A full state-
  800
  ment, of which I am sending my hon. Friend an advance copy, will be circulated as a written reply.
  The following is the statement referred to: —

  ORIENT STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY (STEAMSHIP "ORMONDE").

    REPORT ON MUTINY ON SS. "ORMONDE."
    According to information obtained from the owners of the vessel and the authorities in India, the facts appear to be as follows: On the arrival of the ss. "Ormonde" in Bombay on 12th January the captain reported that a large number of the engine-room crew had behaved in a mutinous manner throughout the voyage, this behaviour commencing within twenty-four hours of sailing. On the next day a number of the firemen and trimmers attacked some of the stewards in their quarters and stole their money and clothes, and when the second officer intervened he was severely handled by the mutineers, as was also the fourth officer. Owing to non-identification of assailants, they could not be immediately brought to trial. On the same day orders were given to raise steam to take the vessel out into the stream, but this was found to be impossible, as at the time only two or three men were working in each watch, the remainder having verbally, or by their absence, refused to carry out the orders of the first and second engineers, and on the 14th the captain, after consultation with the police and civil authorities, charged fifty-two men with refusing to obey orders and holding up the ship, which was due to sail on the 15th. In addition, seven members of the mutinous crew were convicted on charges of assault and broaching cargo of another ship, and of sale of arms in contravention of the Arms Act.
    The temper of the crew was such that it would have been prejudicial to the interests of the State and the tranquility of Bombay if they had been at large. They were, therefore, interned, pending repatriation under escort, for which arrangements are now being made.
    The balance of wages of the men now in gaol for the period up to the date of their arrest has been paid over by the owners of the vessel to the shipping master in Bombay for disposal to the men concerned, in accordance with the terms of the Merchant Shipping Act; allowances to their dependants were stopped as from the same date.
    Owing entirely to the impossibility of replacing the men arrested by a white

    801
    crew, it was necessary to engage a full complement of natives for the engine-room crew, and consequently the remaining twenty-one men. who were not implicated in the mutiny had to be repatriated at the owners' expense, and they are now in this country. The balance of wages due to these men was paid over by the owners of the vessel to the Mercantile Marine Office in London on 5th March for remittance to the shipping offices in the localities in which the men reside in accordance with the usual practice.
    In view of the reports which have been received on the conduct of the mutinous members of the crew, it would not appear that there is any justification for the suggestion that the case has been dealt with without proper investigation.

  FIARS PRICES
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now decided to appoint a public Commission with power to impose upon the various interests concerned a permanent settlement such as they all express anxiety to secure, but are apparently unable to adjust amongst themselves without some such assistance of all questions arising out of fluctuations of fiars prices, grain rents, and the liabilities of he ritors to maintain ecclesiastical buildings in Scotland; and whether, in the meantime, any legislation is contemplated which will bring to an end the existing state of matters whereby, as a result of the War, the incomes of professors serving the Church in certain divinity chairs are halved and the incomes of certain ministers serving her in parishes are doubled?
  Mr. MUNRO: Since I replied to my hon. Friend's question on 21st January last, I have had conferences with parties representing the various interests concerned. While I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement as to legislative or other action, the attitude of those whom I have consulted gives me some reason to hope that an adjustment may be reached, and I shall not relax my efforts in that direction.

  AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEES (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland on how many county agricultural committees in Scotland there are
  802
  factors for landowners; and on how many of these there are tenants of land on the same estates as those for which the factors act?
  Mr. MUNRO: County agricultural committees in Scotland are widely representative of the various classes concerned in agriculture, including, of course, the factors who act for large estates; but I am not in a position to give the detailed information desired by my hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the larger landowners are over-represented on all these agricultural committees?
  Mr. MUNRO: No, Sir. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars, I will be very glad to look into them.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    GRASS LANDS (STIRLINGSHIRE AND DUMBARTONSHIRE).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his statistics of ploughed-up grass land in Stirlingshire and Dumbartonshire show that the large landowners of such, say of over 100 acres of grass, have done their fair proportion, or whether the most of the ploughing up has been done by the small farmers; and, if the latter, will he say why this distinction is made, in view of the fact that there is such need to grow food for the incoming winter?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have no information tending to support the suggestion contained in the question. On the contrary, the fact that only three compulsory Orders have been found necessary in the counties in question during this season points to a general willingness to comply with the efforts being made to increase cultivation. The second part of the question does not in these circumstances arise.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can my right hon. Friend say under what conditions compulsory Orders are issued?
    Mr. MUNRO: They are issued by the Board of Agriculture, having regard to all the circumstances.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not at the instance of these county agricultural committees?

    POULTRY-KEEPING.
    Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if his Department will at once reconsider the Government's policy in regard to poultry-keeping; is he aware that the national food supplies are being seriously jeopardised by the Government's policy; that poultry at all times thrive upon unavoidable waste products; and that, whilst running in fields, waste plot lands, and refuse dumps, they successfully procure their food by scavenging; that hundreds of thousands of practical poultry-keepers in our, country, who should know best, are dismayed by the lack of knowledge or sympathy with this form of food culture by his Department; and that hundreds of thousands are now signing petitions appealing for greater consideration by his Department and for the future good of the food supplies of the country?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs on the 18th February, and to the hon. Member for Hertford on the 6th March. There will be about 50,000 tons of foodstuffs available for distribution through the poultry keepers' societies to selected owners of utility fowls for the purpose of ensuring the preservation of the most useful stocks of poultry in the country. In addition, poultry keepers will be able to obtain priority certificates which will entitle them to an allowance of 1 oz. of chicken food per day for each hen hatched after the 1st January, 1916. As to this an Order will, I understand, shortly be issued by the Ministry of Food. In view of the present difficulty of obtaining, animal feeding stuffs, I hope that owners of poultry will make the best use possible of all supplementary sources of feeding stuffs, and keep and rear as many birds as they can with the limited means at their disposal.
    Mr. CROOKS: Will they have to produce the birth certificate of the fowls in order to obtain the food?
    Sir C. HENRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the class of feeding-stuffs it is proposed to supply?
    Mr. PROTHERO: It is damaged grain, screenings, and similar products.
    Mr. BILLING: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state, on the occasion of a question recently, that he would issue a
    804
    special paper, which would be obtainable by all poultry-keepers, giving them special information and instructions in connection with this matter; has he issued that paper, and, if not, when is it likely to be out?
    Mr. PROTHERO: It ought to be out at the end of this week.

    LIVE STOCK (SYSTEM OF SALE).
    Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that the National Farmers' Union views with alarm the proposal to establish a dead-weight system of sale for live stock, as they believe it will cause unnecessary expenditure of public money and dissatisfaction among farmers, owing to the difficulty of identification of their stock in the places of slaughter, and that they feel that this action would result in a want of confidence on the part of farmers which would seriously affect the production of food; and will he therefore take such steps as he may think right to prevent the system coining into force?
    Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether any decision has been definitely come to by his Department as to the method of purchase of fat stock; and whether it is proposed to let farmers have the option of selling by the live weight system where the Government does not propose to slaughter them in the immediate neighbourhood?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I have been asked to reply. My Department has been in consultation on this, matter with a committee of farmers' representatives appointed by the National Farmers' Union, the Central Chamber of Agriculture and the Royal Agricultural Society. It has been agreed that farmers shall be allowed to send their cattle to the nearest local market within their specified area, there to be sold at their option either by live-weight or, when facilities permit, by dead-weight.

    WHOLESALE SUPPLIES (IRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that, in many parts of Ireland, wholesale merchants are refusing to-supply their 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917 customers with goods owing to higher prices being offered to them from other quarters thus giving additional supplies

    805
    to districts which pay the best prices; if he will take steps to obtain powers, by Act of Parliament or otherwise, to prevent wholesalers depriving their pre-war customers of supplies; and if his attention has been drawn to this form of profiteering in one district in the North of Ireland?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the negative. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any specific instances in which wholesale merchants have refused to supply their pre-war customers, I will consider what steps are proper to be taken.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that particulars of the cases I have referred to have been in his Department for the last six weeks?
    Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. I asked only this morning whether the information had been received, and the answer was No.
    Mr. BYRNE: Does not the hon. Gentleman recollect that I brought a case before the House in connection with whisky supplies, in which distillers in Newry were soiling supplies to the highest bidders in this country, and depriving their local customers of their legitimate supplies?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am afraid that the vast variety of these topics play havoc with my memory. I cannot recall the particular instance, but if the hon. Gentleman will place in my hands the particulars asked for in this reply, I shall be glad to deal with them.

    HOUSE SEARCH, BOUNDS GREEN.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that on 27th February three men, who stated that they were acting on instructions from the local food committee, searched the house, 26, Brownlow Road, Bounds Green, W.; that the only person in the House at the time, other than the search party, was a young girl; that they opened and searched the private desks and drawers and ransacked the wardrobes and boxes in the bedrooms; and that they compelled the young girl to carry a step-ladder from the garden into the attic to enable them to get on the roof of the house; on whose information this search was made; whether any hoarding of food was found; and whether the Food Controller sanctions or approves of actions of this kind?
    Mr. CLYNES: This search was authorised by the Divisional Food Commissioner, and a young lady who was in the house at the time gave the inspecting officers every assistance in her power. It is not the practice to disclose the name of informants. It is not intended to take further action as the result of the search, and I should be sorry to think that the search had caused annoyance to the members of the household.
    Mr. WILSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the information given to the Food Commissioner or the executive officer of the local committee was anonymous or not?
    Mr. CLYNES: I cannot believe that the Divisional Food Commissioner would act upon anonymous information. If I may add an opinion, I am afraid that inspection in this case was certainly an unfortunate event.
    Mr. WILSON: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain whether the information was anonymous or not?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes.
    Mr. WILSON: Can he say whether the only evidence of hoarding in this house was 1 1b. of petrol which had been in the house for eighteen years?
    Mr. LOUGH: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any idea of the sort of information upon which the Department of the Food Controller proceeds?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is too wide a question.

    SMITHFIELD MARKET.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether special permission was given to certain and, if so, which wholesale and their allied retail firms in Smithfield Market and elsewhere, and to these firms only, to sell meat on Friday, 8th March, 1918, without the production by purchasers of meat coupons; and if this special permission was given in consequence of action by the American importers in putting upon the market a large amount of meat after their demand for an increased price of Id. per 1b. had been refused?
    Mr. CLYNES: No retail business is at present conducted in Smithfield Market, and, consequently, coupons are not required there. With regard to the question of the retail sale of meat without

    807
    coupons by firms outside the market, the Food Controller has no reason to suppose that any such permission as that referred to was granted, though such action is within the powers given to local food control committees in order that waste of meat through its becoming unsaleable may be prevented. The suggestion contained in the second part of the question with regard to the action of the American meat importers is entirely without foundation.

    REFRIGERATED PRODUCE, MANCHESTER.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what was the total weight of meat and refrigerated produce stored on private account in Miller Street Cold Air Stores, Manchester, on Saturday, 2nd February, and Saturday, 2nd March, respectively, and who were the four principal holders in the latter case and the extent and character of their holdings?
    Mr. CLYNES: The total weight of meat and refrigerated produce stored on private account in the Union Cold Stores, Miller Street, Manchester, on Saturday, 2nd February, was 110 tons, while on Saturday, 2nd March, it was 89 tons. In the latter case the four principal holders and the extent and character of their holdings were as follows:

    J. Pendlebury, Limited

    17 tons offal.

    Armour and Company

    12 tons bacon.

    J Cox, Limited

    12 tons offal.

    S. Irlam

    9 tons offal.

    MILK.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Prime Minsiter, in view of the fact that the United Dairies Combine controls 80 per cent. of the wholesale milk supply to London and 70 per cent. of the retail supply, and that no advantage of an improved grade of milk or cheapness has been made a condition of approval to this monopoly by any Government Department concerned, if he will appoint a. committee, representative of consumers, producers, the Agricultural Organisation Society, the Ministry of Food, and the Board of Agriculture, to inquire into the whole matter and report whether it is in the public interest that such a monopoly should be permitted; and, if so, under what conditions of standard and prices of the essential food controlled?
    Mr. CLYNES: I have been asked to reply. The Joint Committee of the Ministry of Food and the Board of Agriculture on the production and distribution of milk have already given considerable attention to this matter, and, at Lord Rhondda's request, they are now appointing a sub-committee, on which outside representatives of consumers and producers will be added, for the purpose of settling the immediate steps necessary for the control of the collection, utilisation, and distribution of milk sold wholesale.
    Captain WRIGHT: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will now take steps to prevent any further firms being included in the combine until the Committee have reported?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): This is obviously a question dealing directly with the food supply, and more suitable for the Food Controller. I have not looked into it myself, but I will do so.
    Captain WRIGHT: May I ask the same question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food?
    Mr. CLYNES: I think my hon. Friend may be assured that immediate action will be taken, as this answer indicates, and that the matter may be safely left in the hands of the committee now being appointed.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will state in thousands of gallons what is the present production of milk in England, Scotland, and Wales; what was the total production for the six months ending 31st December, 1917; what was the total production for the six months ending 30th June, 1917; the amount and percentage of such total production which is now being, and was during the above periods, converted into condensed milk, milk powder, chocolate, or otherwise preserved apart from conversion into cheese and butter; the amount and percentage of the total production which is now, and was during the above periods, controlled, converted as above by the United Dairies. Limited, and Nestlé's and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company, respectively; and the amount and the percentage of the total production which is now, and was during the above periods, converted into

    809
    cheese and butter, and the percentage of this so converted by the United Dairies, Limited?
    Mr. CLYNES: I regret that, owing to the absence of precise statistics, it is impossible to give all the information asked for in this question, but, from such records as are available, I have caused a statement to be prepared, and am sending this to the hon. Member.
    The following is the statement referred to:—
    The only available statistics with regard to the first part of the question are those obtained by means of the various censuses taken by the Ministry of Food and the Board of Agriculture, but, though the number of cows can be given, it is not possible to give exact figures as to milk production, since the average yield per cow is unknown, and there are no figures to show the proportion of animals calving in any season of the year. The census figures are as follows:

    1. CENSUS of 2nd December, 1917 (joint by Ministry of Food and Board of Agriculture) showed Dairy Cattle only—

    —

    Cows and heifers in milk.

    Cows and heifers in calf.

    Other breeding and store cattle 2 years and over.

    England and Wales

    1,553,948

    1,028,184

    370,914

    Scotland

    239,317

    210,794

    47,373

    Total

    1,793,265

    1,238,978

    418,287

    It was estimated on 2nd December, 1917, by producers that they would sell (not produce) during three following months 125,801,646 imperial gallons.

    2. CENSUS by Board of Agriculture 4th June, 1917—

    —

    Cow and heifers in milk.

    Cows in calf but dry.

    Heifers in calf with first calf.

    England and Wales

    1,831,443

    271,537

    361,814

    Scotland

    347.000

    45,000

    50,000

    Total

    2,178,443

    316,537

    411,814

    Grand total

    2,906,794

    3. CENSUS taken at request of War Office through Police, 21st April, 1917—

    —

    Cows and heifers in milk.

    Cows in calf but dry.

    Heifers in calf with first calf.

    England and Wales

    1,735,328

    365,700

    421,508

    Scotland

    314,000

    125,000

    Total

    2,049,328

    912,208

    Grand total

    2,961,536

    On 1st March, 1918, the product of not more than 57,364 cows was being used for the manufacture of condensed milk. Figures as to the other periods mentioned are not available. The amount of milk converted into dried milk during the six months ending the 31st December, 1917, was not less than 4,713,118 gallons, while, during the six months ending the 30th January, 1917, it was not less than 2,648,961 gallons. No milk is now being used in the manufacture of chocolate. Figures as to the amount of milk preserved apart from the production of cheese and butter are not available. Information as to the percentage of the total production of milk controlled by the United Dairies Company, Ltd., has not yet been obtained. The amount of milk used by Nestlé's in the manufacture of condensed milk in the six months ending 30th June, 1917, was 11,569,081 gallons, and in the six months ending 31st December, 1917, 13,705,369 gallons. The amount used during the six months ending 30th June, 1918, will probably not exceed the first of these figures.
    Captain WRIGHT: Will this information be before the Committee?
    Mr. CLYNES: Certainly.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1) if during the month of April, 1918, the price of milk to the producer will be reduced from 1s. 9d. to 1s. 8d., whiile the price to the wholesaler remains the same, so that the consumer will obtain no benefit by way of a reduced price; (2) why the margin has been increased from 3d. to 4½d. for large wholesalers prepared to collect from the station and deliver to the retailers' premises, while ½d. only is allowed to wholesalers who, supplying churns, standing the risk of bad debts, doing all the booking, regulating the

    811
    quantities, and supplying stationery to the farmers, put the milk direct from the producers to the retailers; and if he is aware that the above increase is not unduly favourable to the United Dairies combine of wholesalers and retailers and detrimental to their smaller competitors in the wholesale trade?
    Mr. CLYNES: The Food Controller has fixed the price of milk to the producer during April at 1s. 8d. per gallon, which is the average of the prices previously fixed for the six winter months. After a careful examination of the best figures available as to costings, it has been thought advisable to increase the maximum margin allowed to wholesale dealers for milk delivered by them to the retailer's premises, the dealer paying the railway charges, from 3¾d. to 4½d. per gallon. A margin of ½d. per gallon is allowed to wholesalers upon whose instructions producers send their milk direct to retailers, since this figure is considered to be adequate for the services rendered. I cannot agree that these rates are unduly favourable to any particular company; they are maximum rates, subject to variation by local food control committees, upon whose action will depend the actual price paid by the consumer for milk in April.
    Captain WRIGHT: Is it not the fact that these margins for wholesalers and retailers were fixed on the idea that the services would be rendered by different firms, and now that so many firms are in the combine the margins are unduly favourable to them?
    Mr. CLYNES: My reply indicates that it is not considered that these margins arc unduly favourable to any one company.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. TURTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what arrangements are made respecting the rations of sugar to His Majesty's judges on circuit; and whether they are placed on the same footing as commercial travellers, and immediately on arrival at an Assize town are obliged to go to the local post office to enter their names and requisitions as in the case of commercial travellers?
    Mr. CLYNES: It is not proposed, in rationing sugar or any other food commodity, to make any distinction whatever.
    812
    His Majesty's judges would be among the first to approve absolute equality of treatment under existing conditions.

    IMPORTS IN BRITISH SHIPS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will correct misunderstandings arising out of recent Ministerial statements on the subject by giving the total reduction in the weight of all imports for 1917 as compared with 1916?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The statements to which my hon. Friend refers had relation, as was clearly stated, to imports in British ships only, and did not include neutral tonnage.

    DISEASED MEAT.
    Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the recent seizures at Smith- field Market of tuberculous meat and the danger that the existing high price of meat may tempt many persons where they consider themselves safe from efficient inspection to unload such goods in the form of sausage meat, piece meat, pie meat, etc., he will address a circular letter to all local sanitary authorities directing that all slaughterings are to be notified and that animals and dead meat shall be, if possible, inspected by the local authorities at the time of slaughter and before being offered for sale?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): My right hon. Friend is advised that, under existing conditions, notification of the time of slaughtering would not achieve the result aimed at, but the possibility of securing more prompt inspection by greater concentration of the places where slaughtering takes place is under consideration.
    Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the officers of his Department instituted an examination of the tuberculous and diseased meat which, during the last six weeks, has been continuously deposited in Smithfield Market; and whether, in view of the national danger that such goods may be diverted to markets where the meat inspection is of a less trained and efficient character than that of the City of London Corporation, ho will cause to be circulated to Members of Parliament

    813
    and local sanitary authorities the Report, if any, prepared by his officers on the subject?
    Mr. WALSH: One of the Board's inspectors has seen, at Smithfield Market, specimens of the diseased meat referred to, but no inspection of the character suggested in the question has been made by the officers of the Board. That duty devolves upon the officials of the Corporation of London. No Report has been prepared by the Department on the subject.

    GOATS (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware of the number of goats being exported from Ireland, and whether he will have inquiries instituted and arrangements adopted to ensure that a sufficient number of goats will be retained to continue the normal number for breeding purposes?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The question of maintaining the stock of goats in Ireland is receiving the attention of the Department of Agriculture.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN (BURIAL).
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Merioneth County Council recently incurred an expenditure of £82 18s. in the burial of the bodies of merchant seamen washed ashore in Merioneth; that the refund of this expenditure has been declined by the Admiralty on the ground that the cost of funerals is only borne by naval funds when such funerals are conducted by the naval authorities; and whether, in view of the fact that the county council were not aware of this condition when the expenditure was incurred, steps will be taken to refund the money spent and notification given of the procedure to be followed in future cases?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third, the decision that the Royal Navy should undertake the burial of the bodies of merchant seamen who have lost their lives as a result of the acts of the
  814
  enemy was arrived at in order to mark the close co-operation between the Royal Navy and the mercantile marine at this time. The naval authorities on the coast have already been instructed to arrange these funerals—namely, on the 17th January—and steps have been taken to inform all local authorities of this arrangement. I am afraid we have no authority to repay in this case.

  INSURANCE POLICIES LAPSED.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Committee to inquire into the conduct of the various industrial insurance companies in connection with the lapsing of policies; and if he will make special inquries into the dealings of the Prudential Company?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The Courts (Emergency Powers) Act prevents the lapsing of industrial policies for small amounts, on which premiums had been paid for two years before the War, without an application to the Court, and my right hon. Friend does not at present see any necessity to appoint a Committee to inquire into the matter.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Prime Minister the advisability of taking some steps to stop gambling in child life for private profit?
  Mr. WARDLE: I have no evidence that any such thing is taking place.
  Mr. BILLING: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that all these life insurance companies of this type do nothing else but gamble in the child life of the country?
  Mr. WARDLE: I have no information of the kind.
  Mr. BILLING: Will you inquires?
  Mr. BYRNE: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to inquire into the amount of the policies that have lapsed since the outbreak of war?
  Mr. WARDLE: I have already done so, and I find it is less since the War than before.
  Mr. BYRNE: I mean the value in money, not the number?

  COMMITTEE OF PRODUCTION AWARDS AND BONUSES (IRELAND).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will cause instructions to be issued for the payment of the Committee of Production awards and bonuses, including the 12½ per cent., to all Government employés in Ireland?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply to this question. I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 14th February.

  ATTACKS UPON HOSPITAL SHIPS.
  Major Sir H. HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the good results recently obtained by a threat of reprisals, His Majesty's Government will continue this policy and extend its scope; whether he is aware that the French Government has secured complete immunity from submarine attack for their hospital ships plying between Salonika and Marseilles by including enemy officers among the passengers; and will he adopt similar means of ensuring safe transit for our hospital ships?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday on this subject to the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division. I may add, however, that the statement made in the last part of the question that German prisoners are now being carried in French hospital ships is erroneous.
  Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman informed me repeatedly during the first two years of the War that reprisals were entirely impracticable, and as their adoption has proved a great success should not their scope be extended in every direction?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend's memory is too good for a statement I certainly did not make, because I never held any such view.
  Colonel LOWTHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply that he never told me, in answer to very many questions in this House, that reprisals were impracticable?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Never. A general statement of that kind I am certain I
  816
  never made. Of course, it is very difficult to recall everything that has been said, but I am certain I never made such a statement, because I never thought it.
  Mr. BILLING: In view of the desirability of rendering hospital ships immune from attack would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting on board international financiers of friendly alien origin?

  BRADFORD COLLIERY, MANCHESTER (RUSSIANS).
  Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a deputation recently waited on the management of Bradford Colliery, Manchester, complaining of the employment of Russians of military age in the pit, and complaining also that these persons adopted an offensive attitude towards patriotic colliers while at work; whether he can state what evidence was given in support of these complaints; what is the number of Russian subjects so employed; and whether any action is proposed to be taken in the matter?
  Mr. WARDLE: I was not aware of the incident referred to in the question, but inquiries have been made, and I understand that only eight Russians are employed at the Bradford Colliery, one of whom was employed there before the War. Some protests have been made by the other men at the pit against the employment of Russians, but I have not heard of any particular reason such as the hon. Member suggests for those protests. I understand that the matter is now settled, and my right hon. Friend sees no reason for intervention.

  RAILWAY SERVICE (MERTHYR AND ABERDARE).
  Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the loss and inconvenience caused to the inhabitants of the Merthyr and Aberdare districts by the Great Western Railway Company refusing to run a train later than 5.30 p.m. between Merthyr and Abernant, which means that the people have to travel 15 or 20 miles around, viâ Abercynon, which means time, expense, delays, and hardship; is he

  817
  aware that the Great Western Railway Company have been petitioned by the Merthyr Town Council, and also the Aberdare Urban District Council, to run later trains, but that the railway company have refused to comply; and if his Department will take steps to secure that the reasonable requirements of the travelling public of these districts shall be met?
  Mr. WARDLE: I have communicated with the railway company on this matter, and I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy of their reply.

  PAPER SUPPLIES.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Paper Controller, with a. view to the continuance of the issue of weekly news papers, will consider the desirability of commandeering and rationing all paper in the country?
  Mr. WARDLE: The whole question of the distribution of paper imported into and produced in this country is receiving the urgent consideration of the Paper Controller.

  LAPSED INSURANCE POLICIES.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the position in respect of the lapsing of insurance policies, often due to hardships caused by the War, he will appoint a Committee to investigate the working of assurance companies, especially in respect of lapsed policies, and to suggest what further legislation may be necessary to safeguard the interests of policy holders?
  Mr. WARDLE: I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the question asked to-day by the hon. Member for Dublin Harbour.

  MATCHES.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the districts of Twickenham and Richmond, in the South-West of London, there is a scarcity of matches, and that the firms who had the supply in 1915 decline to share their supplies with the smaller tobacconist shops; and whether he will cause arrange-
  818
  ments to be made to prevent the small shopkeepers being damaged in their business by this conduct?
  Sir G. GREENWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the inconvenience caused by the shortage of matches in London; and if he will take steps whereby the deficiency may be supplied?
  Mr. WARDLE: The available supplies of matches are being distributed regularly on a basis which is considered to be adequate to prevent any hardship to the public. Deliveries into the London district since the beginning of the year have averaged 4,000,000 boxes per week. Special steps have already been taken with regard to those districts on the outskirts of London and elsewhere where-there has been a temporary or abnormal increase in the population It has been made clear to wholesale dealers that a due proportion of the quantity allotted to them must be supplied to those small dealers who drew their supplies from them in the basic year—1915—but I will have the particular instances referred to investigated.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Is the supply being fairly distributed, and will the hon. Gentleman get an accurate estimate of the population, taking into consideration the large camps that are brought into districts such as Kent, and the munition workers?
  Mr. WARDLE: We take care to get an accurate estimate of the population.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Has the hon. Gentleman had his attention called to the fact that some of the large stores will not sell single boxes, but will only sell matches by the gross?
  Mr. WARDLE: I was not aware of that. My attention had not been called to it. The small retailers have to sell them in boxes.

  NATIONAL SERVICE BADGES.
  Mr. TURTONasked the Minister of National Service whether, in view of the necessity of attracting and securing the services of voluntary workers for important national organisations, such as the Government Information Bureaux, he will make arrangements to issue National Service badges to all workers not eligible for military service?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): While fully recognising the valuable services rendered by voluntary workers, such as those referred to by my hon. Friend, it is not considered practicable to adopt the suggestion proposed in the question.

  CIVIL SERVANTS (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will see that all war bonuses to Civil servants shall be paid monthly instead of quarterly, as is now the practice in some Government employments?
  Mr. BALDWIN: If the hon. Member will be good enough to specify the Departments to which he refers, I shall be happy to make inquiries.
  Mr. BYRNE: Why should it not apply to all Departments?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I shall be very glad to have the information I have asked for from the hon. Member.

  MUNITIONS.

    SHELLS (ABERDEEN FIRM).
    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 shells, and were in the possession of special marking tools for this purpose, a consignment of shells coating £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 will he say whether there has been or will be prosecution of any or all concerned?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The inquiries which I set on foot as a result of my hon. Friend's question are not yet completed. I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will again be so good as to repeat his question on Monday next.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.

    WASTE OF TIME ALLEGED.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Minister of Munitions if he has completed his inquiry with regard to the alleged waste of time in Woolwich Arsenal; and, if so, whether he is now prepared to give the result of that inquiry?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: My hon. Friend's question refers to some statements made in a letter published by a member of the New South Wales Parliament and written to him by a young Australian engineer, who stated that he had been working at Woolwich Arsenal from November, 1916, until a recent date. This letter contained a number of sweeping and very serious allegations against the workmen employed at Woolwich Arsenal and, incidentally, against the management.
    In view of the gravity of the charges, affecting as they do the credit of our greatest national arsenal and of the publicity given to them, I thought it necessary to order an immediate and most searching investigation. The results of that investigation have now reached me. It is impossible to bring them within the limits of an oral answer even by a severe summary. I will have the answer circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I think it only fair to the authorities and to the workmen at Woolwich Arsenal to say that the investigation has proved that the statements in the letter were either without foundation or grossly exaggerated.
    The following is the Written Reply:

    SUMMARY OF THE ALLEGATIONS AND OF THE REPORT, UNDER THE CHIEF HEADS.
    Apart from the specific allegations of laxity and misconduct, the statement contains a number of inaccuracies which indicate a very imperfect and brief acquaintance with the practice of the Arsenal.

    CARRIAGE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT.
    (1) Allegation—The majority came in and got into corners and played cards all the day long and never lifted a hammer to do any work.
    Answer—This statement is not true. Certain cases of slackness have occurred, as would be expected, but these cases, when brought to notice, have been severely dealt with.
    (2) Allegation.—Any time during the day you could go over to the canteens and find them smoking and drinking tea.
    Answer—The use of canteens, except at stated times, is forbidden, and the statement that they are used at all times during the day is untrue. In August, 1917, the output reached its highest level, over 1,100 different consignments being dealt with in that month as against 650 in August, 1916.
    (3) Allegation. One man from each section had to go down to the butts to see the carriage tested; and no matter how many there were to do, you were expected to stay away all day, even if you got finished by 9.30, and you were not expected back to the shop before 5.30 at night. Most of the men took advantage of this, and turned up about 5.30 p.m. and get allowed one hour for dinner because they were not back in the shop by 12.30 p.m. That meant they knocked off at 7 p.m. and got paid till 8 o'clock.
    Answer.—The examiners who are sent down to watch proof invariably return to the inspection shed and report to the foreman when the proof of the carriages they are watching is finished. Since gun and carriage proof may continue right through the dinner hour, it is necessary for examiners to be continually in attendance; and consequently they are allowed to leave at 7 p.m., though paid up to 8 p.m. to make up for the dinner hour. The statement that the men take advantage of the opportunity to get away from the Arsenal because of any delay in proof or early finish, is not true, since reports from the butts could at once bring to light the time proof was finished, and show up any "playing truant" on the part of the examiner. There is such a continuous stream of carriages going down to proof that it would be extremely difficult for any examiner to evade detection of any irregularity, since he might be wanted at a moment's notice.

    CARRIAGE FACTORY.
    (4) Allegation.—At C.F.C., setting up on machines for girls. I found the condition even worse. You were supposed to look after five machines and you were not allowed to do anything to the other machines if the other fitter was out, and the girls had to sit there all day and do nothing, or go home. There were twenty-five of them, and the average time to set one up was three minutes, and they wanted looking to about every hour and sometimes
    822
    not that. Under ordinary circumstances you only work about ten minutes in every hour; one man could easily have looked after the whole twenty-five machines, but you were hot allowed to, as the A.S.E. had said five machines were enough for one man to look after.
    Answer.—It is not correct to state that a man had to look after five machines. There would be a certain number of mechanics to a group of machines and the number might work out to one in five or six, or other number, depending upon the efficiency of the mechanics, toolmakers, operators, etc.; but whatever the number might be those mechanics would have to keep the machinery going, if one of them were out. The time for setting up and looking after a machine depends on circumstances and the nature of the adjustment required. No definite time can be given. It is absurd to say that one man could have looked after twenty-five machines. It is quite incorrect to say that girls had to sit all day and do nothing or go home if a fitter were out, as his work would be divided up amongst the other fitters, or, if necessary, a fitter brought from another shop.
    (5) Allegation.—In this factory the A.S.E. used to call a meeting about once a week, and it would last from one to two hours, and the shop had to stop till they were ready to start work again, but their wages were still being paid.
    Answer—Very occasionally a shop meeting was held in C.F.6, usually over labour troubles, and with permission. Once a week is quite incorrect. The meetings were usually held at the change-over of shifts, so that there was little loss of output.
    (6) Allegation—These men drew from £6 to £8 per week. The men in the tool room, were getting £12 to £18 per week; one man in the tool-room was making £28 to £30 per week; and anytime during the day you could go out to the canteens and see them sitting down smoking when they should have been at work.
    Answer.—The men on the plant in C.F.6 drew from £6 to £7 on the average. The money earned by the one man in the tool-room is exaggerated. This man is presumably a die cutter who worked here and was of extraordinary ability, and has made as much as £20 in one week when other men doing the same work only earned £6. The canteens are shut during working hours.
    (7) Allegation.—If one of your machines broke down you were not allowed to repair it, though you had plenty of time to do it, as it was considered a tool-room job and they got paid piece-work for doing it, and most likely you had to wait a couple of days for a job to be done that should only take a couple of hours.
    Answer. —Every tool was inspected before it left the tool-room to see that it was correct. Indifferent men on the plant are apt to think that they can make improvements on the tools as received. This is very undesirable and results in defective work. It is the duty of the men on the plant to do all running repairs. Only repairs requiring the use of machine tools are sent to the tool-room., and as a rule there is no delay.
    (8) Allegation—Most of these men when an air raid warning is sounded rush out of the factory and leave the girls to look after themselves.
    Answer.—There is great variation in the way people behave during an air raid, but there is no justification for the sweeping statement made.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Public Prosecutor to this correspondence in the "Times," with a view to having that paper prosecuted for prejudicing the production of munitions of war?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not think any mischief at all has been done by the correspondence.

  SCHOOL TEACHER, WHITEHEAD, ANTRIM.
  General MCCALMONTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland received a memorial, signed by over eighty representative Inhabitants of Whitehead, county Antrim, requesting them to institute an impartial inquiry before a chief inspector into the charges made by and against a woman teacher of twenty-two years' service; whether this teacher has since been dismissed without any proper inquiry having been made into her charges against the principals of the school which are contained in a sworn declaration; and whether he will represent strongly to the Commissioners the necessity of acceding
  824
  in the public interest to such an expression of local public opinion as is contained in the memorial?
  Mr. DUKE: I am informed that the memorial in question has been received by the Commissioners of National Education. The manager of the school was entitled to terminate the teacher's employment upon three months' notice, and he did so. The Commissioners have no power to compel him to continue the teacher's employment. She is still eligible for employment as a national school teacher. The complaints-made were, I am told, investigated by the senior inspector on the circuit.
  General MCCALMONT: Are we to understand that there is no power xo comply with the request of such a representative number of inhabitants as in this case; and am I to understand that an inquiry by the chief inspector has been held?
  Mr. DUKE: There is no power in the Government to direct the Commissioners of Education to take a particular course. An inquiry was made some time ago by the chief inspector.
  General McCALMONT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make personal inquiries and make certain whether an inquiry was held?
  Mr. DUKE: I have a written report, which I read this morning, to the effect that it had been held. I cannot go behind that report.

  Education (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether ho has received from the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland a representation concerning the Scottish Education Bill to the effect that a larger rating area, such as is generally admitted to be desirable, can be obtained otherwise and more conveniently than on a basis of strict county demarcation; whether the convention indicates in an. appendix to its memorandum a number of areas whose circumstances are regarded by it as lending weight to this view; and whether he will cause a map of Scotland to be prepared showing how far the geographical modifications suggested by the convention depart from the county limits, and enabling the public to consider how far the views of the convention could be met to all intents and purposes by

  825
  authorising the Secretary for Scotland to approve of schemes for joint educational effort between adjoining counties?
  Mr. MUNRO: I have received a copy of the representation to which my hon. Friend refers. The proposals of the Convention of Royal Burghs on the subject of educational areas are couched in very general terms, and no indication is given as to the actual area recommended. In these circumstances, I regret that it is impossible to give effect to the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.
  Mr. CURRIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the event of an official of the Convention sending him a, map or a graphic statement of this kind, he will expose it to view in the Tea Room?
  Mr. MUNRO: I have not control over that matter, but I shall be very glad to consider it.
  Mr. GULLAND: Could the right hon. Gentleman issue a statement giving the existing secondary schools and the district, that they now serve?
  Mr. MUNRO: If it is desired, I think such a statement can be prepared. I hope to see my right hon. Gentleman later in the day on the subject.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. T. WILSONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that some pension officers, when calculating the means of applicants, are, when the applicant is receiving sick pay from a friendly society, demanding from the society an estimate of the amount of sick pay the applicant will receive in the succeeding year; and will he say whether this is done on the instructions given by the Local Government Board?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I have been asked to reply to this question. Where a claimant to an old age pension is in receipt of sick pay, account must, under Section 2 (1) (b) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, be taken of the amount which the claimant "may reasonably expect to receive during the succeeding year"; and friendly societies, as well as other persons, are under a statutory obligation to provide, when required, the information necessary to enable the pension authorities to calculate the means.

IMPERIAL WIRELESS STATIONS.

  STATEMENTS BY SIR H. HOBHOUSE AND SIR H. NORMAN.
  Sir CHARLES HOBHOUSE: A statement made by the counsel of the Marconi Company, in the course of an action brought by that company against the Crown, has imputed to me both an intention and an attempt generally to induce the Telefunken Wireless Company, of Berlin, before the War, to come to England and start in rivalry with the Marconi Company, and take partly from the Marconi Company the contract for the second trio of the six Imperial wireless stations. This statement, for which Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, manager of the Marconi Company, is responsible, is wholly false and without any foundation. The Marconi case has been settled without any reference to this statement; therefore, I have no opportunity to refute in Court the statement which was made therein, and as it reflects upon my capacity, not as an administrator, but an honourable Member of this House, and of the Government, I ask leave of the House to make the following statement:
  In August, 1913, I was appointed Chairman of a Committee to investigate the subject of wireless telegraphy. Of that Committee Sir Henry Norman was also a member, and he was a member of the War Office Wireless Committee. We went very fully into the question of wireless research in other countries, and in December, 1913, Sir William Slingo, who was then Chief Engineer of the Post Office, presented me with a memorandum, in which he said that "the German Administration is the only one in which any serious effort has been made to investigate systematically the problems of telegraphy and telephony by means of a Research Department." In February, 1914, I was appointed Postmaster-General and I resigned the Chairmanship of the Committee. There was a short interval between my appointment as Postmaster-General and the meeting of the House of Commons. I had been well acquainted with the mechanism of the Post Office, because I had been for more than two years Chairman of a Select Committee on the Post Office service. There was no particular difficulty, therefore, in my getting a fairly quick knowledge of the conduct of the Department, and I determined to utilise the time which was avail-

  827
  able to me by going to Berlin and looking into the matter of this Eesearch Department. Ineither speak nor do I understand German. Therefore, for the purpose of communication with German officials, I required an interpreter. I asked the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman) to act as interpreter, and he was qualified to do so by his expert knowledge of telephony and telegraphy.
  About the time of our starting a paragraph appeared in the daily papers that the wireless station at Nauheim, near Berlin, was able to communicate with Togoland. I asked my right hon. Friend to get into touch with the proper authority and obtain leave for us to visit the station at Nauheim, On reaching Berlin we spent two days visiting the Research Department and Post Office institutions. On the third day my right hon. Friend and I went on a car, sent by the Telefunken people, to their headquarters in Berlin. We there picked up two gentlemen, who I understand were directors of the company. We drove then to Nauheim, about twenty miles from Berlin. I examined the station as well as I could. It was only half-finished, but the engine power there was very fully developed, of a very high order, and very complete. The attempt, if it was really made, and I have some reason to think since that it was not made, to talk to Togoland was a complete fiasco. But I spoke on the wireless telephone to Boulogne and was heard well enough. My right hon. Friend and I lunched with the directors and the staff; perhaps there were a dozen people in all. We then drove straight back to the British Embassy, where we were staying. I had no further communication with anybody belonging to the Telefunken Company during my stay in Berlin, nor have I had any communication, directly or indirectly, with any of them since. I did not mention the subject of competition with Marconi at any time during my visit to Nauheim, nor have I done so since. I may possibly have made some allusion in conversation at lunch to the Marconi Company—we were talking about wireless, naturally enough—but I have no recollection of doing so. Of the other persons who were mentioned by counsel on Friday last I have no knowledge whatever. I have never had, directly or indirectly, any communi-
  828
  cation with any of them, except, as will appear from the letter which I propose to read in a few moments, that my right hon. Friend introduced me at the Berlin Railway Station as we were leaving it to a Baron von Lepel, but I do not actually remember speaking to him.
  4.0 P.M.
  When I came back to this country I initiated a considerable scheme for research in wireless telegraphy on behalf of the Post Office. I bought a site, drew up plans, and obtained the leave of the Treasury to spend a considerable sum of money. All that, of course, came to an end with the War. Difficulties and differences between the Post Office and the company are not strictly germane to my subject. We were in the midst of the tension caused by the Government denunciation of the contract when I received the following letter from Mr. Evelyn Murray, who was at that time Secretary to the Post Office.
  "You ought to see the enclosed. Its origin is as follows: This morning a naval officer at the Admiralty rang up Loring— 'one of the officials at the Post Office'—and asked to see him. Loring has been ill, and was not at the office, so one of his assistants went down. He had no idea of the object of his mission. The naval officer gave him the enclosed, which I understand was originally intended as a private letter to Loring, but on second thoughts he proposed not to commit anything to paper. The naval officer is very anxious that his name should not be brought in; I do not know it."
  This is the enclosure referred to:
  "During a conversation I had yesterday with Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, he told me the following story quite openly and in no confidence, so you can make what use you like of this letter. I cannot, of course, vouch for the truth of Mr. Isaacs' statement, but he showed me the letter from the Telefunken Company. My object in writing you is to enable you, if you think fit, to give the tip to your superiors of what Mr. Isaacs intends to do.
  During the summer, not the winter, Mr. Hobhouse and Sir Henry Norman went over to Germany to try to induce the Telefunken Company to establish a factory in England, with a view to breaking the monopoly of the Marconi Company. In this they failed, and then made a similar offer to Lepel, Sir Henry Norman promising to find financial support. In other words, the Postmaster-General and Sir Henry Norman are accused of trying to find and help a German firm to ruin an English one. We all know what an immense advantage would have been given to the Telefunken Company if the Marconi Company were broken."
  On receipt of these letters I wrote to my right hon. Friend and received from him the two following letters. I ought to have stated that that letter of Mr. Murray's was dated the 19th of January, 1915, after

  829
  the War had begun. On the 22nd of January I wrote the following to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn:
  "My dear Norman,—It has been brought to my notice that rumours are in existence, and may possibly be given definite expression to, that during our visit to Berlin you and I tried to induce the Telefunken Company to start a factory in England in competition with the Marconi Company, and on the failure of this enterprise made a similar offer to Lepel, whoever he may be. I have never contemplated such projects, and I have, therefore, never discussed them with you or anyone else, but I shall be glad to be able to assert without fear of contradiction that my name has never been used or mentioned in such a connection. I therefore write to you, as I am confident I can do, without hesitation, to ask you to assure me that, as far as you are concerned, my name has not been mentioned in connection with any such scheme. I really hardly like to make what in ordinary cases would seem almost an insulting request, but I have to protect myself against slanderous and malicious inventions."
  I received the following reply on the 27th of January:
  "My dear Hobhouse,—In reply to your letter, it is of course ridiculously untrue, so far as I know, for anyone to say that during our visit to Berlin you tried to induce Telefunken or Lepel, or anybody to start a wireless factory in England in competition with the Marconi Company. Indeed, Telefunken were already intimately allied with Marconi, and your only relations of any kind with Lepel lasted less than half a minute, when he was formally introduced to you at the railway station just as the train was leaving. Under these circumstances it can hardly be necessary for me to say that I have never made any statement to the contrary effect.—Yours sincerely, HENRY NORMAN."
  After hearing from my right hon. Friend, and believing that the whole story was a German plan to make mischief.—the Telefunken letter was written ten days before the outbreak of war.—I saw Lord Reading, whom I knew very well, and told him exactly what I have told the House. I asked him to assure his brother that the whole thing was a pure fabrication, and said that I hoped his brother would accept that assurance, but that if he did not, and repeated the story, I should certainly protect myself in the Courts as well as I could. That message was given by Lord Reading, and in the hope that it would reassure Mr. Godfrey Isaacs I asked him to see me in my house. He came one night after dinner, and we had a considerable conversation, and, as I thought, not an unfriendly one. But it was inconclusive. I kept no note of it. I, therefore, pass to a second interview with Mr. Isaacs. He has given a description, which I will
  830
  read. This is described in a letter to Lord Gainsford, as he now is, on the 29th of June, 1916:
  "I thank you for your letter of yesterday's date. I am astonished to hear that Mr. Hobhouse now alleges that there is no foundation of any kind for the statement contained in the letter of 21st July, 1914, from the two directors of the Telefunken Company in Berlin. I would point out that as long ago as the 6th November, 1914, I gave Mr. Murray, at an interview with him at the Post Office on that date, the contents of the letter in question, as one of the principal reasons why I mistrusted the Post Office, and he informed me that he would report the interview to the Postmaster-General, who in turn would have to put the matter before the Cabinet."—
  I may interject here that Mr. Murray has no such recollection. He did not inform me of that letter, because he had no such information from Mr. Isaacs to convey to me.
  "From that day till the receipt of your own letter I have never received, notwithstanding its gravity, one word of repudiation of the contents of the letter, either from Mr. Hobhouse or Sir Henry Norman. Early in 1915, how ever, Mr. Hobhouse approached my brother, Lord Reading, with a view to obtaining a. private interview with me."—
  It is not quite accurate, but is sufficiently accurate for the purpose.
  "I met him first at his private house, at his request. I then informed him personally of the contents of the letter. I shortly afterwards met him, also at his wish, at the Royal Automobile Club. On both occasions he admitted that he did make the offer in question to the Telefunken, but said he did so because he thought that competition would be a very good thing for the country, although he had since recognised that as a Minister of the Crown he should not have done so, and he asked me what, it was my intention to do. He pointed out that I had my foot on his neck. Did I intend to crush him, which would mean his leaving the Government, or was I disposed to help him. The occasion was a painful one. It old him that I had no desire to make use of the letter unless I was compelled to do so, and that if any settlement of the Imperial contract matter could be arrived at, which I would do everything in my power to assist, there would be no reason whatsoever for the letter ever being disclosed.
  "He thanked me sincerely for this assurance, and said he would do his utmost to bring about an equitable settlement of the matters in question, and pressed me for my suggestions as to how this could be done. These I gave to him. and it was in consequence of them that the negotiations with the Admiralty, with which you are conversant, were at once opened. There was only one point at issue when I saw Mr. Hobhouse on the above occasion, and that was as to-whether he had been once or twice to Berlin. I was under the impression that he had been there twice; he assured me that this was a mistake, and that he had only been once. After my interview with Mr. Hobhouse, I reported what had taken place to my brother, Lord

  831
  Reading, Mr. Marconi, and some of my directors and others in the employ of the Marconi Company, who were in our confidence, and upon whose silence we could absolutely rely, and to our solicitors. I have never had any conversation upon the subject with Sir Henry Norman. On the occasion of the second meeting with Mr. Hobhouse he informed me that he had seen Sir Henry Norman, and he confirmed the date of the visit to Berlin, as to which there was some doubt upon the occasion of the first meeting. It is true that I did not show Mr. Hobhouse the letter in question, but I offered to do so, and within a day or so of our interview he sent his private secretary to my office for it, but I declined to let it go out of my possession."
  It so happened that I kept very close notes of what took place at that interview, which I made on returning to my house. They are as follows:
  "I saw Mr. Godfrey Isaacs to-night between 6 and 8 p.m., at the Automobile Club. I asked him whether he still entertained the idea that I was personally hostile to his company. He said he had in his possession a letter, one of two, written by von Brebow and another director of the Telefunken Company, sometime in July last, in which it was stated that I had visited Berlin in that month in company with Sir Henry Norman, and had proposed to the Telefunken Company to come to England and there start a factory and organisation in opposition to Marconi. In answer to questions by me, I understood Mr. Isaacs to say that he had met von Bredow in Paris, who had there told him the story, and had at his request promised to confirm it with details by letter from Berlin, which he had done. I told Mr. Isaacs there was no truth whatever in the story; that I had only once visited Berlin, and that was in February, 1914, in company, no doubt then, with Sir H. Norman; that we had stayed, I at the Embassy, he at a hotel, and had dined together twice, and once only seen the Telefunken establishment, station and directors. I have it that I had not made, or authorised anyone else to make, such a proposal, which indeed had never crossed my mind. I was indeed in favour of competition as against monopoly, and it was because Telefunken claimed to have talked to Togoland that I visited their station at Nauheim and for the same reason that I gave Poulsen every latitude and extension of time that they might make good their claim to talk across the Atlantic. In one case my inspection, and in the other reports, convinced me that neither party could do what they claimed to do, and I therefore threw no obstacle in the way of Marconi getting the second three of the stations. Mr. Isaacs said that might be so, but why had I, in our interview of October, acquiesced in his statement that I had given Telefunken favourable encouragement. I said I had not so acquiesced, and Mr. Isaacs himself only alleged that encouragement had been given at the July and not at the February visit, and I could not have admitted that something was done in July at a visit which I denied ever having taken place. Mr. Isaacs admitted the strength of this argument. I asked him if he knew the names of the directors present at Nauheim in February. He said, von Bredow, Count Arcot and another. I recollected Count Arcot's name, and then said,
  832
  but if these two or three saw me in February how was it possible for them not to recognise me in July? He admitted that though it was possible it was unlikely. He said he would send me copies of von Bredow's letters. I then said that if his mind was disabused of any idea of my personal hostility could we not come to some agreement as to the contract. I had understood him not to be anxious to proceed with it. After some further conversation on these lines. Mr. Isaacs suggested that it might be possible to take advantage of the fact that the Admiralty were making their new contracts for fifteen stations, and get them to take over the construction for the old six on terms to be agreed with him. I said I must consult the Prime Minister, but personally I would facilitate and not hinder such an arrangement, and would let him know as soon as I could, if it were possible to make such provision for the construction of the chain."
  If the House will accept the note which I at once made of that interview, it will see how wide is the difference between the two, and that if mine is accurate it must be emphatically declared that the other is a pure fabrication. I sent my private secretary next morning for a copy, not the original, of the Telefunken letter, but I am very sorry that I cannot produce my private secretary's confirmation of that fact, because, unfortunately, he has been killed while fighting in the War. He was unable to obtain it after he had waited a long time for it, and, although I wrote once or twice for it, I never obtained a copy. I will read the copy sent to me, not by Mr. Isaacs, but by Lord Gainsford. It is dated Berlin, 21st July, 1914, and addressed to Mr. Isaacs by the Gesellschaft Fur Drahtlose Telegraphie, and signed Bredow and Solff:
  "As I told you upon the occasion of our meeting in Paris, when the Postmaster-General and Sir Henry Norman were in Berlin, they made an offer to the Telefunken that they should start in keen competition in England with the Wireless Company, and that we could rely upon the Government's support, provided that the Telefunken would make offers lower than the Wireless. Having regard to the arrangements which we have made, we told these gentlemen that we are naturally competing with the Wireless in England, and that it would be practically impossible for us to make lower offers than the Wireless Company, having regard to the fact that our expenses on account of licences, etc., would be higher than those of the Wireless Company, besides which our patent position in England was uncertain. From this Sir Henry Norman formed the opinion that there would be little question of relying upon the Telefunken Company as a competitor of the Wireless in England, and he therefore approached Herr von Lepel with the object of encouraging him to form an English company, and to obtain for him financial assistance with this object. Amongst others, we understand that these gentlemen are endeavouring to obtain financial support from Mr. Beit.—P.S—Mr. Hird knows more."

  833
  I have made a fair statement, and I had never heard Mr. Hird's name; I did not know him nor his position in life. I can only again say that the statement is entirely and wholly untrue. I have only one or two brief comments to make on the interview. I acquainted the Prime Minister with the allegation, and he accepted my assurance that it was quite untrue, and that the expression about putting my "foot on his neck" were words which would not have occurred to my mind, nor did they ever cross my lips, as he mentioned. Mr. Isaacs has never produced the second letter of von Bredow of which he made mention. I heard no more of the subject so long as I was Postmaster-General. In August, 1915, I was told that the whole difficulty had been settled. Whether Mr. Isaacs was the victim of some ingenious attempt by some powerful-German corporation to make mischief in England I cannot tell, but this I do know, he has taken advantage, in the absence of witnesses, to give a wholly untrue and malicious account of the private interview which I arranged in order to get the company and the Post Office out of the difficulty for which neither of them singly was responsible. I have submitted this statement to the House rebutting the charge, and I leave the facts to the judgment of my colleagues in the House with perfect confidence.
  Major Sir HENRY NORMAN: It is essential that the House should clearly have in mind how the visit of my right hon. Friend (Sir C. Hobhouse) and myself to Berlin came to be made, and, although my right hon. Friend has spoken of this, I may be allowed to restate it so far as it concerned myself. A Committee had been formed to consider how far and by what methods the State should make provision for research in wireless telegraphy. My right hon. Friend was chairman until he became Postmaster-General, when he was succeeded by Lord Parker of Waddington. I was a member of that Committee, and when an agreement in principle had been reached a Technical Sub-committee was formed to draw up a definite scheme, of which I was chairman. It had been given in evidence that an elaborate and very efficient system of research into all telegraphy existed in the German Post Office. My right hon. Friend therefore, as Postmaster-General, was faced with the necessity of deciding whether the research laboratory recommended by the Committee should be
  834
  created as part of the Post Office or whether it should be an independent institution. Before deciding he desired to see for himself what the German system was, and how it was worked. He therefore decided to visit Berlin, and asked me to accompany him, partly because, as chairman of the Technical Sub-Committee, I was very familiar with the proposed British scheme, and partly because I spoke German, which he did not. We reached Berlin on Thursday, 26th February, 1914, and left on Tuesday, 3rd March. We had thus four full days in Berlin. The greater part of our time was. taken up in examining the organisation of telegraphic research in the German Post Office, but, being in Berlin, my right hon. Friend expressed the desire to see the Telefunken wireless station, which is about 20 miles distant, and this visit was accordingly easily arranged, and we spent several hours at the station. This visit was thus an incident, not the main object, of our visit.
  Turning now to the alleged letter from the Telefunken directors, I have to say, and I much regret that I was not afforded the opportunity of saying this on oath in the witness box, that I made no such offer to the Telefunken Company or to anybody else, nor did my right hon. Friend, so far as I knew. Such an idea never entered my mind, and any statement to the contrary is absolutely untrue. Indeed. I had no position or authority whatever to make any offer. I was merely a private individual. No charge, of course, of any kind would lie against me if I had entered into commercial relations with anybody on the subject of wireless telegraphy. As a matter of fact, I have never entered into any such relations, although I have often been asked to do so. But there is no reason on earth why I should not have done so if I chose, though, of course, I should not have discussed such a matter while I happened to be in the company of the Postmaster-General. At the alleged date of these fictitious conversations my official connection with the. Post Office had ceased for four years, and I was under no kind of official obligation or responsibility.
  Mr. BILLING: Member of Parliament.
  Sir H. NORMAN: My own attitude in this matter can be stated in a word, and it is due to myself that it should be stated, or rather restated. I have always endeavoured, by visiting every wireless

  835
  station I could, and by procuring apparatus of any new kind and testing it in my own workshop, to keep myself abreast of wireless progress, and whenever I have come across anything of interest to bring it to the attention of the British authorities. My only official relations have been of this nature, and as this is so personal a matter I may perhaps be permitted to add that I have been officially thanked for my services once by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty and twice by the Army Council. As Mr. Godfrey Isaacs has said, I have never had any conversation with him on the subjects mentioned in the Telefunken Company's letter. I have never had any communication with Mr. Beit on this or any other financial matter. Of course, I have no knowledge whatever of any communications or interviews between my right hon. Friend and Mr. Isaacs. Indeed, I did not know until this whole correspondence was submitted to me that such interviews had taken place. But, in conclusion, the statement that I had made an offer in the sense alleged in the Telefunken Company's letter is not only untrue, but it is absurd, and for this reason: My whole contention and attitude in the matter of the Imperial Wireless Chain has been that no company, or syndicate, or commercial organisation should be allowed to erect the stations, but that the State itself should do so, taking over any necessary patents under its powers under Section 29 of the Patents and Designs Act. This fact will doubtless be within the recollection of hon. Members who follow the Debates in this House and the proceedings before the Select Committee of Inquiry. I may be allowed to quote one or two passages from a speech which I made in the House on 8th August, 1913:
  "I myself have from the first contended that the Government should erect its own stations.…My attitude is simply that of an advocate of State ownership."
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Northants (Sir L. Chiozza Money), now Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller, will also perhaps remember that, after giving many reasons why the contract should be ratified, he used these words:
  "I think there can be no question that in the end there must be absolute State ownership and control."
  836
  Those words I quoted, and added:
  "Precisely. My only difference with my hon. Friend is that what he wants in the end I want in the beginning."
  I finished my speech with an appeal on these grounds to hon. Members on the Labour Benches. I said:
  "It appears to me that this issue affords a test of their principles. They stand, if I understand their attitude aright, for the substitution of the State, so far as possible, for the limited liability company and for the elimination of the middle-man. I cannot but believe that they must sympathise with this most legitimate proposal for State ownership to-day."
  And I strongly reaffirmed my views in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Sir A. Spicer), in his official capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee of Inquiry into the Marconi contracts. If, therefore, I had made or been a party to making any such offer to any commercial company, I should have stultified myself in regard to my public attitude on all occasions, and have laid myself open to a charge of gross inconsistency. My view that no commercial company should have been allowed to undertake this Imperial responsibility, but that the State alone should, has never been changed, and I have never said a word or taken any action in contradiction of that view. I hope that the House will now consider that, so far as concerns the small part I played, I have made my action perfectly clear.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to give notice that on the Adjournment of the House tonight I shall raise the conduct of the Government.

EDUCATION [GRANTS].
Committee to consider of authorizing the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of such additional Grants as may become payable in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to Education in England and Wales—(King's Recommendation Signified)—To-morrow.—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Consolidated Fund (No. I) Bill, without amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to remove disqualifications on

837
the ground of sex or marriage for the admission of persons as Solicitors and their acting and practising as Solicitors under the Solicitors Acts." [Solicitors (Qualification of Women) Bill [Lords].

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1918–19.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

    FOREIGN AFFAIRS (STANDING COMMITTEE).
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "in the opinion of this House, a Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs should be appointed, representative of all parties and groups in the House, in order that a regular channel of communication may be established between the Foreign Secretary and the House of Commons which will afford him frequent opportunities of giving information on questions of foreign policy and which, by allowing Members to acquaint themselves more fully with current international problems, will enable this House to exercise closer supervision over the general conduct of foreign affairs."
    This Amendment which I have just moved is part of a great subject, namely, whether this House is going to remain content indefinitely with the present control which it exercises over foreign affairs, which at the present time is very remote. Nobody disputes that Parliament constitutionally can confirm or alter or subvert the policy of the Government for the time being in foreign affairs, as in practice it has done for a century in home affairs. But for a considerable period before the commencement of this War the policy of the Government m foreign affairs was almost unaffected and almost undiscussed by the House of Commons, and during the period of this War diplomacy has hardly been under any Parliamentary supervision at all. At the same time the House of Commons has shown an appreciation that there is a new era approaching, and that the men and women of this country are going to take a more active and critical part in politics. They have just passed the Representation of the People Act, which
    842
    prepares for a more democratic future, and I hope that by accepting this Motion to-day they will give new recognition of conditions which are inevitably approaching. I do not know what attitude the Foreign Secretary is going to take today. He has not hitherto shown any great sympathy, and only a few months ago—I think it was in the August of last year—he defended secret diplomacy, and throughout he is apt to discredit the possibilities of popular control of foreign policy. But there are, after all, stronger forces than those which stand behind the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. The other view of the new world upon which we are entering is put forward by the President of the United States, and I want to read one or two quotations from President Wilson's messages to Congress during the War, for throughout he has spoken in unmistakable terms on this question of the control of foreign policy by the people at large. On 4th December, 1917, in his Address to Congress, he used these words:
    "The thought of the plain people here and everywhere throughout the world, people who enjoy no privilege and have very simple and unsophisticated standards of right and wrong, is the air all Governments must henceforth breathe if they would live. It is in the full disclosing light of that thought that all policies must henceforth breathe if they would live, and it is in the full disclosing light of that thought that all policies must be conceived and executed in this mid-day hour of the world's life."
    He spoke with even greater plainness in the very remarkable speech on 8th January, 1918, when he put forward in specific terms his views with regard to the proper method of concluding peace:
    "It will be our wish and purpose that the processes of peace, when they are begun, shall be absolutely open and that they shall involve and permit thenceforth no secret understandings of any kind. The day of conquest and aggrandisement is gone by; so is also the day of secret covenants entered into in the interest of particular Governments and likely at some unlooked-for moment to upset the peace of the world."
    Then, it is a most remarkable thing that President Wilson, in stating the fourteen points which he regarded as the essential desires of America for the conclusion of this War, put first and foremost the point:
    "Open covenants of peace openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view."
    I will make this one other quotation, which immediately followed on President

    843
    Wilson's Declaration to Congress. The Labour Party of Great Britain immediately issued a manifesto on his Note, in which they said that that was the only kind of diplomacy that the democracy of the world could tolerate, and they referred to Mr. Wilson's declaration. In fact, I believe Mr. Wilson, in this respect, is the spokesman of, effectively, the whole of the Anglo-Saxon democracy. I think this House would do well to prepare for the new policy in which the people of this country will require from this House the means of forming its opinion and expressing its will on foreign affairs to exactly the same extent as for a hundred years it has expressed its will on domestic affairs. I am firmly convinced that during this War, among many changes of opinion that have occurred, there is, perhaps, no change of opinion so decisive as this, that our people now feel that self-government and democracy are unreal boasts, are empty phrases, if they are not applied with the same completeness to foreign policy as they are, and have been, to home policy.
    I want to discuss for a few moments—and I am not going to speak long to-day, because I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Ponsonby), who also got a place in the ballot, will speak in somewhat more detail immediately after me—what the new conditions require. The House of Commons, I think, needs some body of members fully representative of itself, who will keep in touch with the general policy pursued by the Government in foreign affairs, who will ensure that there shall be no commitments secretly made which involve the country in any new obligation, that no irretrievable action shall be taken without its consent or knowledge, and, having got that information themselves, such a Committee ought to keep the House of Commons fully informed on essential questions. I want the House to take into consideration two events. I shall only refer to two. though I might refer to many which have occurred during this War. About the facts themselves there is no controversy. During the early months of this War the Government then in office reversed the traditional policy of this country with regard to Constantinople. There may or may not have been good reasons for altering that policy. It was done without the knowledge of Par-
    844
    liament, and without the knowledge of the country. The Government pledged this country to secure Constantinople for the Czar as a prize of war. For eighteen months they refused to give the House of Commons any information. At the conclusion of that time the arrangement was revealed to the world by the then Russian Premier. Shortly afterwards occurred the Russian Revolution. It then became apparent that the Russian people did not approve of the policy at all, but that it had been done in their name by the unscrupulous Ministers who surrounded the Czar during his regime. I do not know why that arrangement with Russia about Constantinople should have been concealed from this House and the country for any reason except fear of their disapproval, and I am personally convinced—I may be wrong—that if there had been a Foreign Affairs Committee, before whom the principal acts of policy had to be placed before they were realised that agreement, in fact, would never have been arrived at with Russia.
    The other thing I wish to cite is the arrangement which was made with Italy. It was no doubt very desirable that Italy should come into the War on the side of the Allies, but it was also very desirable that the high and generous principles which actuated this nation at the inception of war should remain unsullied. During 1915 Ministers were constantly telling us that we and the Allies were not out for conquests and annexations, and that it was only the Germans who were. I feel certain the House of Commons means that. I feel quite certain that the only desire the House of Commons, as a whole, has ever had is the assertion and realisation of those unselfish and democratic principles. But the Italian Treaty is founded on rights of conquest and annexation, and, in my opinion, it would, have been quite impossible, if there had been a Foreign Affairs Committee, which had had to know this new and profound departure in our policy, that that policy would have been, in fact, accepted by the House. To my mind, and, I think, in the view of a very large number of Members, at any rate, when there is a question between the principles of national morality which inspire a nation and military expediency, it is the House of Commons, and not any secret political junta, which ought to decide if the former are to be abandoned.

    845
    I have taken these two salient questions of what has been done secretly, without the knowledge of the House of Commons, during this War, because I want it to be clear what is needed and what it is for which we are asking. It is not that every detailed action of the Executive needs to be, or ought to be, watched and sanctioned by this House. The Foreign Secretary, speaking on 17th August, ended what he had to say by the words:
    "To reveal from day to day what is ultimately revealed with all due precautions in the Blue Book would really be insanity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th August, 1917, col. 1672, Vol. 97.]
    But that is a travesty of what is aimed at. Those who want most to control foreign affairs do not want every act of the Executive controlled. What they want this House to control is policy and changes of policy, that the country, through the House of Commons, should always know what policy is being pursued, and should always know when any great change is being made in the essential policy of the country. They protest against the doctrine of secrecy—secrecy which is very seldom desirable. No doubt if a Committee of this kind were set up, such a Committee ought to have the power, in consultation with the Foreign Secretary, of deciding that its deliberations should on certain subjects, and under certain conditions, be secret; but, as a rule, what we want is publicity—the maximum of publicity and not the maximum of secrecy.
    In talking to some of my friends who, on the main principles of what I am saying, do not materially disagree with me, some of them have said to me that such a Committee might weaken and not strengthen the control of the House as a whole. I find it very difficult to conceive how the control of the House could be weakened, for it seems to me it is at present as weak as it can possibly be. But I will assume a condition of things in which public opinion demands that the House should exercise a very much more active supervision over foreign affairs. What I imagine in a Committee of this sort is not a board of foreign affairs which should sit with the Foreign Secretary and share his authority. I am not thinking of anything which would so much subvert the general idea of our constitutional practice. I am thinking of a Committee thoroughly representative of this House which would be in constant touch with the Foreign Secretary. If, in
    846
    discussing his policy with him, it thoroughly approved that policy, it would say so and let it pass. It would discuss with him that policy, or changes of that policy, if it felt critical towards him.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Would it see all dispatches?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I presume it would be able to ask for all dispatches certainly. It seems to me that the relations which you want to set up are relations, to a great extent, of give-and-take between the Committee and the Foreign Secretary. I do not press the point, because I think it is clear that there would be occasions on which it would be undesirable that very secret documents should be made public, but in revealing the general tendency of the policy of the Government, the question hardly arises of very secret documents. But the chief function, I take it, of such a Committee would be to keep the House of Commons—the larger House of Commons—informed of the policy which was being pursued, of impending changes of policy, to submit Reports to the House of Commons, and to provide in the Debates in this House a large number of Members who were well informed, in order that this House, wishing to control foreign policy, might be far better informed than it is at present, and, therefore, far more responsible in the performance of its duties. I am bound to say that I do not believe the establishment of such a Committee would in any serious degree hamper the work of a Foreign Secretary who really wanted to act with the House of Commons.
    I want, in passing, to say a word about another function which, I think, a Committee of this sort might perform if it became important and representative. I believe it might form the nucleus for Parliamentary relations with other representative assemblies. The old ambassadorial system has failed, and is discredited in the eyes of most people. After the War, the old diplomacy off Court and upper classes will be, in the eyes of most people, obsolete and inadequate. In fact, what is the whole idea of the League of Nations except the substitution of open and popular diplomacy for the old system? The idea is that difficulties between nations should no longer be settled in conclaves of Ambassadors, but by public, international discussion, and by arbi-

    847
    tration of a public kind. But, of course, if any such new system is to come into existence, it cannot merely consist of the meetings of the representatives of the nations. It will have to be supplemented by informal meetings of those who are interested in international affairs coming from various countries, many of them entirely informal—meetings of men of science, religion, and so forth. Then there will be the rather more formal relations of political parties; for instance, Socialist parties, who may form a great unity in the world. But it seems to me to be also of vital importance that the Parliaments themselves should have some organisation which would enable them to cooperate and communicate, and a Committee of men, specially chosen for their knowledge of foreign affairs, possessing information, and having the feeling of responsibility such a Committee of this kind would have, I think might well be a very valuable national medium of communication.
    I do not want to say anything more in moving this Resolution except this: I should have thought that the more the Foreign Secretary held to the merits of she old order, the more he ought to welcome anything that could create confidence between the Foreign Office and this House, because there is bound to arise a very difficult situation indeed after the War is over. It is very difficult to find a common ground, unquestionably, between those whose central creed with regard to foreign affairs is that they are the business of the specialist and the expert, and those who think that Parliament ought to assert its control in a most determined way. The right hon. Gentleman, giving evidence some time ago before some Committee, talked of 670 prying eyes perpetually directed towards those current details of international negotiations.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): Did I say that?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I think I have quoted it correctly. I think, in so far as that is the view of a large number of people, it is a mistake to suppose that that is the real desire of the House of Commons. I do not think that is what the House of Commons wants. I think that unless the Foreign Office can get in real
    848
    close touch with the House of Commons, and is ready to acknowledge its control, then you will get a state of enmity between the Foreign Office and the House of, Commons which is going to lead to an unsatisfactory state of affairs, in which there will be a desire to pry into everything the Foreign Office is doing. The only way by which that can be avoided, is by making the House of Commons quite certain that it has control over the main elements of policy. If it has that, I do not believe it is going to show itself unreasonable in prying into details. If we do not have some such system, if we do not secure to the House of Commons real, effective supervision of policy, then, I think, there may come a change which may overwhelm; the system now existing. I hope that will not be so, and I trust the House of Commons will consider this question of moderate reform before furious reform comes along.
    Mr. PONSONBY: I rise to second the Amendment.
    We are exceedingly fortunate in being able to raise this question and to detach it from other questions in order that it may be debated fully on its merits. I desire to avoid very scrupulously introducing any illustrations which are likely to arouse dispute or differences of opinion, or to bring up points which may lead to acrimonious debate. I also want to make-it clear to the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary that in my remarks I do not direct my criticisms either to him or to the Government, or to his predecessor or any former Government, but they will be directed at the system which has been carried on by successive Governments during a long period of years. If it is a bad system—and I think it is—it is not the Government or the Foreign Secretary who arc to blame; it is the House of Commons itself, and the people outside who have allowed this system to continue. There is another thing I would say as a preliminary remark in regard to this question. I think we ought not to be led away too much by present conditions—by the abnormal conditions of the War. We ought to regard the question much more from the general point of view of foreign policy in ordinary times.
    What are the opportunities for discussing foreign affairs in this House?—The Foreign Office Vote, the Consolidated Fund Bill, Motions for Adjournment, and, in addition, Questions. We can put aside

    849
    the Consolidated Fund Bill and Motions for Adjournment, because everybody knows that questions can only be raised on these occasions in a very unsatisfactory way; other subjects may be discussed simultaneously, and one cannot keep the attention of the House directly to the particular point one wishes to have discussed. The Foreign Office Vote is not always put down. For several years previous to the War it was not discussed. The Leader of the House has kindly consented to put it down after Easter this year, and that will be the first occasion on which it has been put down during the War. The House will, therefore, see that even the Foreign Office Vote opportunity depends upon whether the Opposition of the day ask for that particular Vote in Supply to be put down, and, as the Opposition is generally much more concerned with points of party difference, it very often allows the Foreign Office Vote to lapse. It must be admitted, therefore, that the opportunities for discussing foreign policy in this House have, in recent years, been reduced to a minimum—they have arisen once or twice or three times perhaps during a Session—and I do not think that these matters, which I consider to be infinitely more important than anything else, should be left to the chance whether or not the Vote is asked for. Then we come to questions. If I were in the position of Foreign Secretary I should look upon questions as a most unsatisfactory method of giving information in regard to foreign affairs. I cannot conceive one more unsatisfactory. It is often declared that questions are embarrassing. No doubt they are, but the reason that they are embarrassing is to be found in the extraordinary ignorance of this House on foreign questions. If the House had better information the questions would be less embarrassing, but, on the whole, I am inclined to think that embarrassing questions are far the lesser evil; they are far less dangerous to the public interest than the deliberate withholding from this House of information which it ought to have.
    The tendency before the War was to say that foreign affairs are non-party and, therefore, ought to be withdrawn from the arena of party politics, and the result has been that they are withdrawn from the arena of Parliamentary discussion altogether. Although there might be differences of opinion in the House there might be no marked party division, yet
    850
    there was no method whatsoever of raising questions of importance in the realm of foreign affairs. Hon. Members on the Unionist side have several time in years past come to me and asked, "How can we raise such-and-such a question?" They, like I, at that time realised the importance of the question, but we had no method of getting it brought forward. The only opportunity of discussing foreign matters really resolves itself into that afforded by the Foreign Office Vote, and anybody who has attended discussions on that Vote-can safely say it reaches sometimes the lowest watermark of Parliamentary debating. We have questions raised by individual members on China, Egypt, Persia, Western Europe, and South America, and I remember that, on one occasion, I was anxious to raise a question about Russia. I thought it was of great importance, and I waited throughout the whole evening. I was preceded by an hon. Member who held the House half an hour talking about the electric lighting in Bangkok, and I found it extremely difficult for me to raise, after that, a very much more important subject regarding Russia. The Foreign Secretary on these occasions gives a perfunctory reply on the points raised, and, if anybody suggests that a general alteration of our policy towards the great Powers of Europe should be allowed to be discussed, such a suggestion is dismissed as not being in order. The old method is a failure, and it is as inevitable as that the sun will rise to-morrow morning that a new method will have to be adopted. The question whether we are going to help devise that new method or are going to drift and allow the old method to be broken down. by some means which may not yield satisfactory results is a question which I ask the House to consider this afternoon. There is a very great consensus of opinion, in regard to it. We are not raising to-day some fad of a few Members who are-always regarded as a contemptible minority. We are raising a question which has been envisaged by statesmen, students of foreign affairs, historians of all parties, and all schools of thought. I am only going to quote three—an ex-Ambassador, an ex-Foreign Minister, and a very prominent Member of this House. Viscount Bryce, an ex-Ambassador, says in his book, "The American Commonwealth"—
    "The day may come when in England the-question of limiting the at present all but

    851
    unlimited discretion of the Executive in foreign affairs will have to be dealt with, and the example of the American Senate will then deserve and receive careful study."
    Lord Rosebery, speaking shortly before the War, in Glasgow, said:
    "Armaments must depend upon your policy, and it is extremely difficult for us, who know nothing about foreign policy but what we see in the newspapers, to form any accurate judgment as to what that foreign policy may be. Do not think that in saying this I am disparaging the knowledge of foreign policy which is derived from newspapers. I am only saying this, which must be familiar to all who have any knowledge of the subject, that what is seen on the stage of foreign policy is but a small part of the whole. By far the greater portion of what takes place behind the scenes, and as we ordinary mortals are not admitted behind the scenes, not even to the door of the green room, our knowledge of foreign policy must be based mainly on speculation.…I do not know if any Glasgow merchant here would care particularly to do what we do in foreign affairs—that is to engage in vast and unknown liabilities and affix his signature to them without knowing their nature and extent."
    That is from an ex-Foreign Minister. I come now to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He said shortly before the War:
    "I sometimes ask myself whether in the future it will not be necessary and, indeed, if it will not be a good thing that the Foreign Secretary should take the House of Commons, in the first instance, and his countrymen at large in the second, much more into his confidence than he has done in the past. We have passed in recent years through European crises, the full gravity of which was not realised by our people, if realised at all, until after they had passed into history. I ask myself can you conduct democratic Governments on these principles."
    Then again, after the announcement of war, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "I do not know why it is but in this the most democratic of countries our people have been told less of foreign politics—of the relations of one State to another, and of our relations to them all—than has been the custom in all great Continental nations, even in those in which Parliaments and the mass of the voters do not have, as they have here, complete control of the policy of the country. It has been a tradition not affecting one party only. What I am speaking of is not the peculiar property of this Government or of that Government, but it has been a tradition handed down from all the days when less depended on the voice of the people and, as I think, not suited to the circumstances of to-day."
    I read these because I think it is very important to show that there are prominent statesmen who realise that a change is necessary. The late Lord
    852
    Cromer, also, in writing a comment on something I had written on this question, said:
    "Mr. Ponsonby's main contention is one which may and should receive the hearty assent of many who disagree with him in detail."
    5.0 P.M.
    He realised the great importance of bringing about this change with regard to the Foreign Office. While during the last few years the flood of democracy has been rising—whether one likes it or whether one does not—and the great Departments of State have become more and more under the control of this House, the Foreign Office has remained high and dry in its old attitude, quite apart from this general rise in the tendency of democratic control. There is this difference between the Foreign Office and any other Department of State: In any other Department of State we in this House are able to see the result of the work done: whether it be the Treasury, the Home Office, the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, or even the Colonial Office, we are able to detect points on which we disagree—maladministration and mistakes become obvious at once. In the realm of foreign affairs the whole thing is quite easily concealed from us, and we never realise what may be going on. At the same time, in the last ten years or so, the character of this House has very much changed. The advent into this House of men of moderate means and a large number of Labour Members has brought into the House a great number of hon. Members who have very special knowledge of a great many of the domestic problems which have been so much before us during recent years, and the whole of domestic legislation and administration has occupied the time of this House far more than it did in old days. At the same time there has been a reduction in the number of hon. Members who have any close knowledge or intimacy with foreign affairs, and while that has been going on it gives a false impression to the country that foreign affairs are not on the same level of importance as domestic affairs. They have learned a lesson now that they are not likely to forget, namely, that foreign affairs, which entail issues of peace and war, concern the men and women of this country far more vitally than any conceivable domestic matter.
    Let us analyse what control means. First of all, I want to say what it does not mean. Control over foreign affairs

    853
    does not mean interference with the conduct of actual negotiations. I have been accused very often by people in this controversy of demanding that the Foreign Secretary should lay his cards on the table, and so spoil his game. It is not the demand at all. I have never heard that demand. We do not want him to lay his cards on the table, but we want to know what game he is playing, because he is playing with very high stakes—people's lives and the nation's money. Of course, we do not want to pry into the inmost secrets of the conduct of negotiations, but between that centre of secrecy and the outer circumference of ignorance which we are in at the present time there is a vast field in which we might well have far fuller information and guidance. I want to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary very much this point that we do not want to interfere with negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Elland has just quoted a phrase of the right hon. Gentleman, which he did not seem to remember, about the prying eyes. The exact phrase was:
    "He did not think it would be in the public interest if 670 prying eyes were perpetually directed against the details of current international negotiations."
    Mr. BALFOUR: When did I say that?
    Mr. PONSONBY: The right hon. Gentleman said it before the House of Commons Committee on Procedure, in answer to a question from me.
    Mr. BALFOUR: What was the date?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I think it was 1914, just before the War. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks I complain of the phrase, I would say I am not doing so, but it illustrates the argument better than any other phrase I could quote of those who will pretend that the demand is for interference in negotiations. I want to clear that out of the road, because it is a very easy tangent for the right hon. Gentleman to go off on and to leave our main demand alone. That is the first thing that we do not want. The second thing we do not want is to infringe the individual responsibility of the Foreign Secretary. Foreign negotiations are of such a character that it appears to me inevitable that they must be conducted by an individual who is responsible, and solely responsible, for the conduct of foreign affairs. I certainly think myself that he should have some sort of assist-
    854
    ance. I think myself that a Cabinet Committee supporting him would be a help to him, because it has been said in old days before the War that when the Foreign Secretary came to the Cabinet with some pressing question of foreign affairs he found the Cabinet so occupied with all the contentious party matters for which the heads of the various Departments were responsible that he could never get a hearing at all, and that foreign affairs were very often treated as though they were something which might safely be left to him as an individual. That we should have at the present time a War Cabinet without the Foreign Secretary in it is something so absolutely grotesque that it really does not bear looking into for a single moment. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, must not suppose that the individual responsibility of the Foreign Minister is to be interfered with. Thirdly, we do not want that any form of control should detract from or diminish the control of the House of Commons itself. My hon. Friend who preceded me says he thinks it would be very difficult to diminish the control of the House of Commons. I entirely agree with him. The control of the House of Commons really amounts to nothing at all. I think, and I hope to show, that a Committee, so far from diminishing the control of the House of Commons, would be a spur and a lever to induce the House of Commons to consider this question of foreign relations far more frequently and more seriously than they do now.
    I will now come to the positive side, as to what we do desire by control. First of all, the lines of policy, the course of events, and certain details which I will refer to, control over agreements and alliances, and, thirdly, the question of treaties. With regard to policy, my hon. Friend who preceded me has already dealt with that, and I need not go over the same ground. We want to know the broad lines of policy. We want to know what our relations are with foreign countries in the main, the basis and foundation of them. I repeat that I want the Secretary of State to bear in mind that I am speaking more especially of the normal state of peace than the abnormal state which obtains now. We also want information with regard to the course of events-What happens now? We, as Lord Rosebery said, have to rely on the Press. What happens in the Press? We see a series of events reported with great fulness; we

    855
    begin to read of them. The next day the story continues, and we read it with interest; but the day after that some domestic concern crops up, either in. Parliament or in the country, and the foreign news is withdrawn, the story stops, the country is under the impression that that particular issue is over. It may not be at all, and we who are precisely on the same footing as any individual, as the man in the street— because we know no more than they do with regard to foreign affairs—are also prevented from following the course of events. As the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, events which apparently are quite unimportant may, when they are followed, be seen to have very grave bearings, may raise other problems which require looking into, and that perpetual motion of foreign events in foreign countries is something to which more than an expert department should have their attention drawn. In a Committee the current events could be asked for and understood, and the information—just ordinary information—given to them. I am not talking about any confidential information in the slightest degree, but just the ordinary information which we cannot get in any other way. In addition to that, there are a great many commercial and Consular matters which are of interest to Members of this House, because the Foreign Office touches in one of its wings on the Board of Trade very closely. There are many commercial matters which it is impossible to raise in this House at all, which are never raised, which are of great importance, and which this Committee would form an admirable opportunity for discussing upstairs. So much for the lines of policy and events.
    Secondly, I come to agreements and alliances. This, of course, is very fundamental. I consider that alliances and agreements should always be brought to the knowledge of this House. I do not think there is any question about that. Anybody who looks over the history of the last hundred years or so is very much struck by the constant change in the combinations between the nations of Europe. The friend of one decade becomes the foe of the next, and that continual change is due to the fact that these alliances, instead of being based on the sound approval of the people, are based on bargains made by individual Ministers or Governments, and, so long as they rest on
    856
    that basis, they can only be ephemeral. The people will not be so capricious, because the people are there all the time. Ministers drop out, Governments depart, but the people are there all the time, and if you get their consent and approval and backing to agreements and alliances, made openly and clearly in the light of day, you are much more likely to get duration and to prevent what has been the spectacle of Europe in the last century—all these continual changes of combinations in what is treated really as a diplomatic game.
    Thirdly, with regard to control, there is the question of the treaties. I am not quite certain how this question of treaties stands. I understand that no legislation would be necessary in order to get the constitutional practice established that treaties should receive the sanction of this House. I have no doubt myself that they ought, but it means rather a change in our constitutional practice. Lord Grey, when he was Foreign Secretary, dismissed this matter when it was brought forward by saying it was not a Departmental matter, but that it was a constitutional matter. I do not know who deals with, constitutional matters in this House, but I think it is a favourable opportunity to-day, because, as I hope to show, it is relevant to the whole question of a Foreign Affairs Committee to raise the question as to whether treaties should not receive the sanction of this House. Again I say what I have said already of alliances and agreements, unless you get the sanction of the people behind treaties, if treaties are simply documents to which only the Executive, only the Foreign Secretary or the Foreign Office, affix their signatures, you will never get the proper respect paid to them which we hope to see paid in the future. But there is another question with regard to treaties which is very important. If treaties are going really to be durable they must not, as they are at present, be drawn up as binding for all time. There must be a term put upon them. It was John Stuart Mill who said in one of his essays:
    "Nations cannot rightfully bind them selves or others beyond a period to which human foresight can be presumed to extend, thus aggravating the danger, which to some extent always exists, that the fulfilment of the obligation may by change of circumstances become either wrong or unwise."
    And there is supposed to be in every treaty a tacit condition of rebus sic stantibus—that is to say, if there are

    857
    altered conditions, that is an excuse for the repudiation of the treaty. That excuse has been made on several occasions by nations; and, in regard to a complete innocence and righteousness in the matter of observing treaties, I am afraid there is no nation which can point to a spotless record. It is not because national morality is low; it is rather because inter-governmental morality is so low; and that is because these treaties, drawn up and ratified, binding for all time, must, in the course of time, necessarily lose their binding effect, unless they are brought up for revision. Therefore, I say all treaties ought to be binding only for a limited period, and then brought up for revision. In that case you want a special body, just seeing the treaty that comes up at a certain period, going through it, and saying in what respect it ought to be altered. Very often, quite automatically, a number of treaties would pass through without any discussion whatsoever.
    A Foreign Affairs Committee, of course, does not completely cover the whole ground or get the full Parliamentary control, which I should certainly like to see; but it is a step in the right direction. As to its functions, constitution, and procedure, it would act as a connecting link between the Foreign Secretary and the House of Commons. It would assist him in giving him a contact with opinion outside which I think he very much needs. Again I am not talking of the present Foreign Secretary, but of a Foreign Secretary. Let us put it in the abstract and not in the concrete. A Foreign Secretary does require more contact with opinion outside, and a Foreign Affairs Committee, which he or his. Under-Secretary would attend, would give him the opportunity of realising what was the thought and opinion of people who know a great deal of foreign questions. There is a sort of impression that the House of Commons knows nothing at all about foreign affairs. When I was in the Foreign Office I certainly thought so. I know that in drafting answers to questions in the Foreign Office end in asking questions in the House of Commons one has two very different points in view. The actual view in the Foreign Office was, "What on earth are these Members of Parliament interfering in our work for?" and one does not realise until one becomes a Member of the House how vitally important it is that Members should interfere, and should have full knowledge and some voice in
    858
    the conduct of foreign affairs. The Committee would have the power to call for papers. As to whether it should demand papers or demand witnesses, that is a matter which I think at this stage we need hardly decide. These are important points, but I do not think these details should stand in our way at the present time. As I have said, if there are questions of revision of treaties, that in itself would give the Committee an extremely useful function.
    As to its constitution, I think a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, consisting of about thirty to fifty Members, would meet the case as well as any body that I can think of. A Select Committee would be too small. I think the names of the members of the Committee would have to be submitted to this House for approval, in order that not only parties but all sections of opinion in this House might be represented. As to whether there should be a Committee of both Houses, considering that very often in the House of Lords you get interesting Debates on foreign questions and you get Members of that House who have a closer knowledge of foreign affairs, including ex-Ambassadors than Members perhaps in this House, that is a question quite worthy of consideration; but, on the whole, I am inclined to think that a Committee of the House of Commons, considering that we are the House of the people's representatives, is more necessary in order to secure control than a Committee of the two Houses. I say about thirty to fifty Members, in order to make it completely representative and ensure a good attendance. I do not intend to detain the House with regard to procedure, because that is a matter which would have to be settled hereafter if the main principles were accepted, but we ought not to be hampered by any sort of precedent in this matter. In all the different sorts of Committees we have constructed under our procedure from time to time to meet our needs in this House we have bad to devise different systems; and if this is a new need, and it has to be met, we must not be frightened of devising a new method of meeting it. We must not be hampered.
    Of all countries, I think, in Europe, of all the great Powers, we have the least control over foreign affairs. There are committees in France, in Germany, and in the United States. There is an interesting Parliamentary Paper giving the full details of all these various Committees. I have

    859
    spoken to Deputies of the French Chamber with regard to their committee and they have said that it does not give them satisfactory control They admit that, but at the same time they say they are able to get a great deal more information than we do, and it is a notorious fact that foreign Parliaments are far better acquainted with international problems than we are. It is not only our national insularity, but it is this deplorable procedure, which prevents us really being au courant with international affairs. The United States of America affords perhaps the most interesting instance, because the Committee of Foreign Relations of the Senate is a very important body indeed. It is a very small body, but the Senate has treaty-making power—that is to say, no treaty of the United States being able to be sanctioned without the consent of the members of the Senate. Members of the Committee have a very important position, and the Secretary of State not only brings matters to them for their sanction, but consults them very often before he takes the initial steps in drawing up a treaty. I do not think that really any of the methods devised by foreign Parliaments, although they go a great deal further than anything we have devised, meet the case completely; but I think a closer study of their methods might give us a hint as to the direction in which we might advance, gaining from their knowledge and experience and correcting the mistakes which they see they have made.
    But no Committee or any other sort of advisory body can succeed in getting control of foreign affairs so long as a Foreign Secretary desires to evade Parliamentary control. He can always do it. I make one reservation—unless the Committee has power to demand information. Then that would be an effectual check on him. A Foreign Affairs Committee would certainly make it more difficult for a Foreign Secretary to retain the secret methods, and it would make it far easier for a Foreign Secretary who desired to get into closer touch with Parliament and to fortify his actions by public approval. We have had all sorts of small Committees connected with tins House, Committees get up by Members privately to investigate various questions of foreign policy, and they have been very useful, some of them, in getting us information. But of course no private Committee is of the
    860
    smallest use in securing control. What we want is a publicly recognised, constitutionally established, body. There was. some sort of Foreign Affairs Committee sent over to France a year ago, during the War. Several hon. Members went over, and I could never ascertain on what principle they were chosen. They were leading Members of well-known ability and capacity, but not particularly distinguished for knowledge of foreign affairs; and, so far as I could ascertain from replies given to me, they were chosen because they were "safe,'' and therefore could be relied on. I do not know that that is a very good method of selection. It is not necessarily the orthodox "safe" people who may be most useful.
    But at any rate these informal Committees are of no particular assistance in this matter. In fact, foreign affairs should not be any longer a highly technical, obscure and secret business which must be jealously guarded from outside interference and kept scrupulously in the hands, of the initiated, questions and discussions by private Members being considered unwarrantable intrusions by outsiders into a private concern which is no business of theirs, like a small boy spying behind a curtain behind which his elders are engaged in work which he cannot possibly understand. That idea ought to be disposed of once and for all. Foreign affairs should be recognised as the nation's chief concern, in which the people's representatives have the right to participate and in which their co-operation should be sought. If any international order is to be set up after this War it can only be by getting the people to give their approval and their consent to the main lines of our foreign policy. This can only be done through Parliament, and in no other way. It may be said that the last few months of a moribund Parliament is. the worst opportunity that could be chosen for bringing this matter forward, but I disagree. To begin with, we have got a Coalition Government in power, and we have already done an astonishing bit of work by passing the Representation of the People Bill. There is no reason why a step forward should not be made in this direction also. More than that, we have immediately in front of us the most critical moment, perhaps, in the history of this country, and it is a moment in which it is of the very utmost importance that we should, have the assistance of the popular will, the popular

    861
    intentions with regard to the solution of these international problems. These decisions can only be arrived at satisfactorily through Parliamentary discussion, and they can only be effectively carried out with the assent and approval of the people's representatives.
    Captain G. A. LLOYD: I do not think that the hon. Members who moved and seconded this Motion will misunderstand me if I say that a great many of us have come to look upon Motions put forward by hon. Members below the Gangway with a good deal of suspicion. This, however, is not one of them. I listened with a good deal of interest to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Ponsonby) and the hon. Member who moved this Motion, but what they have said does not alter the fact that they are proposing an alteration in our contitutional method of dealing with important business in this House of a very grave character, indeed, which must have very far-reaching results. When I listened to the extraordinarily temperate and mild manner in which they advocate this great change.—they stated, I think, that they only wanted the most ordinary information and that the question of obtaining powers to compel information was to be left over to a later date—I felt a little bit alarmed lest this House should not realise what a tremendously important issue was being raised at this juncture in the War.
    Let me say that I think the time selected for this proposal is most unfortunate. Whatever the merits of the case may be, for a Committee of this House to deal with foreign affairs in time of peace, that case is very much weaker in time of war. We cannot afford to make mistakes, and still less can we afford to show even the smallest trace of disunity in our counsels, or even a fraction of disunity with regard to our alliances. I think, too, that it is very doubtful whether, in time of war, a Committee, such as that which has been advocated, could, without hourly and daily access to all the official telegrams and information which come in time of war, render any useful or valuable advice and assistance to the Government in dealing with all the various complex questions entrusted to the care of the Foreign Office. If such is the conclusion one comes to now, I would not for a moment suggest that I think there are not good reasons for, at any rate, considering such, a proposal to operate
    862
    in times of peace. Although we may dislike the proposal put before the House to-day, I confess that I think this Motion is in a considerable measure due to the Foreign Office behaviour towards this House in past times. I do not disguise for a moment that I think there is a good deal to be altered, but I differ as to ways and means from hon. Members below the Gangway. I do think it is absolutely impossible for foreign affairs to be conducted by public debate at all moments and seasons in the House of Commons. I have not a vestige of sympathy with the rather vague and sometimes ill-directed invective against secret diplomacy. It is obvious, in fact, it is intolerable, that you should discuss and give your most intimate views as to the conduct of all your neighbours without largely impairing the relations between, you and them, and no good or useful purpose would be served. It is really worth remembering also that there is very little diplomacy that is secret to anyone who takes the time and trouble to study it, and give it as much attention as hon. Members do to social and domestic questions. Necessarily, however, there must be a reticence of expression in regard to the behaviour of our neighbours if we are not to be perpetually disputing all kinds of questions.
    I will give a small instance. Not a few of us in this. House before the War were convinced that Germany was plotting and planning and preparing against this country. We are now accused by politicians in this House of not having-warned the country against the impending danger, and it is assumed in consequence that we were blind to that danger. Our difficulty was that when we sought to give expression to our fears in this House we always ran the risk by our utterances of precipitating or augmenting the ill-feeling which behind the scenes we believed the Foreign Office was doing its utmost to appease. That is the difficulty which exists now, and which must exist even with a Foreign Affairs Committee, of an unfettered discussion of foreign affairs in this country. I said that the Foreign, Office has been largely responsible fort his Motion. Hon. Members have a lack of confidence in our foreign diplomacy, and they wish to correct it. But the only way in which this country can really take a larger control of its foreign affairs is by understanding them. It is true it is much harder for this country to understand

    863
    its foreign affairs than for other foreign countries, but that does not alter the fact that the people of no country can understand their foreign affairs unless they study them. We cannot enter into details of foreign policy, but we can have the broad outlines of our foreign policy explained to us, and I think this should be done more often, more simply and with rather greater candour than has been the custom in this House. I refer especially to the four or five years preceding this War. It is because the country does not understand foreign policy even in its broad aspects that misconception arises. How many people understood before the War what our moral liabilities to France and Russia were? How many people realised why they were undertaken, or what was the importance of them? I do not think there is any doubt if the people had understood them they would either have refused the engagements to which they were pledged, or, at any rate, they would have seen that this country had made adequate naval and military preparations to meet them.
    Although I risk being out of order in giving this illustration, I would like to say that many people who have studied the question believe that this War might never have occurred if some days earlier the Prime Minister had been able to say absolutely and unequivocally that he was going to stand by his engagements even when the first outbreak of the Serbian trouble arose. Why was he not able to do so There were several important reasons, but one of the main reasons, which I am sure will be put forward after this War, was that the Government and the Cabinet at that moment were not sure that they had the confidence of the people in that policy. Why had they not this confidence? Because they had never told the people what their engagements were, and so the Government had to wait day after day until the enemy should commit some huge rand obvious outrage which from a sense of justice would be repudiated by the people of this country. But all the same I am not convinced that you are going to get an understanding of foreign affairs in this country by setting up a Foreign Affairs Committee in this House. On the contrary, I think it tends to uncertainty in foreign relations and divided counsels. Hon. Members who have raised this discussion talk a great deal about the fallacy of our foreign policy, but they do not say
    864
    anything to justify it. If hon. Members went to France or Germany, particularly the latter, and other countries on the Continent, the people there would tell them that we had pursued a masterly foreign policy for the last fifteen years. We must look back twenty years to see this question in its true perspective. The truer criticism would be, to use a military parallel without any military meaning here, that the strategy of our Foreign Office for the last fifteen or twenty years has been amazing and wonderful; in fact, it has been a masterpiece, but that the tactics have been very often deplorable. Take, for example, the Japanese alliance, which led to tranquillity, economy, and economic progress in the East. This was masterly, and achieved something which could not have been achieved by public debate. The Triple Entente met a danger which those who knew best felt the country was moving to, and that was very masterly. Huge difficulties were patiently overcome, sacrifices were made, deep-seated differences were removed, old time prejudices excised, so that France, who had been for two centuries an enemy of this country, and Russia, with whom we had been on nagging and uncomfortable relations for nearly as long, came into the orbit of our friendship, and this 'was all the result of that secret diplomacy which hon. Members below the Gangway are so very unhappy about.
    If you come to the tactical performances of the Foreign Office you can point to great blunders. You will see blunders in Bulgaria, with Turkey, and with Polish policy. What are the conclusions from that? Rightly or wrongly, I draw these conclusions, that there may be a very big case for reforming the machinery of our foreign office internally, but that there is very little case for setting up a Foreign Office Committee. Such a Committee could never hope to deal with all the daily details which make up the tactical work of the Foreign Office. It could only exert its influence on the great, broad policy which I believe all agree has been masterly in its conception during the last twenty-five years. I do not believe by such a Committee you would achieve the resutls you are seeking. Hon. Members have referred to the countries that have Foreign Affairs Committees. The subject was slapped over rather lightly I thought. Denmark, Italy, Greece, Japan, and Norway—none of them have such a Committee. It is a fact that Turkey had a Foreign Affairs

    865
    Committee, and, although I noticed a rather unusual and to me a rather painful sympathy with the position of Constantinople in Turkey on the part of the hon. Member below the Gangway—I confess that I could not understand it, and sometime I should like to ask him what he meant—I do not think that we should want to imitate the Turkish Chamber. Germany is not a very democratic country whose institutions we look at with a great deal of affection. Therefore, there remains France and the United States of America. We may try and learn something from those neighbours, though in this connection it is necessary to remember that there 13 not any parallel at all for our diplomatic position, except perhaps that of Japan. Japan and Great Britain are both island Empires, and are bound to pursue a policy that is non-Continental. There is possibly a similarity in the position of those two countries in this matter, but none of the other countries, and particularly the United States, afford any parallel in dealing with foreign affairs. The sea makes all that difference.
    Let me take, first, the case of the United States, and ask if there is any one who would venture to say that he anything like understands the complexities of the Senate and the House of Representatives—the complexities of the American constitution, and its machinery. I at once say that I do not. It is an immensely complex constitution and one very difficult to understand. This, at any rate can be said. The Monroe Doctrine has eliminated from the purview of the United States and of its people practically all foreign questions, and although they have a Committee there I do not see that we should imitate it, because, without meaning any offence to the people of the United States, they have a very good reason for being ignorant of foreign affairs and they are or have been ignorant of them. I wish that we in. the same way could afford to be ignorant. I should think there is no country where the people understand so little about foreign affairs as the United States. That is very well known. Therefore, if it is alleged that a Committee on Foreign Affairs is necessarily a good means of educating people to understand their alliances and agreements, I do not think much encouragement will be derived from the example of the United States. In conclusion, take the case of France. I do not know if hon. Members who advocate this change realise the effect—this really is
    866
    not a debatable point—that the foreign and Colonial Committee of the French Chamber has had. It has been very simple. It has been intensely expansionist and Jingoist, to use a broad word. The foreign policy of France has been almost entirely defensive on the one side and expansionist on the other. The defensive policy was understood by all. Every child knew of 1870. Every child was taught that Alsace-Lorraine was French but in alien hands It was a simple irredentist policy as regards the latter and strictly defensive as regards the former. The Foreign Affairs Committee deals extraordinarily little with foreign affairs and almost entirely with colonial affairs. Anybody who has ever studied or been acquainted with members of that committee or with its work knows that all it has dealt with practically has been colonial affairs, oversea trade affairs, and in those affairs there has been no body that I know that has been more expansionist and more penetrating in its attempts to introduce French methods, French trade, and French influence in other countries than the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French Chamber.
    I do not think that is the kind of Committee that hon. Members seek to set up here, or that those are the objects for which they, at any rate, want to set up. Therefore, I think that they would do better to withdraw this Motion for discussion in the House and to substitute another for it. This Motion, I believe, is alien to the practice of this House, and would be inharmonious to the working of this House. After all, if there is one thing that we are keen about in this House it is the direct access of Members of the House to the Government, and I dislike interposing unnecessary Committees. It is undemocratic and alien to our traditions, and, if I might suggest it, I think that the hon. Gentlemen would do better to withdraw this Motion and to substitute for it a Motion dealing with the reform of the Foreign Office as an institution, effecting improvements in pay, improvement in terms and conditions, and improvement on many a line that is not appropriate for me to refer to on this subject. Not only would they have my support there, but I am sure, though they perhaps do not know it, that they would have with them half the Foreign Office on the question of reform in that body. I believe that would go far to meet the points that have been raised

    867
    very ably and with great interest by the hon. Members below the Gangway, but I do ask them to consider very carefully before they press upon the House an alteration in the management of our foreign affairs which I believe would be most dangerous in its results and certainly would not carry out the objects which they have advocated.
    Mr. BALFOUR: My hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down has made a most able contribution to the Debate. He has spoken with originality, he has spoken with knowledge, and he has spoken with a varied experience of foreign affairs both at home and abroad. I think the result of his experience came out in the course of his speech. He endeavoured to regard—and I think he succeeded in regarding—the conduct of our foreign affairs as a practical question for practical men, to be dealt with, not according to abstract formulæ, but according to the real necessities of the actual situation. I did not see the same full consciousness of the facts of the case in the speech either of the Mover or of the Seconder of the Amendment. Both those two hon. Gentlemen, and the Mover in particular, spent a great deal of time upon what are now becoming the familiar platitudes of democracy versus secret diplomacy. He drew again with considerable elaboration the well-known caricature of foreign ministers of various countries spinning diplomatic webs, oblivious, apparently, of the public opinion of their respective countries, and pursuing almost worn-out methods, with the result that civilised mankind is now groaning under a series of undemocratic treaties. That picture is entirely fantastic. I neither see how the present system is undemocratic nor how the proposal is going to make it more democratic. The hon. Gentleman appears to think that the Foreign Minister at this box does not represent the people of the country in whose name he speaks, and that the Government to which he belongs and with whom he works in harmony represents some occult, half-forgotten tradition of Eighteenth Century diplomacy, which has no legitimate place in modern international relations- That is quite fantastic. Why is the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Elland Divisiou (Mr. Trevelyan) a better representative of democracy than I am?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I never suggested it.
    Mr. BALFOUR: He has been sent here—no doubt with great advantage to the House—by his constituents. Well, so have I. Why does he think that a Member of Parliament, duly elected, but standing at this box, ceases to have those democratic instincts of which, apparently, he is so proud?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I did not suggest it.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I consider myself quite as good a representative of my country as the hon. Gentleman can possibly consider himself, and, if I reveal the whole truth, I think at this particular moment that I represent it muck better. Putting on one side this comparison, which need not be pressed far, between the hon. Gentleman and myself, I want to know how is the existing undemocratic condition of things going to be remedied by appointing a Committee of this House? Apparently, the hon. Gentleman who initiated this Debate thinks that our Foreign Office discussions are very unsatisfactory. If I remember rightly, the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr, Ponsonby) has retained an embittered recollection of some Debate in which he desired to take a part, which I am sure if he could have taken would have been both important and useful, and in which he was prevented from that exercise of his responsibilities by the fact that while he wanted to talk of Russia and of some great issues in which Russia was concerned, there was another hon. Member who insisted upon talking about gas-lighting in Bankok. I heartily sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I can see even now an expectant House melting away under the discussion of the gas-lighting of Bankok. When the House has been emptied by a Debate on the gas-lighting of Bankok, it is very difficult to bring it back to any world-wide question of foreign policy.
    Mr. PONSONBY: I did get my speech off.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I feel that the hon. Gentleman must have done it under chilling circumstances, and that the edge of his eloquence was a great deal affected by the fact that his audience had been completely spoiled by the eloquence of his-predecessor, who exercised his ingenuity for that painful half-hour upon the gas-lighting of Bankok. How is that going to

    869
    be cured? How are our Debates going to be made more democratic? What machinery is going to be devised by which these little accidents are not going to occur? Let me go a step further. I should have thought that by every remove from the people you became, in the language of the hon. Gentleman opposite, less democratic. If you could have a plebiscite, I suppose that would be the most democratic thing of all, although I understand that it is not always regarded with favour on the benches opposite. Next to a plebiscite, I suppose, comes a representative Assembly—the House of Commons. Thirdly, and far down the scale, comes a Committee of the House of Commons. Why is that? How are we to democratise our institutions by handing over to a Committee of this House a responsibility which ought to be directly exercised by the House? I entirely fail to see how you would approach one step nearer to this ideal of democratic diplomacy which the two hon. Gentlemen cherish. Let me consider the work of this Committee a little more closely. What is it exactly going to do? Both hon. Gentlemen who opened this Debate repudiated the notion that these Committees were going to deal with the current business of foreign affairs. Nobody who does not deal with the current business, more or less, of foreign affairs is in a fit position to deal with the special crises which from time to time arise It is impossible that it should be otherwise.
    What is the business of the Foreign Office of this country and of every other country in its aspect of an international machine? It does not pursue strange and secret aims. I think the British world perfectly understands and could thoroughly describe the broad ends for which British diplomacy works. We want to keep on good terms with our neighbours. Questions are perpetually arising, sometimes large, sometimes small, ranging perhaps on the one side from some great boundary question between two great Empires to the gas lighting of Bangkok on the other. All these questions have to be dealt with by some Department. The objects which the Government have in view in dealing with them are quite simple, are quite plain, and are known to all the world. What is not simple, what is not plain, and what is not easy, is the actual day-to-day carrying out of
    870
    the negotiations by which the end is to be attained. A Foreign Office and a Diplomatic Service are great instruments for preventing, so far as it can be prevented, and diminishing, even when you cannot prevent, friction between States which are, or which ought to be, friendly. How is the task of peacemaker—because that is largely the task which falls to diplomatists and to the Foreign Office, which controls diplomatists—to be pursued if you are to shout your grievances from the housetop whenever they occur? The only result is that you embitter public feeling, that the differences between the two States suddenly attain a magnitude they ought never to be allowed to approach, that the newspapers of the two countries agitate themselves, that the Parliaments of the two countries have their passions set on fire, and great crises arise, which may end—have ended sometimes—in international catastrophes.
    One of the main businesses of the Foreign Office is to see that the interests of this country are not neglected or sacrificed, and yet to see in regard to the inevitable small collisions, the small questions of dispute, the small troubles which must arise when an Empire like the British Empire, stretching over the whole world, is the next-door neighbour to heaven knows how many countries, and has interests connected with them—that as these questions arise and when they arise—they are constantly occurring—we should never let British interests be unduly sacrificed, nor that great international quarrels, or international rivalry, should be allowed to arise over small matters. My hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down referred in one of the most interesting parts of his speech to the Anglo-French Convention—the Entente. I was very closely concerned with that great transaction. What was the motive animating the British Foreign Office and the British Government at that time? It was not the desire to carry out secret diplomacy by ancient and musty methods. It was a common-sense ambition, a common-sense desire, looking round the world, and seeing how British and French interests were always having little collisions and producing little difficulties in every part of the world, from Arabia to Newfoundland—it was seeing that this was always happening that made the statesmen of the two countries feel that if they went on the old lines there would never be those cordial relations which, in

    871
    our view, were absolutely necessary, not merely for the prosperity of the countries most directly concerned, but for the interests of the world at large and for the maintenance of peace. That was the object. Do you call that "secret diplomacy"? It seems to me to be the most idiotic name to give it, but you may call it that if you like. How could you have carried out that long-drawn and complicated series of negotiations if our own Foreign Minister had spent his time in discussing the matter with thirty or forty gentlemen, whom the hon. Gentleman pictures as making our foreign diplomacy more democratic than it is, instead of devoting himself to the varied problems, the complex aspects of which were inevitably the most difficult to master, and which had to be dealt with in constant discussion with the diplomats on the other side?
    Mr. P. A. HARRISHad not the French Government such a Committee?
    Mr. BALFOUR: It did not help the negotiations. I do not know whether I ought to be dragged off my general line, but I will take up the hon. Gentleman's interruption. He seems to think that this general objective of diplomacy becomes more democratic—I suppose he is one of those who take that view—if there is a Parliamentary Committee with regard to it. My hon. and gallant Friend (Major Lloyd) has pointed out that the French Parliamentary Committee does not really make French diplomacy more democratic, or less concerned in the interchange of ideas through the ordinary diplomatic channels than British diplomacy. It is invidious to pronounce an opinion on the institutions of a country not your own, but frankly I admit that what I have heard about the working of the French Committee does not make me specially desirous of seeing it introduced into this country. The American Foreign Relations Committee stands on a wholly different basis, for this reason, among others, that the American Minister responsible for foreign affairs is not, and cannot be, a member either of the House of Representatives or of the Senate. His only connection with the Legislature of his country is through the Committee. If that is the system on which your Constitution is to work, there may be a good deal to be said for it; indeed, a Committee seems to me to be very nearly a necessity.
    872
    If you are going to exclude your Ministers from this House, very likely you would find it very desirable to have a Committee to act as intermediary between them and the House. But that is a change which none of us are going to live to see, and which certainly does not seem to me to be in the democratic direction. What this House desires is to be in contact with the Ministers who control its affairs, and to turn them out if it does not like them. That is not the American system. The American system is that Ministers of the day depend upon the President of the day, that the President of the day is elected by direct popular election, and that during his term of office he is, in that sense, quite independent of the approval or disapproval of Congress. The hon. Gentleman used big words about "democratising diplomacy." We have always thought in this country that the proper method of democratic government ought always to be one of gradual evolution. That is the one with which we are familiar, and which has worked well. It is one in which what is practically a Committee of this House, in this House of elected representatives of the people, dependent upon this House for their continuance in office, sit here, hear, explain, and defend their policy when it is challenged. That is a democratic system. It is the existing system. I cannot conceive how it can be made more democratic by the creation of a new organ or instrument in the shape of these fifty Gentlemen who are to sit upstairs in a Committee Boom, and have the business of examining the Secretary of State or his subordinates. Before I leave that subject, may I ask why should we be "democratic" only in foreign affairs? There are a great many offices besides the one over which I have the honour to preside. There is the Navy and the Army. Are they to be democratised? Is the Home Office to be democratised?
    Mr. JOWETT: Yes.
    Mr. BALFOUR: And the Board of Trade?
    Mr. JOWETT: Yes.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Well, then, be consistent. In America they are consistent. They have Committees for all these subjects, and it is before those Committees that the officials responsible for the conduct of the Departments appear from time to time. But we have down on the Paper

    873
    an Amendment which, does not allude or refer to any other Department than the Foreign Office. I cannot imagine why. Why is democracy to be introduced into the Foreign Office and excluded from the War Office, the Treasury, and the Board of Trade? You may say it is introduced in the ease of the Treasury. I see my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting on this bench. We have a Public Accounts Committee, but if I remember rightly the Public Accounts Committee is always practically engaged in discussing what has happened a year ago, or even two years ago. I believe its functions are extremely useful. I am the last person to suggest that it does not do the most admirable work, but I venture to suggest that you might do less harm in foreign affairs if you introduced the same limitation, and if these forty or fifty Gentlemen spoken of by the hon. Member gave in the result only an historical survey of the efforts of the Foreign Office two years ago. I gather from the illustration given in the course of this Debate that it is not the events that have happened during my brief tenure of this office that have excited the wrath of the hon. Gentlemen—I will not say wrath, for their speeches were conspicuous for their moderation—who took as examples the old-fashioned methods of the Foreign Office. It is my unfortunate predecessor, who, when I sat opposite to him on the other side of the House, I was accustomed to regard as being in the view of the Liberal party of that day the very incarnation of democratic Liberalism. He is the Minister who did all these dreadful things.
    Mr. PONSONBY: I specially said there was no Minister I had in my mind.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I was not referring to the hon. Member. It was the Mover of the Amendment to whom I was referring. He gave two illustrations. One was the iniquity of our arrangement with Russia over Constantinople, and the other was the iniquity of our arrangement with Italy over Dalmatia. Both those instances happened before I had any official relation with the Government then responsible for the conduct of affairs. Both occurred in Lord Grey of Falloden's period of office. I thought those criticisms singularly inept. These are the illustrations deliberately chosen by the Mover of the Amendment. We were in the middle of a tremendous struggle. The
    874
    moment came, after the Turks joined our enemies, in which this question of Constantinople came up. A great body of British tradition was very unwilling to see Constantinople become Russian for fear that Russia would obtain complete control over the Black Sea and over Turkey, and would have a naval position in the Mediterranean which would be of a very formidable character. I do not say whether it was right or wrong, but that was the tradition of a very large body of opinion in this country. A moment came when the Government of the day had to decide whether, when these questions came up, we should say to Russia, "No; you are not going to have Constantinople. That is a thing we cannot allow. You must go on fighting with us, but, whatever happens to Turkey, Constantinople you shall not have." That is what, I understand, would have been done by the forty or fifty members of the Committee sitting upstairs, which shows distinctly that that arrangement about Constantinople never would have been made if the Committee had existed. I can hardly conceive a stronger condemnation of it. If the hon. Member had had his way, if he had got the democratic constitution for the management of foreign affairs which he desires, if there had been the forty or fifty Gentlemen sitting upstairs, whom he wishes to see organised into a, Foreign Affairs Committee, and if they had decided, as he is quite convinced they would have decided, we should have been short of two of the Allies who fought side by side in the most critical days of the War. I cannot understand the courage of a Gentleman who gives, as an illustration of the blessings to be showered upon us by a Committee of Foreign Affairs, an example of that kind, which, no doubt, if things happened as he believed, would have conduced to those Pacifist aims which he desires, but chiefly by the defeat of France, Britain and their Allies.
    You have to consider, when you are perfecting your Parliamentary machinery, which, in the main, is your machinery of criticism, whether you are not weakening your machinery for action. This House is not an executive body, cannot be an executive body, and if it tried to be an executive body would do its work altogether abominably. The 670 Gentlemen could not do it, and no delegation to Committee Rooms of forty or fifty could do it. That is not the way the work of

    875
    the world is done anywhere if it is done effectively. No house of business manages its affairs in that way; no Army and no Navy manages its affairs in that way. Those who aspire to that ideal of popular machinery and call it "democratic" confuse administration with criticism and legislation. Administration is one thing; criticism and legislation are another. You should have your control over those who manage your affairs, but it is not the kind of control which the hon. Member wishes to set up with his Committee of forty or fifty. It is quite a different control. You must know, broadly speaking, what are the general lines of policy, and I maintain that that is thoroughly known with regard to foreign affairs at this moment by every man m this House who takes the trouble to think.
    The general lines on which we are proceeding are thoroughly known. If the House or any large body of the House thinks we are proceeding on wrong lines, turn us out—that is the proper remedy—but do not suppose that we can do the work better by having to explain it to a lot of people who are not responsible. That is not the way to get business properly done. I have no personal feeling of my own, because, whatever else is certain in this world, it is quite certain that I shall not be Foreign Minister, if and when any Committee of this sort is established. I speak, therefore, with great impartiality. But if the House will admit that I am impartial, let me say this quite plainly. Ac a time like this the offices are worked up to the limit of their strength. The augmentation of the work, to say nothing of the augmentation of the responsibility, is enormous. It never stood, in the history of this country, at a level comparable to that at which it stands at this moment.
    Conceive adding to all the other work which the Foreign Office has to do the work of preparing material in order to discuss foreign affairs with a Committee which, by hypothesis, has come as much to learn as to act. It was the ignorance of the House of Commons, the relative ignorance of the Committee, on which the hon. Member dwelt. There was a kindergarten aspect given to the scheme. Take it that the forty or fifty Gentlemen have no other desire but to learn. You throw the labour of tuition upon an overworked Department. But suppose, as is much more probable,
    876
    that the object is not to learn, but to criticise, then the Foreign Minister or his colleague comes down once a. week, and has a discussion on foreign affairs with these forty or fifty Gentlemen. They ask him for all the secret telegrams which have passed and all the negotiations which have taken place. Whether he was to give them or not was left obscure. I think I am not doing the hon. Member an injustice when I say that for the moment some latitude of responsibility was to be given to the Minister, but when the process of democratisation was complete, the Papers would be given and the telegrams would be revealed as a matter of course. That would be an intolerable addition to the work of my Noble Friend and myself. But I want to know whether it is going to stop there. Are you going to have the officials of the Foreign Office and cross-examine them? I believe that is done in some other countries.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Public Accounts Committee has officials before it.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have dealt with the Public Accounts Committee. I dare say a section of the Foreign Office would be equal to dealing with questions that arose about what happened two years ago. I am talking of the day-to-day work, which is the subject of Debate brought before us by the two hon. Members. If you are going to ask Foreign Office officials, or officials of any Department, to expend some of their energy in getting ready for cross-examination, you will really be destroying the public service. There is nothing on which I feel more strongly than that. They are not accustomed to it, and they ought not to be accustomed to it. They are not trained for it, and they ought not to be trained for it. It is my Noble Friend's business and mine, no doubt, to stand cross-examination, and we do it from time to time, and get out of the various traps and nets which are spread for us by the ingenuity of hon. Members opposite to the best of our ability, and, being trained to the business, our constitutions do not suffer. That is not the case and ought not to be the case with the ordinary Civil servant, and I beg the House to remember that any system which keeps constantly before the eyes of the Civil servants of this country the fear of examination, cross-examination, and re-examination by Gentlemen who may be described as "professional" politicians, would be most disastrous in the public interest.

    877
    Therefore, after having heard the speech of the Mover and Seconder—I read the Amendment with very little sympathy—I do not believe it is democratic. I do not believe it is practicable. I believe the evils against which it is directed are largely illusory evils. I do not hold the view that antique methods are pursued by diplomatists which no man of common sense adopts in the ordinary work of everyday life. On the contrary, the work of diplomacy is exactly the work which is done every day between two great firms, for instance, which have business relations, or between any two great corporate entities which have interests diverging or interests in common. If you are a man of sense you do not to begin with, create difficulties. You try to get over all these things without the embitterment which advertisement always brings with it. It is when you begin to press your case in public that antagonism arises. In private, in conversations which need not go beyond the walls of the room in which you are, you can put your case as strongly as you like, and the gentleman with whom you are carrying on the discussion may put his case as strongly as he likes. If good manners are observed, and nothing but fair discussion takes place, no soreness remains and no one is driven to ignore the strong points of his opponent's case. Directly a controversy becomes public all that fair give-and-take becomes either difficult or impossible, and if secret diplomacy meant anything so idiotic as an attempt to discuss in public matters in which sentiment, international pride, and international interests were profoundly concerned, I do not think that any sane assembly would ever really try to carry it out in the day-to-day national work which has to be got through.
    But if all you mean—and I think it is all that President Wilson means in the statement which has been quoted—is that it is wrong for the nations of the world to find themselves hampered in their mutual relations by treaties of which those countries know nothing, that, I think, is an evil. I do not at all say that there may not be sometimes a necessary evil. I do not say that there have not been secret treaties which were inevitable; but I do say that, if they are necessary, they are a necessary evil. Please remember that two nations make a treaty together for their mutual advantage. Both are desirous of passing it. One nation says, "It is against our interest
    878
    that this treaty should be made public at present." The other says, "We do not like being committed to any treaty the terms of which we cannot make public at once." Which is going to prevail?
    Hon. Gentlemen talk as if it rested with the British Foreign Office to decide in every case whether a particular treaty shall be treated publicly or confidentially. It does not rest with any single Foreign Office, British or other. It is always an arrangement between two, possibly three or four, Foreign Offices. You cannot lay down, and I do not think you would be wise to lay down, an absolute rule that under no circumstances, and for no object, could you so far concede the point as to say that a treaty is to be made which is not to become public property. I am perfectly ready to admit that that is not a process which, to me, is a very agreeable one. To reduce secret treaties to the narrowest possible limits should, I think, be the object of every responsible statesman who has the control of foreign affairs. Beyond that I do not feel inclined to go. I do not see any signs of a grasp of the true realities of life in the Amendment before us. I do not stand here to defend ancient forms and worn-out ceremonies. I stand here to defend the common sense carrying out of great international objects, and those objects, as far as this country is concerned, are, first, to obtain peace, and then to maintain peace. I do not see that there can be, or ought to be, any collision between the Government and any section of this House upon the general aims of British policy. Still less can I see anything in our system that can be described as antagonistic, inconsistent with, or opposed to, the true principles of democracy, interpreted in the light of the actual facts of national life as we see them before us. I therefore, shall resist the Amendment.
    Colonel AUBREY HERBERT: The right hon. Gentleman devoted a considerable portion of his speech to praising our present system. I am sufficiently insular to believe that, on the whole, that system is the best system that obtains probably anywhere, but I still think that it might be greatly improved. Subsequently the right hon. Gentleman went on to make several assumptions as to the future in regard to the creation of this Committee. He assumed that this Committee was first of all to be a very large body, forty or fifty in number. I understood him to assume that they would be extraordinarily

    879
    stupid people. The picture which came up into my mind as he spoke was that of the right hon. Gentleman drawing on a blackboard in chalk, with a number of these stupid people watching him and asking him to repeat everything he said twice. I think that both these assumptions are unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman took another hypothesis, and that is, that the whole attitude of this Committee, if it was formed, would be unfriendly to the Foreign Office. I think, again, that that was an unnecessary hypothesis.
    Mr. BALFOUR: They would represent every section of the House.
    Colonel HERBERT: I think every section of the House, especially in these days, is only too anxious to help, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman need assume that that Committee would essentially be hostile to the Foreign Office. What I think might be assumed is that it would be critical of our general policy; but our general policy need not come from the Foreign Office. There is no one who has been abroad who does not know that there are things that are public abroad that are not public in this country and that are not particularly associated with the Foreign Office. As a matter of fact, a Committee of this nature does already exist. It is not called the Foreign Affairs Committee, but the Committee of Inter-Allied Parliaments, and its work has been found to be very satisfactory in the main. At any rate, it has had nothing but thanks. Another thing which the right hon. Gentleman said—and in this, I suppose, there is nobody who will for a moment quarrel with the accuracy of the statement—was, "You have got your Committee in the House of Commons." That is virtually what he said. On that I would like to make two observations. First of all, in war-time, nearly every Member of this House has got at least two duties, and a great many of the people who are interested in foreign affairs are abroad. Secondly, what is everybody's affair is nobody's affair. I have constantly seen that when any one individual in the past took an interest in foreign affairs and was anxious to get things done alone he carried no weight, but if he had a certain number of people associated with him the chances were that he would be able to improve conditions constantly.
    880
    We live in days when phrases are used and one of these phrases which has become most familiar to us is secret diplomacy. There are many of us who, in the intention of that phrase, welcome it in so far as it constitutes a repudiation of anything that is sinister, oppressive or unscrupulous. On the other hand, I think we deprecate it in its insufficiency. Really it is not secret diplomacy, so far as I know, that anybody is up against. What we are up against are the things that are being done through secret diplomacy. It is those things we are attacking It is obvious you cannot carry out negotiations in the clear light of day. There is no firm in the country that has to go through business operations that could publish everything that it or he is doing the whole time. It strikes me that if you had a Committee of this sort it might make the happy medium between publicity and complete secrecy. It would prevent some of the regrettable things that have been occurring, and it might give greater coinage to the Governments who were not anxious to accede to the rather drastic demands that are made upon them. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Lloyd) suggested this possibility, that if you can constitute a Committee of this kind—and other committees are constituted in foreign countries—there in embryo you really have the beginning of a People's Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman says there is no such Committee existing abroad. That is perfectly true; it is a great pity there is not. We have no models at present, but the whole course of this Debate has been, and I hope it will continue so, that the House of Commons and the country desire to have more control over foreign policy in future than in the past. Whatever our obligations were or were not I believe the people of this country would not have hesitated to go into this War once they knew what the issues were, but when the people are to fight as they have fought in this War it does seem fair to toll them what their obligations are going to be and ask them how far they will ratify the treaties. You can do that in a number of different ways. You can have Secret Sessions. Very often it is quite easy at a Secret Session to tell the House something which is private but not secret. The Foreign Secretary said that one of the most important items in our Constitution was the relation between Ministers and the House of Commons I quite agree, but, as I have said before, one individual

    881
    does not constitute a sufficient force. From all my consideration which I have given to this question, it seems to me that the best solution yet found has been the American solution, where the Senate can, if it so chooses, repudiate a treaty which the President has signed. I think the objects of those who agree with me are these: We do not want to know how these things are being done, we have no idle curiosity, but we want to know what are the things that are being done.
    I would like to say a few words about a class of men of whom one hears much abuse, and that is the unfortunate diplomatists. I suppose there is no class of people who have been more abused in this War than the diplomatists. So far as I know them, they are a very hardworking body of men, who have done as much for their country as any body of men in this War. They are men who live in very laborious exile. They are moved from one place to another, and really have no chance of a long stay or of making friends, which is one of the greatest amenities of life, and when they return to their own country they return to it as to a strange land. The task they have is a very hard one. They have to carry out their orders just like the soldiers or the sailors. When they succeed it constantly happens that somebody else gets the praise. When they fail to make bricks without straw, they always get the blame. In spite of all that, it is not these men alone, capable as they are, whom I hope to see make peace. I hope that as this War is different from all wars that have gone before, so the peace that is to come will be different from all other treaties of peace that have gone before, and that it will be a people's peace.
    General CROFT: While agreeing with my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down as to the necessity for greater understanding of what our diplomacy is, I must complain that he really has not added a great deal to the Debate. But I believe that there is a very great feeling, apart from the small section which supports this Resolution, running right through the House, that we have suffered in this country from lack of confidence as between those responsible for our Government and the Foreign Office in recent years and the people of this country. It is a very remarkable fact that if we read back through comparatively recent political history we do find that in the times of
    882
    Pitt and Palmerston, and more recently in the time of Gladstone and Disraeli, the people of this country really knew to a far greater extent in what direction they were tending, and our statesmen did take the trouble in peace time to enlighten the people as to what were the main principles of our foreign policy. We have only got to look back a few years just before the War—I might give the instance which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman behind me—to realise that, remarkable though the response of the country was when the War broke out, not one man in a thousand in this country had the smallest conception—I do not think that that is an exaggeration—as to what our commitments were with France with regard to this War. As it was, the spirit of the country, recognising the violation of Belgium, was so strong that that did not matter very much; but suppose that the War had been an unpopular war from the point of view of the country, what would have been our position with our word pledged to France when the people of the country really had no conception as to what the course of our diplomacy was?
    I think that that is a case in which we need, and I think will insist upon, a change; and I think that if the Prime Minister and the Government knew before the War, as they confessed after the War began, the peril which was coming—Lord Haldane told us after the War that he had grave suspicions after having been to Berlin—surely it would have been far better if there had been some warning to the people of this country, so that they could have realised the perils we were up against! That is merely an instance, but there were many others before it. I think that we had got into a bad fashion in that respect, that, the people of the country did not know what was in the minds of the great statesmen who were leading them at that time. Having said that, I want to say at once that, I believe that, if we have popular control of the Foreign Office in the sense indicated by the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, we shall have popular, perpetual wars. I cannot conceive that it is going to lead to peace. It seems tome that it must lead to misunderstanding. To turn to recent history. Take the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina We all know that the peace of the world was trembling in the balance at that

    883
    moment. I cannot believe that the Foreign Minister of this country would have achieved his great triumph of forestalling that disaster if he had had to go down day after day to fifty, or even thirty, Members of this House and give information which must inevitably, with so many members, be carried throughout the length and breadth of the country. It was difficult enough to keep Cabinet secrets when there were twenty-two members in the Cabinet, but if there were thirty Members of this House to be consulted on all these matters, it would be still more difficult.
    The same thing might have occurred on the occasion of the Agadir incident. In that very interesting document published a day or two ago by Prince Lichnowsky with regard to what happened prior to the War he tells us that time and again Lord Grey leant rather in the direction of the Triple Alliance as against the Triple Entente in order to preserve peace. Had these facts been known, surely they might have led to grave misunderstanding between this country and her Allies, France and Russia! If the populace of those countries, owing to the large number of people who knew what was going on here, had got wind of what was going on the result might have been absolutely disastrous, and the peace of the world might not have been maintained in those times. The hon. Member for Elland said in his speech that democracies have had to pay for secret diplomacy—clearly pointing to this War. But the Belgian Treaty was known perfectly well to everyone in this country and all over the world. There was no question of secret diplomacy. There, it seems to me, you have got to apply your arguments to the German nation in this respect, and it is no good blaming ourselves here because the world has plunged into war, when we know perfectly well that the treaty over which we went to war was common knowledge through the length and breadth of the country, and even the further agreement with France was one of the things that were generally known. He mentioned in his speech the two instances to which my right hon. Friend has referred, with regard to Constantinople and to the Italian Treaty. The arguments which he desires to apply to peace could not have applied to war. Nothing could have been more disastrous than to have had the question of Constantinople debated in a
    884
    Committee of this House, and then to have had the members of the Committee canvassing the whole House. It is exactly the same with the Italian Treaty. When you are working with Allies it is impossible to do so, if you have got fifty voices, discordant voices as they are invariably going to be, which have to decide as to whether the Foreign Secretary can make a treaty of that description or not.
    When we are asked to have the maximum of publicity let us remember that that is precisely what we have had in Russia. There we have had conditions in which there was an effort to frame diplomacy through those who claimed to draw their strength immediately from the people. I would ask why should this be applied to one Department alone and not to the decisions that are come to, vital as they may be—by the Fleet and the Army. How, for instance, are you to apply this principle—and to be logical you have got to—to the Army or the Navy? Suppose you have got a Committee of thirty or fifty hon. Gentlemen who have to discuss whether it is advisable to make the Somme offensive, or some question of that kind, you have to gather them all together by telegram, and they have to be consulted on that, or as to whether we will fight the battle of Jutland. These questions might have to arise, and when we come to think of it those decisions have to be made just as quickly by the Foreign Office. Just imagine the position of the Foreign Secretary, who might have to make a very sudden decision, and who yet could not make it because he felt that he had this weight hanging round his neck and that he must consult his Committee. We were told that this Committee will have to approve of the policy of the Foreign Secretary. We were told at the same time that it is going to be drawn from every party and every section of this House. Just imagine the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Trevelyan), the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), and the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Ponsonby) —they would on account of their extreme interest in this question be asked to represent one group—having to meet Gentlemen fundamentally opposed to them on these questions on this Committee. How could they approve of the policy of the Foreign Secretary? You would never get agreement from that Committee. The result would be that you would merely have dissension daily, and I do not think that there would be any

    885
    possible advantage. It would be just as if you had a Navy Committee on which you had such admirable friends as Lord Beresford and Lord Fisher or Lord Jellicoe and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Sir E. Geddes).
    The hon. Member for Stirling told us that control does not mean interference with negotiations. That really is camouflage. If there is to be any sort of control at all you have got to know what the negotiations are. Then we were told again, that treaties at the present moment are only a matter of the Foreign Secretary's signature. That surely is inaccurate. The Foreign Secretary surely signs no treaty without the consent of the whole of the Cabinet, and I think that a suggestion of that kind is not a correct one, for the simple reason that it is so inaccurate. The Foreign Secretary is responsible to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet fortunately at times can fall from the weight of popular opinion. Here again we have got what I believe is a Constitution more or less suited to the people of this country. We have got popular control. Sooner or later Governments fall. Governments fall quickly if the country is not behind them. But here again, what is the good of our making any arrangements of this kind, or of considering this revolution unless you are sure that you are going to have a similar attitude on the part of the peoples of the Germanic Empires at the present time? That is a much more important matter. Before you can get ahead with this sort of popularising of public affairs you have got to be certain that all parties are going to treat the matter in the same way.
    We were told that the people will not be capricious. Here, again, we must ask hon. Gentlemen to consider what has occurred where the people have had the greatest say. Recently, in the case of Russia, the people have been capricious. The people have not realised in that case the honourable obligations of Russia to the Allies. The result has been, as we all know, absolutely disastrous. If we get a Foreign Affairs Committee in this House which is going to sit and work together, like the Liberal or the Unionist War Committees, I think that it is all to the advantage that they should get various Gentlemen to come and address them from time to time, so that they can get a movement in which a group of Members in this House are becoming more and
    886
    more informed in regard to foreign affairs. But a proposal such as is now made could not possibly give a satisfactory policy, and I am also convinced that even in peace time it would be far more fruitful in bringing about misunderstanding than in ensuring peace to the world. I may give one instance of how, I think, misapprehensions frequently occur. I see present my hon. Friend who is chairman of the recently-formed Foreign Affairs Committee. That committee may be a tremendous advantage. I believe that it is the idea of the hon. Gentleman and his friends to ask various distinguished foreigners to come and address that committee. I do not think that I am betraying any secrets, because, I think, that it has become generally known when I say that a gentleman addressed that committee who was a distinguished representative of one section of the Polish people, and, I think, that of that committee there were not more than two or three of those present who realised that this gentleman represented merely one section of the Polish committee.
    We sat at this gentleman's feet and listened to what he said. I had very good reason to believe that he was holding views entirely different from those which were held, as I understand, by the majority of the Polish nation. I asked him a question just before the committee dispersed, and we discovered then that there were these two sections of opinion. He was a most distinguished gentleman, and he gave us his views, and the impression he left on the committee was that these disagreements, which I need not go into, are gradually falling away, and that there were very few more disagreements. But now we have a telegram from Vienna which shows that a very different opinion is held by the most numerous parties in Poland. I do not think that I am giving away any secret. Everybody knows that the gentleman was invited, but he represents one point of view. If you get a committee such as exists at the present moment, which invites a distinguished gentleman like that gentlemen to address it, but which also invites a distinguished representative of the other point of view from Poland, I believe that great advantage will accrue, because you will, for the first time, get both sides of the question discussed, and that is an object which we desire to see achieved. We want to get more than a superficial knowledge of the great

    887
    problems affecting great portions of the world, but the moment you introduce a third party, a Committee, which has to be consulted by the right hon. Gentleman, you take a step which I am quite sure would not achieve what is a democratic end, but would erect a bulwark or a parapet between the right hon. Gentleman and his just criticisers, and I think that that would be disastrous from the point of view of democracy in this country.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. JOWETT: The Debate this afternoon has revealed a state of mind that an insignificant Member of this House, like myself, can hardly appreciate. I listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the Foreign Secretary, and to those delightful irrelevancies in which he indulged to the amusement and entertainment of the House, but he did not seem to me to come to real grips with the issue at stake. The problem with which this House as a representative body is faced is, as I conceive it, how it shall give to the elected representatives of the people control over the business which this House is sent to execute and administer. The Foreign Secretary described various grades of democracy, and he said—I do not attempt to quote him textually, but as I understood him—that a plebiscite was the best form of ascertaining democratic feeling; that the next was a House of Commons; and the third, coming a long way after, was the Commitee. The Committee system which has been advocated to-day is by no means so extravagant and ridiculous a proposition as the Foreign Secretary has tried to make it appear, for his Chief, the Prime Minister, when he took office, himself blessed that system. Let me read a few words from his speech, delivered on the 19th December, 1916, on a question of Government policy:
    "I have always thought, that the methods of Parliamentary control, and I speak here as a fairly old Parliamentarian, rather tended to give undue prominence to trivialities—my right hon. Friend and I have talked over this matter many a time—and, on the other hand, that it rather tended to minimise and ignore realities. Whether you can improve upon that I personally have never had any doubt, but I have always thought—I do not know whether I carry anyone with me on this, except my hon. Friend who sits there—that the French system was the more effective one, the system whereby Ministers have to appear before Parliamentary Committees, where questions can be asked
    888
    them, and where they can give an answer which they would not care to give in public. I think that in many respects that system has helped to save France from one or two very serious blunders." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1916, col. 1344, Vol. 88.]
    After that statement from the head of the Government, on which the Foreign Secretary serves, I must say it appears to me out of place that he should ridicule the suggestion that has been made in this Debate. But let me go back to the thought I was endeavouring to express. What is required is that Members elected to this House shall be in touch with the actual business that is being transacted. But what occurs under the present system, which is so much beloved by the Foreign Secretary? It is a system of discussing public business in what is little else than a public meeting; indeed, I do not know if it is not actually worse, in regard to discussions by this House of foreign affairs, than a public meeting, for, in a public meeting, those who attend it, speaking generally, do at least go there for the definite purpose of listening to what is said, and of considering the subject about which the meeting was being held, whereas this House, on a day when some subject like foreign affairs comes up for discussion, is not wholly in the nature of a public meeting, for the Members entitled to be there go in an i out while discussion is proceeding. There is no real consideration of the question, and actual deliberation is practically impossible. I know it is said that the functions and business of the House could well be expressed in the words, "Where it is not satisfied with the conduct of the Minister, or is of opinion that he has not conducted the business of the country in such a way as to satisfy them, then it can turn him out of his office." That is not so in actual fact, and it cannot be so in practice. The party system protects a Minister. Whatever maybe the disagreements discovered in this House, whatever may be the opinion of Members on the merits of any particular topic, when the Division bell rings it is not on that particular topic that Members vote. The question has not been properly discussed, and when the vote is taken it is not a vote on the question that had been before the Members. What the House votes upon is as to whether the Government is to remain office. Therefore, what use is there in saying that the House has power and control when, as a matter of fact, there cannot be real control?

    889
    But to deal with the question as to Committees. It is asked how can a Committee give democratic power? They can do so, being in close touch with the permanent officials, with the Minister at the head, and because they have continued access to information which the ordinary Member could not possibly hope to obtain. It is further asked how such a Committee would benefit other Members of this House? My answer is, by reason of the very fact that there would be representatives of all sections of the House on that Committee, gaining knowledge, gaining experience, and conversing with their colleagues, giving them the benefit of their experience; and by reason, also, of the fact that when discussions did take place in this House the various Members belonging to the different sections, groups, and parties, would be more acquainted with the subject under discussion owing to the information which the members of the Committee had been able to impart in conversation to them. Members would be enabled to discuss subjects with greater intelligence and greater knowledge, and the general result would be, I contend, to improve and to increase the general knowledge of the House itself, as a House, while giving to each Member that information and power that would put him in a position to give a better lead to opinion in the country. But that cannot be the case with the full House of Commons. The hon. Member who believes, as the Mover and Seconder of the Motion believe, in Committee control, will agree that the Minister could not impart all the information which he possesses to the House. But this question of a Committee of a representative character would, as a matter of fact, be a great protection against the old antidemocratic methods, which are an anachronism. It could deal with Departmental questions and the question of the Foreign Office. To make this matter clear, I will put my own position with regard to the points raised by the present system and the consequences of that system. When I entered this House I had no experience other than that which I had gained in local affairs. I tried by listening to the Debates to arrive at certain conclusions on great issues as to which it was my duty to form such conclusions. One of those issues was the question of Conscription. I soon came to see, as was men-
    890
    tioned in the quotation given by my hon. Friend, that the policy on armaments depended on foreign policy. Therefore, in order that I might decide as to whether or not I should become a supporter of universal service, as it was then called, or Conscription, I had to come to a conclusion as to the objects of our foreign policy. It seemed to me from all I gathered from the Debates that there was no danger of invasion, and therefore it was necessary for me to ascertain whether or not this country was committed to any foreign obligation, written, understood, or implied, that might lead this country into Continental war. I read in the early part of the year 1911, to my very great surprise, a most startling passage from the speech of Earl Rosebery, in which he said:
    "We have entered into liabilities the nature and extent of which I for one do not know, but they are not the less stringent and binding because they are unwritten."
    He added that, so far as he could read the signs of the times, they would lead them into a war which would be greater than any war they had known. When I read those words I felt inclined to put a question to the Foreign Secretary to ascertain whether or no any such obligations understood or implied had been entered into? I was referred to the Anglo-French Convention, and I was told that there were no other obligations than were therein contained. I went and looked at the Anglo-French Convention, and I found that the substance of it was that on condition that France recognised our position as it then existed in Egypt we recognised the position of France as it then existed, so far as France was concerned, in Morocco. It appeared to me that there was no obligation here, but merely an affirmation of the status quo. We had the disclosure later of the secret Clauses of that Convention, which contained the answer to my question. But I was not told when I was referred to that treaty that the answer was in the secret Clause that had not been published, although it was then nearly seven years old. I was sent away contented and oblivious of the fact that those obligations were being incurred. Not only that, but further questions were asked at various times, and the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) on one occasion challenged the Prime Minister, and asked him definitely whether there were any obligations unwritten? Furthermore, the then Colonial Secretary (Lord Harcourt), who

    891
    was one of the Chief Secretaries of State, on 13th May, 1913, stated in a public speech—
    "I can conceive of no circumstances in which Continental operations by our troops would not be a crime against the people of this country."
    Examine the position. Like every other hon. Member it was my duty to find out what I could regarding great questions of policy on which my vote depended. I took every precaution that was possible for any human being to find out whether or not there were any obligations that might lead this country into Continental warfare, because I knew, as any man of common sense ought to know, that if this country entered into Continental warfare it would mean Conscription, and although I tried to find out I was met with definite and deliberate denials, as others were. If I had been told the truth I would have gone to my Constituents and I would have said to them, "It is my duty to tell you that the foreign policy of this country is such that the country may be led into a Continental war, and if you approve of this policy it is your duty to prepare for it, and the duty of Parliament to prepare for it, and it is your duty to sanction those preparations." I would have opposed the policy myself, and I would have tried to destroy the obligation. But if it was taken, and if the policy actually adopted by the Foreign Office was to be maintained as the policy, then I would have gone to my Constituents and told them that there must be Conscription and that they should prepare at the earliest possible moment. Here is a plain, straight question. Never mind all these dialectical duels that take place across the floor of the House. How is a Member of Parliament to get to close grips with these questions? The present system is no use. The present system is a farce and a mockery. The Foreign Office Vote may be picked out by the Leader of the House, that is the tradition, amongst the Votes to be discussed and not closured. But the Leader of the Opposition is not likely to pick that Vote out for discussion if some question would be revealed that he, in collusion with his colleagues across the floor, does not want discussed. Therefore, there is no real discussion. When the Vote is picked out and discussed, what happens? A fight hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench on this side gets up and makes a fine speech and a Minister gets up and answers him and other Front Bench
    892
    Members join in. That is not business, and there is no way in my opinion of getting to close quarters, except through members of parties being kept in touch with the actual state of affairs, which are their affairs as much as the affairs of others. Let me point out to the Noble Lord the Minister of Blockade the danger that there is in the present system where one solid block of Members of this House are excluded from real official knowledge and touch with any public Department. The party to which I belong, until this War produced that wonderful thing, the Coalition Government, never had any of its members in office. We were at a disadvantage, naturally, as against ex-Ministers on this subject. I think I am right in saying that, generally speaking, Ministers and ex-Ministers are agreed that foreign affairs shall not be party questions, and that there shall be general agreement. There is no doubt, at any rate, that there has been a certain amount, we will say, of consultation between Ministers and ex-Ministers, and ex-Ministers have had the advantage, and the party to which they belong have had the advantage, of having a close and firsthand knowledge of foreign affairs. The body to which I belong have not, and that is a great disadvantage, and I venture to say a danger to any public assembly. All sections of members ought to have access to information in some form. As a final word, I do hope that on questions such as these, Ministers will cease to make debating speeches, and will talk about the real issues that matter, for there can be no mistake that things are going to be very different before long. There is a rising in this land of new powers, and I would beg-of the Government to make it easier for those new powers to express themselves without having recourse to methods that they, as well as we, would deeply regret.
    Mr. ACLAND: Before the Debate comes to a conclusion, I should like to utter a very few words, and I am compelled to do so, I think, by the speech to which we have just listened, rather than any which has preceded, because I do want to make one point quite clear, and it is this. If there are hon. Members who think that the present opportunities in normal times for this House to raise debates and to open discussion and to examine Ministers on questions of foreign policy are all nugatory and in vain—the sort of opportunities we enjoyed for the three or four years before the War—they are not going to find any

    893
    salvation in any system of committees whatever. To try to represent the ordinary occasions, of which there are dozens in the course of a Session, as being no good at all, as giving no chance at all to the representatives of some particular party, because things were squared between the representatives of the two Front Benches—that is not, first of all, an evil which corresponds with the facts as they existed before the War, and, if things are so, no system of committees is really going to help matters at all. The Foreign Secretary under whom I had the honour to work as Under-Secretary for three years, on first taking office, said in this House he was in some doubt as to how far he would find the occupation of the particular office compatible with sitting in this House, which meant being called upon to answer daily questions and many opportunities for review during the course of the Session. I can never remember in the years I worked with him any questions ridden off, when Members wanted to exercise their powers of criticism, by saying that it was impossible for him to give information. He was always ready to meet requests for Debates on foreign affairs on any of the occasions when the House has opportunities for discussing them, and I cannot think that the mere setting up of some new machinery by a Foreign Affairs Committee is going to make all the difference between the control of foreign affairs by the people and the possession of no control, as some of my hon. Friends try to make it out to be.
    First of all, let me make this clear, that, as far as my experience of the Foreign Office goes, diplomatists cure ten thousand times more difficulties between foreign countries than can possibly be caused by any errors that they may possibly make. There are thousands of things, if they were discussed in public, especially with the newspapers focussed upon them, as they would be, that might ripen into causes of dispute, dangers, and war, which are now removed by the efforts of diplomacy. It would be a splendid thing if Members of this House could come into closer touch with our diplomatists and the permanent heads of our Foreign Office, because they would understand better the extraordinarily good work they do in removing difficulties with other countries, and keeping this country at peace. And then, surely, it is true that this House cannot control administration! Is that not just as true in foreign affairs
    894
    as in any other realm of affairs? Nobody dreams that this House as a Committee should really control administration in. any of the ordinary branches of our administrative system or of our political life. I do not think we can suddenly begin to control administration through a Committee at this time of day Surely therefore, if our general system of government is that legislation and criticism should rest with this House, and that administration should rest with the Departments of State under the control of the Cabinet, we are hunting a false hare if in foreign affairs, and presumably not in other things, we set up a Committee as a sort of hybrid between the House of Commons and the Cabinet, with partial control of administration but no real responsibility for carrying on the Government! Those who are responsible for carrying on the Government must have the responsibility for administration. You cannot expect the Government to share its administrative responsibilities with any Committee, unless that Committee is really responsible for the conduct of affairs. I do not think having a Committee will lead, or can lead, to democratic-control. It might lead to what is much worse—newspaper control, or control by finance. I do not think it will help control by the democracy. I do think you can do useful work from the point of view of having a Committee for information, but I think, so far as control goes, if control cannot be exercised now by, and through, this House, it is a false hare to run to think that it can be, or ought to be, exercised by a Committee, because control of administration must rest with the Cabinet and the Government.
    I do look forward to a very considerable growth in the control of great principles of foreign policy by democracy, not in this country alone but in every country, but I think that that must come primarily from the people, through the views they express in electing their representatives; and, secondly, through their elected representatives in the ordinary everyday action in this House asking questions, or bringing up matters of foreign policy in Debate, as there are many opportunities of doing, particularly if the Secretary of State sits in this House. But in order that that should develop, again the secret is not a Committee. The secret is better education and more interest by the people of this country in foreign affairs than they have hitherto developed, or developed, at

    895
    any rate in recent years, or shown much sign of developing in future. Until our ordinary people are better informed and more interested in foreign affairs, until their representatives know more foreign languages, read more books and articles about foreign affairs, put matters about foreign affairs more widely and fully before their constituents, it is, I think, a mistake to imagine that, by some magic, setting up a Committee is going to bring the democracy of this country into really effective touch with, or really effective control over, our foreign affairs.
    But, I am bound to say I was led to think from my experience as Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs, that good work might be done by a Foreign Affairs Committee of this House with regard to information—with regard to keeping a small number of Members of this House really in possession of the general course of events on which our foreign policy depends. I do not think anything of that kind is conceivable during the present War. I do not think you can begin a system of that kind during war, or that it would be possible or fair to the officials of our Foreign Office in any sort of way whatsoever; but I did recognise in those many opportunities of Debate that arose in the years before the War that there was in the minds of a great number of Members of the House, particularly in the minds of those who take part in the Debates on foreign affairs, a very abyss-mal ignorance even of the main course of events and the past history that really were making our foreign policy which had been carried on from day to day. If this House wished to have a Committee, frankly not in order to interfere with administration, not in order to take any responsibility for the administration, but simply in order that from time to time members of the Committee might be more fully informed of the underlying principles of our foreign policy, that might have a good effect.
    Although I agree entirely with the Foreign Secretary in rejecting the idea of a Committee as giving democratic control, because nothing but democratic education and interest will give that; although I agree with him in rejecting a Committee from the point of view of giving to this House what it has no responsibility for under our Constitution —administrative control of the affairs of any Department from day to day;
    896
    although I agree with him, also, that one should not set up a Committee of any kind during the War, I hope that the Foreign Secretary himself and this House will keep their minds open, at any rate, to the possibility after the War of setting up a Committee on, perhaps, quite a small basis, composed of Members who will deliberately set themselves to become better acquainted with the basis of our foreign policy, having access to Papers— although the Minister should always be able to say that he could not give access to particular Papers—having access to the permanent heads of the Foreign Office, and assisted by them to a better understanding of what really is the policy which our Foreign Office is carrying on from time to time. From that point of view, although it is only a limited one, I think there may be an opportunity for a Committee of the House of Commons in future to do valuable work in keeping the country more in touch with the real roots of the policy as carried on by the Foreign Office from day to day.
    Mr. WHYTE: We have been told by old Parliamentary hands that when Front Benches are in agreement it is time the Back Benches got together and disagreed. The two speeches which have come from the Front Benches to-day seem to me so little designed to deal with the proposal which is really before the House, that I think a word is necessary in order in some way to bring the Debate back to realities. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary challenged supporters of this principle to bring it to the test of reality. It is just because we are fully aware of the bearing of those realities upon the attitude which the House of Commons should take towards foreign policy, that we put forward a request, not based upon any especial democratic principle, but based upon a conception of those very realities, for some Parliamentary share in foreign affairs. The Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend both appear to think that in some way a Foreign Affairs Committee of this House—the Committee which has been proposed this afternoon—would endeavour to share the administrative and Executive responsibility. Those two right hon. Gentlemen will forgive me for saying they could not have listened to a single speech made in favour of the Motion this afternoon. No one has claimed that the undivided responsibility of the Secretary of State for the business entrusted to his

    897
    charge should not remain undivided. It is perfectly obvious, as long as Ministerial and Cabinet responsibility remain, that responsibility must be undivided and cannot be shared, except in so far as it is shared with colleagues in the Cabinet. There is vast difference between that and the present system, and it is because the Foreign Office, above all other offices of State, is peculiarly open to criticism and peculiarly removed from popular influence, that the Mover and supporters of this Motion have endeavoured to devise a means which will cope with the realities of the situation.
    This question has arisen now not because-war-time is the easiest or most appropriate time in which to institute a constitutional change of this kind, but because, under pressure of the War, this House, and certainly the vast bulk of the people outside, realise that so long as there is a divorce between domestic and foreign policy there is something wrong with the health of the State, and we wish to see some organ set up by this House in an official manner which will keep this House in contact with the Foreign Office in a way in which it cannot be kept in contact by ordinary method of public debate. I was somewhat surprised to hear in a speech from the Front Bench opposite that there are many opportunities for discussion of foreign affairs during the Parliamentary Session. I have always supposed and observed that the very reverse was the case. Apart from the situation in peacetime, the situation in war-time is more complicated. I remember a very illuminating speech which my right hon. Friend made on Greek affairs in the Secret Session. It was a speech which cleared up difficulties in the minds of hon. Members; it gave the House a good deal of interesting information which was not necessarily secret, and it enabled hon. Members to understand the difficulties which made it impossible for the Government to carry out in all its details the policy which was originally designed. They were difficulties which arose in co-operation between the Governments of the Allies. But is there any reason why to a Committee upstairs that kind of speech should not be made on any issue which is vexing public opinion? Such speeches would do a great deal to satisfy not only members of the Committee, but, through them, the Members of the House, and the Government would then not be open to criticism as
    898
    they now are. Let it not be supposed that we are endeavouring to set up an exact replica of the French system of Parliamentary Commissions dealing with public affairs. The fundamental difference between that and the system we propose is that we work by the party system, which gives a check upon Ministers, a check which operates largely through the sanction given it by the Front Opposition Bench. That check is replaced in the French Parliamentary system very largely by a system of Commissions. There they have sixteen large Commissions devoted to all the big questions of debate and administration in the great department of State. We have no such thing.
    I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Bradford (Mr. Jowett) made a very pointed remark when he said there is always a kind of collusion between Ministers and ex-Ministers, especially on foreign affairs, by which they are withdrawn from the public gaze and very largely withdrawn, indeed, from Parliamentary discussion. The time may be coming—it may be nearer than some of us think—when a very different spirit will, as suggested by the hon. Member for West Bradford, pervade the politics of this country and when this House will pursue very different methods to those we now possess. But we are in the midst of a great crisis; every day in this War is a crisis in itself. If any man wished to tell me that the Foreign Office would not have found itself more efficient and strengthened in the discharge of its duties by having a Committee of this sort in the House of Commons he is embarking on a difficult proposition, and I think he would find it very hard indeed to prove it. Let me put this to the House. I cannot believe that if such a Committee had been in operation it would have been possible to exclude the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from the War Cabinet. The conception of the conduct of the War by a body from which the chief controller of foreign policy was absent is a very denial of those principles which ought to lie at the base of any system. The Foreign Secretary might very well say there are many subjects in which he is not interested, but there is no large policy on which the country has embarked since the War broke out, which has not laid very close to the work of the Foreign Office. That is one point on which I think the Committee would certainly have insisted, and I do believe

    899
    that the Foreign Secretary should certainly take a personal share in the work of the War Cabinet.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:
  Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act.

  SUPPLY.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. WHYTE (resuming): When we were interrupted by an ancient ceremony, I was trying to persuade my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs that there was more in the proposal for the establishment of a Committee of Foreign Affairs in this House than the argument which his chief has to-night put forward would lead one to believe, and I think I am right in claiming that those who support this proposal do so out of a sense that a Committee of that kind would fulfil a useful function without being open to the charge, which might be brought to bear against those who propose to raise constant Debates in the House of Commons, of embarrassing the action of the Foreign Office by public debate. It seems tome that it is irrelevant to bring against the proposal to establish a Committee the charge that it is undemocratic. As I regard that proposal, it is a democratic step in the sense of bringing a certain number of Members in this House into contact with the Foreign Office and of enabling them to exercise a certain modicum of what would ultimately really be popular influence upon the action of that body. It is entirely irrelevant to say that the supporters of a body of this sort attack the Foreign Office because it engages in secret diplomacy. I have never been a critic of secret diplomacy. Secrecy is one of the essential elements of the practice of diplomacy, and I do not believe any man who has given the matter five minutes' thought
  900
  will pretend that the process of diplomacy itself can be anything but secret if it is to be carried on successfully. The two things about which I think this House and the whole country are deeply concerned are, first of all, the principles which guide British diplomacy and the policy which they are endeavouring to carry out, and, secondly, the efficiency with which that policy is carried out. I agree with a great deal that fell from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for one of the divisions of Staffordshire, that probably the most urgent business in foreign affairs at this moment is to see that the Foreign Office is brought up-to-date and fully equipped to meet the needs of the moment. It is notorious, and it is indeed best known to many within the walls of the Foreign Office itself and in the Diplomatic Service, that that is one of the most urgent questions of the hour, and that the more popular pressure that can be brought to bear on the Government to carry out the necessary reforms the better we shall be able to face the gigantic tasks of the Peace Conference.
  I shall not embark on a discussion of these points to-night, because I understand the Government has consented to put down the Foreign Office Vote after the Easter holidays in order to give us an opportunity of discussing the reforms which the Foreign Office propose of itself, and of adding our voice in supplement to that which we may hear from the official spokesman of the Office itself. I should like to emphasise that, in supporting the proposal for the establishment of this Committee, I am doing so in the long run in the interests of the efficiency of diplomacy, and in no way in challenging its secrecy. I think it positively unfair for the right hon. Gestleman to pretend that those who support this proposal wish to pry day by day into the processes by which policy is being carried out. There is no such intention, and indeed the right hon. Gentleman only has to consider for a moment the manner in which the Committee would be appointed, and the personnel of which it would be composed, to see that even if there were one or two hare-brained individuals upon that Committee, they would never be able to persuade the Committee as a whole to engage in any such task. The Members of this House are well aware of the division of responsibility between the Government and themselves. We in the last resort are responsible for legislation and criticism

  901
  of the Executive; we are not in the last resort responsible for the Executive itself; and we would not propose, either in this House or in a Committee on Foreign Affairs sitting upstairs, to attempt to assume a responsibility that does not belong to us. As I said in my opening remarks, the responsibility for administration and Executive action must remain undivided in the hands of His Majesty's Ministers, and no action of ours will be taken in order to detract from it. At the same time we believe that, both in the information which the Foreign Office would be undoubtedly free to impart to a Committee of this nature, and also in the influence which such a Committee could bring to bear on the Foreign Office from time to time in reference to public policy, such a Committee would justify its own existence, and would, I believe, lead to the Foreign Office ultimately seeing that, just as in the case of the Press, on the whole the Foreign Office has little to complain of, so in the case of Members of this House —much more notably in the case of Members of this House—it would ultimately find that the co-operation of such Committee was of great value in its public action.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: As my chief object in raising this Debate was to get a full Parliamentary discussion, and as I do not want to put the House to the trouble of a Division, although we were not satisfied with the Foreign Secretary's speech, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  HON. MEMBERS: No!
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.''

  SUPPLY.

    NATIONAL SERVICE.
    Major BOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs very humorously described the position of a Member of this House desirous of discussing the question of Russian policy and Russian affairs, who found himself left to follow someone who had been discussing electric lighting in Bankok, and the feelings of that Gentleman when the House preferred to listen to the question of electric lighting at Bankok. I feel in much the same position myself now because I have to bring this House, small as it is, from the consideration of very high foreign policy and glorious ideas of
    902
    a Committee dabbling in foreign policy down to earth with a, bump, and to ask it to think of pigs, and onions, and rabbits, as the food of the people. I am sorry that I have not an opportunity of speaking on my Motion. I find that one Motion having been already taken I can only speak on the subject of my Motion, and make it the text of my remarks. What I have to say will not be carping criticism. I have thought out points relevant to this question, and necessary to prove the desirability of the Motion that in the opinion of this House a certain thing is desirable, and in giving those points my remarks will not be restricted to criticism or merely to citing examples which have come under my personal notice. I shall also endeavour to give one or two constructive suggestions, which I think even now will be of value if the Ministries who are represented will make a note of my remarks, and consider them worthy of action upon them. In common with other Members who represent large industrial constituencies, I have had from time to time to present to Ministers points in themselves of importance to the individuals concerned, but points which also in my opinion were of national importance if the action of the Ministry in dealing with these individual matters was representative of the policy governing their action The hon. Member who has just come in (Mr. Beck) will remember one point I put to him. In introducing these points Members have to go to Ministers to explain to them what they desire to have considered, and I want the hon. Member who represents the Ministry of National Service to note this point, because it is not one of complaint at all, but one of national importance. In giving such as those in his position these points Members do not and cannot quietly submit, when they have gone and inquired personally into the facts of the case and taken the trouble in the interest of the Constituency and of the nation, to have that point lightly turned down without some explanation.
    The point I want to make for the hon. Member's consideration is the case of George Hinchcliffe, of Gleadless, in my Constituency of North-East Derbyshire. This man, at the time he was taken into military service, at the end of December, 1917, was actually producing, and had actually supplied some 13,000 to 14,000 lbs. weight of pork per month to the district of Sheffield. Now, that is a fact. If that is not a fact, then my remarks are

    903
    totally unnecessary, and the Ministry has a very good answer indeed. But, in the third week of December, when I visited that place to see for myself actually what existed, that man had 135 pigs, about fifty of which were breeding pigs, and he was supplying meat at the rate which I quoted. He was called up for military service. It is no earthly good the hon. Member answering me in the way I was answered at the Ministry when I went down for a personal interview. I would like the House to understand that the matter has been the subject of about a dozen letters passing between myself and the Ministry. I visited the spot, and saw for myself the farm and the stock. It is no earthly good telling me that this man registered three years ago as being employed in a drapery shop. That is not the point. That may be a fact, but it is not the point. It is no good telling me that he changed from that employment, and then went back to his farm, and gave his whole time to it; and that the Ministry have had an anonymous or some other form of communication, saying that the man was going round boasting of the easy manner in which he had evaded military service, as I was informed in the Ministry. That does not concern my point. I would ask the Minister of National Service to remember this one fact, that while that man was in other employment, and before he went back to give up his whole time to his farm, a youth of nineteen or twenty years of age was given total exemption to work on the same farm as work of national importance. Yet when the man himself who, to my personal knowledge, has been breeding pigs for the last six or seven years, returns, and realises, with a degree of forethought that is sometimes lacking on the Front Bench, that food is a necessary commodity in time of war; when he gives his whole time to the production of food, and when he reaches a point when he produces some 12,000 to 14,000 lbs. weight, which is running into tons, he is then taken for military service. I would ask the hon. Member to realise that this was just the time when Sir Arthur Yapp was sending out letters, of which I, among other Members, received one, requesting me to ask my Constituents to be economical in their consumption of food, and particularly of meat. Could I possibly go down to that village, which turned out to a man to see the wholesale
    904
    breaking up of this mans farm—could I say to those villagers, "You have got to be economical; I am asked by the Ministry of Food to ask you to be economical in your consumption of food "? Would they believe me, when they could see the destruction of the production of food in their very midst? It would be better for the Ministry if they did not believe, and the very fact that they did not believe would be a greater compliment to the intelligence of the Ministry.
    I want to read to the House a letter I have received from the man in question. It was written from Aldershot, on the morning I put down this Motion. This man writes to me:
    "SIR,—Having read the enclosed article"—
    He encloses me an article by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division, in which he says that pigs and potatoes are going to win this War—
    "that we may win the War by the aid of pigs and potatoes, the Government will have to deal differently with it (the subject) to what they have dealt with me, as, after being engaged in the production of bacon and ham—tons of which. I have produced annually for human food, and this was all produced by the utilisation of vegetable waste—and when we are beginning to see the value of the pig both as a means of meat and of fat, both of which the country needs; and after years of experience in the using of refuse and the production there from of food for the nation, I am now taken away from my work and am helping to win the War in the capacity of a waiter in a sergeants' mess. My plant, which was producing tons of food annually, is now practically derelict for the want of practical labour."
    I think that case requires far more consideration than it received at the time, and I think it requires a very big explanation. Not to me; I do not want an explanation personally, but to the people who are dissatisfied and are short of food, and are beginning to think that these are the methods that make them short.
    At the same time, I would like to say a word about the manner in which the master bakers have been taken from their work into the Army. One case I have in mind in particular is that of a man taken from the city of St. Albans, from probably one of the biggest, if not the biggest, businesses of its kind in the city. He employed several hands; he was taken away, and the whole matter of his business was left in the hands of his young wife, an extremely delicate woman, and totally unfit to attempt to begin to manage a business. The last I heard of that case a few months ago was when I saw that

    905
    poor woman having to strive, literally night and day, alone, to cope with the filling in of the various forms required by the Ministry of Food. At that very time the husband, I hear, was cutting the grass round the officers' mess where he was stationed at Aldershot. These are two cases that have come under my particular notice. Another specific case I would like to give is one which refers to a big food producing works, to which I have the honour of being consulting engineer. That works devotes its whole time to food production, and is at the present moment working night and day entirely in producing food for the Army, under the Director of Army Contracts, and for the French Army—cocoa ration, chocolate ration, cocoa butter. For the troops in the warmer climates—lemonade in powders, egg powders, and a dozen such things. The firm has given back to the country the whole of its raw material granted by the Government. For instance, the whole of the sugar given to the firm is given back to the country, and not a single bit of it goes to the firm's old private customers. I submit that here is a question which requires no amount of consideration, because machinery will wear out, and this process has been going on night and day. Under the pressure of the Director of Army Contracts asking for more and more output, the officials of this company looked round to find where and how they could renew the machinery which was worn out, and they found a grinding machine, and that machine has been standing in its packing cases since the first week of last September, and it is standing idle to-day. My clients wish to buy this machine and the manufacturers desire to sell it, and nobody else wants it. It is a machine which will increase the output of food for the Army, and twice it has been refused through the medium of the Ministry of Munitions on the instruction of the Food Controller. I deeply regret that anything I have to say in this respect should appear to reflect on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, because I feel sure that if he had heard of these facts before the matter would have received attention. On the 19th February I got this letter from the Priority Department of the Ministry of Munitions. The remarks I am going to make do not apply to the Priority Department. From them I have always received every attention, courtesy, support, and the help that that Department has always given to
    906
    private firms who are endeavouring to do national work. This is what the hon. Member for Merthyr wrote:
    "In further reply to your letter of the 21st January, I am sorry to say that, having consulted the Ministry of Food with regard to this matter, it is not found possible to grant the release of the machine, for the Watford Manufacturing Company."
    That machine is still standing idle, although nobody else wants it, and it represents inefficient administration and constitutes a loss to the country. One naturally asks: Can these methods have been similarly adopted in the fixing of food prices? I do not say that the Food Controller is entirely to blame, because he has followed on the lines set up by his predecessor. I must, however, deal generally with one or two points of the food question before I come to my constructive points. I have dealt with the pig industry, and I think at such a time as this more effort should have been made to encourage the breeding of pigs in order to increase that kind of food. Take poultry. I sometimes wonder if the Ministers concerned realise the immense importance of the domestic hen as an article of food. We have been told on high authority that pigs and poultry are going to win the War, and that they are equally as important as shells. When we found ourselves running short of shells, the Prime Minister took the matter in hand and put it right, and somebody should have done the same tiling with regard to pigs and poultry, or else they should not have told the people that pigs and poultry are going to win the War. I think we should have had some more sympathetic method of encouraging the production of such food. No speech on the question of our food supplies would be complete without some reference to the disappearing rabbit. There were plenty of rabbits when the price was 4s. each. I am not justifying that price, but there were rabbits then, and the Food Controller comes along and fixes the price at Is. 9d., and, l0 and behold, there are no rabbits! We hear of some 4,000 or 5,000 rabbits being destroyed as unfit for human consumption. With regard to onions, good housewives tell me that they were quite plentiful until the price was fixed at 3d. per pound, and then came the shortage. Again we had the fixing of the prices for cattle food, followed by the price fixed at which cattle must be sold. The figures bear no proper connection one with another. In

    907
    referring to these points I suggest that the method of handling our home-food supplies has been wrong from its inception, and you cannot hope in this way to control successfully the natural law of supply and demand.
    Without going into the details of distribution, it seems to me that the cart has been put before the horse. The distribution of the food was first dealt with, and then the price at which the retailers could sell was fixed, while no sufficient efforts were made to see that the retailers had something to sell to the people which they wanted. What I want to put into the constructive part of my speech, first, is that all this time, when things are short, the people are quite willing to go short and are ready to make every possible sacrifice. In this respect I can answer for the working classes of my Constituency. I have been amongst them, and I am going amongst them next week. I shall hear these points raised again. The people only want to be assured by someone representing the Government that they will take the first opportunity of reassuring them on these points, because when people are going short they must know that there is some necessity for it. When they see on all hands this kind of neglect they are uneasy. I say, "Production, and more production, should have been the first thing, and everything should have been sacrificed to that." Production should be the one thing in the minds of Ministers, and they should leave supply and demand alone, for it will find its own level with proper methods of handling. Production first, then you have something to control. The result of your policy has been exaggerated prices.
    I want to say a word or two about the rise in prices which is called profiteering. For quite a long time before compulsory rationing came in people had been asked and pleaded with, and talked to in order to get them to economise in their food. They were told to eat less and all this, that, and the other. The people responded honestly to the appeal, and the demand for food was less. I want to put this point to the House. The very fact that people responded to the appeal and reduced their consumption had an immediate effect upon the persons or firms supplying the goods in the consumption of which economies were exercised. I would ask the House to consider the position of a man producing a certain quantity of food-
    908
    stuff who, at the end of a given week, suddenly finds that he can only get rid of 50 per cent. of the quantity that he has been accustomed to supply to the general public. Naturally, the Government not having provided for dealing with the surplus, next week he does not produce so much, but he has the same standing charges and his own cost of living is the same. The result is that the remainder that the man produces has to bear the charges of the whole that he used to produce, and the price is thereby artificially raised. It is not profiteering; it is a natural result. There is, therefore, a loss of production, and if the Government demand, as they have done, that people should try to return to their original output, probably they have got rid of most of their plant, and many of the men who were formerly excused military service on the ground that they were doing work of national importance have been taken. I want to suggest that even now it is possible to rectify some of these mistakes. I want to ask the Minister of National Service to take up this question in a broad-minded spirit and to deal with the allocation of these men who have been taken from food production, putting them back on the work to which they are accustomed. The immediate effect upon home production would be important, and, whatever other contradiction my arguments may bring forth from that Front Bench, I venture humbly to express the opinion that they must agree that the country that is going to win this War is the country which is going to produce the most per head of population. Get back those men who are skilled in the production of food of all kinds, and if in the meantime their plant has become derelict—well, I think the question is of sufficient national importance to justify the nation putting that plant again into working order and re-establishing those men in the positions they occupied before the War. The man in the street is uneasy about these points, and I want to help to satisfy him. I want to help to assure him that really the best has been done and will be done.
    I want to submit one or two points for the kindly consideration of the hon. Gentleman who represents the Food Controller. There are three important factors, which, if they had been considered earlier and at the right time, would have obviated interference with the laws of

    909
    supply and demand and would have helped very much the food question. I will ask him to think over these three points. He has thought over the first, but I mention it because I want to apply it in connection with my second point. First, there is the hoarder; secondly, the profiteer; and thirdly, the guarantee of supplies in congested districts, particularly among the poor. The hoarder, possibly, very often started by being a householder who took on a duty which the Government ought to have done by treasuring such stock as he could. Undoubtedly hoarding has been a very serious menace to the country and you have dealt with it. I want to suggest that you should deal with the profiteer in a similar manner. Profiteering seriously exists in our midst to-day. The profiteer could be dealt with in this way: Let the Ministry of Food engage—they could dispense with some of their deputy food controllers in order to do it—accountants and let them have the right to enter any business, small or great, and arrive at the actual net cost of the article supplied in all its stages, allowing each dealer his standing charges and his fair profit. Prices then will very rapidly go down. The mere fact that you intend doing such a thing will immediately have effect.
    You have your registers, you know where the supplies come from, and you know the firms that supply the people. I submit that the work in the congested districts could be done by a number of inspectors, large-minded men with a knowledge of the people and their hardships, who would be selected because of their well-known knowledge of the conditions of labour. Their duty would be to sort out cases of hardship between the retailer and the customer and to find out if supplies were being diverted to more well-to-do districts. I feel sure that some such organisation in the early stages would have saved the situation, and it might even save it now as regards other commodities not already affected. The uncertainty and unrest among the people is due entirely to the view that they take of the present position of affairs, and to the fact that they consider home production has not been stimulated in the manner that it should have been but has been even checked.
    When we who represent purely industrial constituencies go to Ministries we are told to tell our people, "Remember we are at war." These people know as well as any Minister on the Front Bench that we are
    910
    at war. They are feeling the pinch of it. They want to be perfectly satisfied that the fact that we are at war is no excuse for inefficiency. They ask through their Members in this House that at this time we shall have the highest efficiency. So that the answer that we are at war at such a time is not one likely to satisfy people or settle their unrest. I regret exceedingly that I cannot move the Amendment standing in my name, because I should have liked very much to have had the opinion of the House on these questions. I trust that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench will realise that I have endeavoured to put what I have to say clearly, directly, and in a matter-of-fact manner, and that I have not been trying to make carping criticisms, but rather endeavouring to put to them the fact, which certainly exists, that the people are uneasy, that there is uncertainty and unrest, and that it is due to these causes, and that when we get hold of concrete cases, such as I am sorry to have had to describe to-night, which I tried to avoid bringing up here by taking them direct to the Minister, I ask them to realise that I have endeavoured to be of service. I trust they will give me credit for endeavouring to be constructive in any criticism I have made.
    The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): In the first place, I should like to acknowledge the spirit in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman for North-East Derbyshire (Major Bowden) has approached this subject. I quite understand that there is a very great deal of doubt in the minds of the public, due to the way in which many of these questions have been handled. It is extremely difficult for anyone who has not all the facts before him to understand sometimes why certain action is taken by any Government Department. There are many considerations which should be kept in view by a Department such as mine. I know it is no answer to any criticism to say, "We are at war," but nevertheless it is a fact, and the disposal of our available resources in man-power is quite one of the most difficult that any Department could have to face, more especially as no single Department is entirely responsible for the whole machinery. It was considered wise by this House that in connection with compulsory military service there should be established throughout the country a system of tribunals which would be independent of the recruiting authority, and which, through their know-

    911
    ledge of local circumstances, would be able to judge whether it was right and proper that a man should serve has country in the Army or in civil life The first case which the hon. and gallant Member produced concerned a man of the name of Hinchcliffe. I had no knowledge that that case was going to be raised to-night, therefore I have not got any papers directly affecting it with me, but I have a very clear recollection of that case in my mind. It was a case which embodied a general principle. The general principle which had to be settled in that case really was this: Was a change-over of occupation from a non-essential to an essential industry during a period of temporary exemption to allow a man to escape altogether from military service? It is quite clear that every man who had a temporary exemption was interested in the reply which would be given to that general principle. If every man who had a temporary exemption could transfer into an essential industry, and thereafter be exempted, it is quite obvious that at a comparatively early date we would have all the older men, all the unfit men, crowded out of the essential industries, because younger men who were fit and who ought to go to serve, would be crowding into them, and, because they wanted to secure places there, would be willing to accept lower rates of profit. I believe that this man Hinchcliffe was producing pigs. His case was considered by the local tribunal, by the Appeal Tribunal, and, if my memory serves me rightly, by the Executive of the War Agricultural Emergency Committee, and it was also referred to the Food Production Department. After full consideration of all the facts concerning the case, and full consideration was given to the publicity which the case had already obtained it was decided that it was right and proper, in the greater interests of the country, that this man should serve. The hon. and gallant Member raised the point that he was told by the Ministry that this man was boasting that by changing from a non-essential to an essential industry he was securing exemption. That was a material fact of the case. It was advertising the fact that there was, if this man were left in civil life, a means of escape from military service.
    Major BOWDEN: He did not escape.
    Sir A. GEDDES: He did not escape, but that it was published he was going to escape there can be no doubt. It was suggested that the Department had acted upon some anonymous letter. I can only say that such a suggestion must be made without knowing the care with which this case and all other cases raised by Members of this House, or, in fact, raised by any responsible person, arc investigated. They are investigated locally by people who have no special interest in sending the man into the Army, and who have no special interest in keeping him in civil life. The greatest care is taken that once a case has attained a. certain amount of publicity, and once a case is clearly recognised as embodying a national principle, then the decision has to be taken along the lines of principle and along the lines which will best serves the interests of the country on a broad view. The hon. and gallant Member suggested that we should take a broad view. That is what we are trying to do all the time. We are trying to take a view covering not only food production, for, after all, supposing we produced all the food that the whole of the population would require and we required to import no food, if by doing that we had failed to maintain our Army and maintain our Air Forces and to maintain the Navy, we could not hope to win the War. It is absolutely necessary to maintain a balance between the different activities. There must be some balance in order that we may succeed in this War. To reach that balance is the constant effort of the Department. No one activity of the country is sufficient by itself tow in the War. Every effort that the nation is making, be it an effort on land, in the Army, an effort in the air, an effort at sea, an effort in food production, an effort in timber felling, or an effort in whatever direction it may be, are all essential parts of the whole. I venture to suggest that to take out one single activity and to say that is a thing which is to be principally and apparently our only concern is to overlook the complexity of the whole position.
    9.0 P.M.
    We have done an enormous amount to help on agriculture. We have, as a matter of fact, as is well within the knowledge of the House, increased production enormously. The hon. and gallant Member suggested in connection with production that it was being checked back by the prices which were being fixed by the Food Controller. I cannot do better than to

    913
    quote the exact words of the President of the Board of Agriculture. They are comparatively few, but they cover the very point and they are from the lips of the man who is primarily concerned—
    "The producer in this country has got a price for wheat, barley, and oats which offers him a reasonable profit, and he has a price now for beef which similarly offers him a reasonable profit. He has got a price for potatoes. I hope it will satisfy him and that we shall have even a bigger crop than we had last year. He has also got a, price for milk which, within certain limitations, satisfies him. If corn, meat, milk, and potatoes are fixed on fairly reasonable terms right away to the end of this year, the attack which has been made on the Food Controller is a little late in the day."
    That, I think, is right and fair in view of the increased production which is going on. Not only so, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman said the fixing of the prices had the effect of clearing supplies off the market. We all know that the rabbit disappeared when the price was fixed. The price had risen to a level at which the rabbit was becoming a great luxury, and it had to be brought back to earth, if I may say so. For a time the rabbit went, but he is now reappearing. That was inevitable in view of the way the prices ran up, but in the end the thing rights itself. No one wishes to say that no mistakes have been made in such an untried and uncharted field as we have been working in, but, broadly speaking, the results from the point of view of the consumer are not unsatisfactory. From the point of view of the producer and of labour, in taking the general view that I have spoken of, we have provided a great deal of labour for the holdings, which are producing food on a great scale. We have protected food production to a very high degree from Army requirements of recent months. It is true that there are at intervals a certain number of men released from agriculture by the Army Executive because they are surplus to requirements. Men returning from overseas are going back to agriculture and boys growing up are going into agriculture, and there is a greater and greater supply of women of an increasing degree of competence available in agriculture. German prisoners are doing greater and greater service to this country by their work in connection with food production and are becoming of more and more use, and in addition to that we have got a great chain of arrangements which provide for the emergencies of agriculture and for special seasonal requirements. I think if the whole field is investigated it
    914
    will be found that the balance has been not unreasonably maintained between the needs of the country in food production, in ship production, in the Air Force, in the Army, or whatever it may be. One knows that any number of mistakes arc made in detail. It could not be otherwise with big untrained staffs at work. They are learning their business as they go on, and they would be superhuman if they did not make errors. But those errors are much less frequent than they were. We have now a much better appreciation of the broad lines of policy and the balance which is required to be maintained between the various needs of the country. I could give a large number of cases which have come to my knowledge within the last few days where mistakes have been made, where policy has not been followed, but we are never too proud to put those cases right. We reverse procedure whenever we realise that a mistake has been made.
    There is the further point that this man, to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred as having been taken for the Army, was engaged as a waiter in the sergeants' mess. It is always in the sergeants' mess or the officers' mess, or the cookhouse, that these men who pass into the Army are serving at the time they write to their Members— [Interruption]—nearly always. There are certain men who go on fatigue work for a day, and during that day describe what they are doing. It is always assumed that once a man is on that sort of work he stays there permanently, but that is not the case. It is true that the Army has a body of men engaged on housemaid's duties. They help the Army in that way by freeing the men who are under training for drafts for overseas from the waste of time they would otherwise experience in fatigues—carrying coal, cleaning up, and so forth. That body of men exists, but for a man to be in the housemaids' corps is quite a different thing from being employed in the ordinary routine of fatigue. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows as well as I do that men who are fighting soldiers in every sense have fatigues to perform, and they may write a letter on any day when they are performing fatigues and say, "I have spent the day picking up paper." It may be misleading, I understand, to revert to the case raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that this man Hinchcliffe was fit for general service, and, therefore, I

    915
    will only assume that he was not engaged in the sergeants' mess, but was taking a turn of fatigue.
    Major BOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman must not let an injustice be fixed upon me. I was pointing out that this man was in December producing two tons of food a week, and is now in the sergeants' mess. He has written to me during the last four weeks weekly, and he is still in that mess and has been the whole time. It does not matter about being in the sergeants' mesa, but it is the comparison between what he was doing when he was taken and what he is doing now.
    Sir A. GEDDES: The question is what the man is doing now. It may be that my information that he is fit for general service is incorrect, unless he is temporarily unfit for general service and that training has been suspended, and that he is doing a certain amount of permanent fatigue, pending the time he is fit for service again. I do wish to make this point in regard to this and other cases, that the Army is a complicated machine, and it is almost impossible to assess the value of any man's work in the Army on any single or short series of statements about what he is doing. We have had very long experience. We have had case after case put up from all over the country of men improperly employed in the Army. I admit that I could recite a very large number of cases where their employment did seem to me to be somewhat unfortunate in relation to their value in civil life; but, in justice to the military authorities, I must add this, that in the vast majority of cases put up there was a perfectly reasonable and satisfactory explanation why the man was employed in that particular position. I am sorry that in this particular instance I cannot go into details. I did not know the case was coining on, and I have not had the opportunity of acquainting myself with the details of the case. I quite understand that the case was used as an illustration, but to make a complete illustration and to make an absolutely fair illustration it would be necessary to possess all the facts, so that we might discuss the case aright. Unfortunately, we have not got all the facts for the purpose of this Debate. I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's major point to be that we are not taking sufficient care to look around the cases with which we deal—that we are
    916
    not looking at them from every point of view. My reply is that we are, perhaps in a better position to see every point than anyone who is not actually in such a position as I have the honour to be, and it is only when the big general principles which are being affected by individual cases can be seen and appreciated that one really can get down to what is, perhaps, a perfectly rational explanation of what may seem to be a stupid course of proceeding. That is the position in the case of this man, who, so far as his district was concerned, so far as his exemption from military service was concerned, was not a food producer in any sense whatever. That was a secondary line.
    Mr. CURRIE: My right hon. friend has referred to the broad lines of criticism in such a way that he challenges me to ask him for some information as to one particular class of case which must have come under his notice. I know that my right hon. Friend deals with all trades and professions; as he says, on the lines of broad principle, and seeks to preserve a proper balance of activities, so that in the main what a man can do best that he is put to do. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has a representative of the Treasury by his side and also his Under-Secretary. I wish to draw his attention to the use that is being made of men belonging to the profession of chartered accountants. It has come to my notice in certain work at the Ministry of Munitions that men belonging to that profession are very much in demand there, and, as my right hon. Friend has told me himself, they are very much in demand elsewhere. Various Cabinet Ministers are calling out for their assistance. I know my right hon. Friend is quite willing, on cause shown, to reverse the procedure, and he has told us that he is employing in various ways men who are really learning their work as they go on. The men I am talking about are men who have already learned their work, in most cases having spent ten or fifteen years in the process. At the present time it is a matter of common knowledge that very large sums of money are either being lost or are being placed in danger of being lost simply because the only class of skilled men in the country who can possibly check them properly are so small in number, or are otherwise engaged in the Army, that they are not available for what is their proper professional work. For evidence of that one has to look no further than the

    917
    recent Report of the Select Committee on National Economy. I do not wish to discuss that Report at length. In many ways I think it is a good Report, in other ways I think it is an amateur document; but it does lay stress on the fact that the services of men of this kind are the greatest possible value to the Ministry of Munitions at the present time.
    It is not for me or any private Member to say whether, perhaps, 50 or 150 men belonging to this profession who are at present in the Army should be brought to the Ministry of Munitions. That is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but I put this to my right hon. Friend and to the Government that they cannot have this matter both ways. If they attach great importance to the services of these men in the Army, then by all means keep them there: they are quite willing to stay in the Army, though many of them know they could do better work elsewhere. If, on the other hand, the Government thinks that it is of real importance to the country to save tens of millions of money that are at stake in the Ministry of Munitions and elsewhere, then it is the business of the Government to release these men without any delay so that that money may be saved. It is a question whether you attach more importance to the military value of these men than you do to their services in saving money in the Ministry of Munitions and elsewhere. My right hon. Friend has told me that he attaches a good deal of importance to saving money and is anxious to use these men as well as he can, but my experience is that often, when one brings a concrete case to the Government, it is extremely difficult to get anything done. In a small number of cases my right hon. Friend has moved successfully, and I know he is anxious to do what he can, but I think it would be well if at this stage he or his Under-Secretary would say whether they are in earnest, whether the Government is in earnest, in releasing these men in order that vast sums of money may be saved, or whether they attach more importance to keeping them in the Army. I do not pretend to dictate to the Government, but it is extremely inconvenient that the present indecision in the matter should be allowed to remain in evidence any longer, and I would appreciate it if the Government would make some statement on the point.
    Mr. HOGGE: Seeing that the Minister of National Service is here and that we do-not have an opportunity of his presence so often, I would like to put a few questions to him as to the success or otherwise of several schemes which are under his jurisdiction and which have a material influence on the success or otherwise of our national undertakings at the moment. A few weeks ago we were told that an effort was going to be made to release men from the Colours for the purpose of sending them back to the shipbuilding yards. One endeavoured at the time to discover the process by which these men should be secured, and we were informed that the Minister of National Service was taking what he considered the best means to recover those men from the Colours. I do not know how many were required but we may assume that the number was considerable, and that the more that could be obtained the better progress would be made in the shipyards. I would like to know from the Minister of National Service or from the Parliamentary Secretary how many of those men have been recovered from the Army. There are two Departments which deal with the question of release from the Colours, and it is not always easy to know which of those Departments is, in the last resort, responsible for such release. But I do know that a number of men in the Army who have the qualifications for technical work in our shipyards are still in ignorance as to the methods by which they can get out of the Army for work on national undertakings.
    Men in the ranks in the Army to-day, for instance, write and say that they have-seen no notices anywhere at the front, or between the base and the front, as to how they are to make an effort if they have the qualifications to get out of the Army. This has been done in a haphazard fashion ever since recruiting began. I remember that a number of us took part in a campaign over two years ago to try to recover men from the Army for munitions, and the conflict that there was between the officer to retain his men and the national Department which wanted the men. I will be glad, therefore, if my right hon. Friend will inform the House how far the methods which he has taken to secure those men from the Colours have been successful, and how-many of those men have been recovered for the purpose I have mentioned. Then I should like him to give some indication

    919
    as to the operation and success of the new bureaux which he has set up for finding employment for men when they are discharged from service. I understood him to say a considerable time ago that, in addition to the ordinary labour bureaux at present available for the man who wants occupation, there were, under the National Service scheme, regional bureaux to be set up in what he called regions to bring the men into direct contract with some occupation, and, if I remember rightly, on one occasion, the Minister for National Service said that there were as many as ninety vacancies on a particular day which could be filled by discharged men if they were there. I would ask how far these bureaux have been meeting the new need, and whether he can tell us how long the schemes which he is setting up have been in operation, are they properly equipped, and what number of men are taking Advantage of them?
    Then I should like him to make a rather clearer statement than has yet been made with regard to work of national importance, in which under his Department, discharged men are required now to engage, if they are to escape further re-examination for the purposes of the Army? My right hon. Friend will remember that he first of all issued a series of occupations, and that he immediately added to that, on representations being made to him, another occupation, namely, the whole of the teaching profession in our elementary schools and our universities, but that since then a statement has been made by one of his officers, in a letter to myself, which is rather interesting and important, and has not yet been made public, to the effect that, in addition to the occupations set out in the original Schedule of national importance the occupations in Pamphlet It 136 are now to be regarded as work of national importance. There are about twenty-eight or thirty-eight pages of occupations in R 136, and they embrace all occupations for which exemption can be claimed before tribunals. I would like my right hon. Friend to inform us, so that the outside public, and particularly the men concerned, may know whether what has been asked for has been granted by the additions to the Schedule of Occupations in R 136. There are many other questions which could be asked in reference to the National Service Depart-
    920
    ment, but we shall have another opportunity when the Vote comes up, and, for the present, I shall be glad if my right hon. Friend will answer those three questions, which, I think, are extremely important at the moment.
    Mr. WATT: I desire on one point to supplement the observations of my hon. Friend. That is in reference to the supply of men for the shipbuilding yards. The promise was made in this House, I do not know whether by the Under-Secretary or by whom, but the promise was made, that within a very short time 20,000 men would be sent down to the shipbuilding yards by the National Service Department, in order to supplement the men who are working in these yards at present. The time for the arrival of these 20,000 men has now passed, and we have been told recently, in answer to a question in this House, that of those 20,000 men fewer than 2,000 have arrived. Why is the fulfilment so far away from the promise, and when is the promise to be redeemed in full? In order to show how the various Departments of the Government work inefficiently, we had this premise of 20,000 men who were to arrive in my part of the country and we had to engage housing accommodation for that number of men, the accommodation having been commandeered by the Admiralty. Many houses were taken, and Glasgow clubs have been perturbed by the threat of commandeering their premises for the housing of these men. I assume that rent is being paid for the houses which have been taken, yet the men have not arrived, though their presence is very much desired to increase the output of shipbuilding in those places where that industry is carried on.
    Sir A. GEDDES: With the permission of the House, I will endeavour to answer the questions which have been put to me. In regard to the release of men, which covers the majority of the points that have been raised, the procedure I think is quite clear. Where there is any work of national importance that requires more men the Ministry of National Service, as rapidly as possible, obtains the necessary information as to the number required, and application is made to the Army to fill up the vacancies. The Army authorities have to deal with that. In dealing with men overseas under the procedure we have to consult the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in the theatre of war. It takes a considerable period before you can get

    921
    a reply from overseas. As you can readily imagine, the problem has to be considered in relation to the strength of the units at the time throughout the whole mass of the Army, and the procedure is such as to inevitably involve a certain amount of delay.
    Mr. HOGGE: In the case of men who apply to you?
    Sir A. GEDDES: If the man is known and he applies, and if he is known to be of a certain class of tradesman, whatever it may be, then the information is received from overseas. I was with the Army in France on one occasion, and it was my duty to carry out the procedure of releasing men. The method adopted is to circulate the requirements of the National Service through the various units, and the requirements are read out to all the men. That is the general outline of the procedure adopted. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) said that he knew from information he had received from soldiers in the Army that a man who was on his way from the front did not know how to apply. That is quite right; but the reason is that men from overseas have not yet received the information for the simple reason that the Home forces are being dealt with first. It sounds easy to suggest that the whole thing should be dealt with together. There is no difficulty in doing it from the point of view of the Army, but there is very great difficulty from the point of view of the shipyards. At the present time, we have got more men standing by and waiting for employment in the shipyards than can be employed because special classes of men are necessary in order to carry forward the work to a certain stage. The whole subject is to come up for discussion to-morrow, but, as I have stated, we have at the present time some hundreds of men standing by without any possibility of useful employment, except as labourers in shipyards, simply because certain classes of workers are not there yet to carry the work further. At the present time there is a shortage of certain skilled men all over the country, in civil life as in military life. There are training schools where men are trained for different classes of work, but it is not possible to get 20,000 men into the shipyards all at once, owing to the necessity of organising the work gradually so that the whole of the men can go into the yards and be usefully employed. I did not know that this question was going to be raised,
    922
    and I am not in possession of the figures as to the numbers of men who have been obtained from different sources, but this subject is to come up again, and I hope that what I have said will satisfy the hon. Member who raised the question.
    A specific question was raised about the release of men who are skilled accountants. A number of these men are at the present moment refused release by the Army authorities on the ground that an accurate knowledge of figures is required in those who are to be substituted. There is undoubtedly an overplus of skill in the men who are now doing this accountant work, but I admit that very real skill is required for the work that is being done. In certain cases release was refused by the War Office on the ground that they could not let these men go. As a matter of fact, the work of one of the skilled accountants was of no very important character, and his skill was greater than was actually required for the work he was doing. But in dealing with this matter you have to remember that the authorities of the Army are nervous at a time such as this, when great events are impending, and they do not want to part with men who are trained and expert in their various departments of Army work. That is the real difficulty that lies at the back of three-quarters of this question of the release of men. I am afraid I did not quite follow what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh said about the bureaux he has described. These bureaux are working extremely satisfactorily. They have only been established six or seven weeks, and they have done very good work. They are staffed by expert officials. With regard to work of national importance for discharged men, that comes under certified occupations, and it was always contemplated that in the group of occupations concessions would be made. We have tried to concentrate a stream of these men on to work of perhaps even greater importance than certified occupations. It was a Departmental instruction that individual cases were to be considered.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why did you not tell the men?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The reason is obvious. There are certain industries which are calling for men and others which are not, and it is better to put the industries which are calling for men in the lime-

    923
    light, and that is the reason for the greater publicity. I think I have covered the points raised. Even if everything is really settled, you cannot suddenly put a number of highly-skilled men from the Array into highly-skilled occupations. It takes some time to do so.
    Mr. BILLING: It was not my intention to have intervened in this Debate, but as the Minister of National Service is here I should like to ask him two questions. One is whether his Ministry has any authority or is in any way connected with the direction of the work carried out by enemy aliens and German prisoners which is considered to be work of national importance? I would ask him to take this opportunity, if his Department is so interested, to make a statement as to the type of work they are carrying out, the pay which they are receiving, and how it compares, if possible, with the pay which our men who are prisoners in Germany receive—for example, for working in the Westphalian mines—and whether it is the intention of the Government to treat German prisoners in this country in a similar manner to that to which our men are being subjected? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will contradict rumours which are prevalent as to certain favouritism which is being given to certain individuals with a view to their employment on National Service for the purpose of keeping them out of the Army. It is most unfortunate if such rumours should go uncontradicted. I would like to ask him whether on any occasion since his appointment he has communicated, either directly or indirectly, with any other Government Department specially recommending, personally recommending, the services of any individual for that Department, more particularly in a case where the individual so recommended is of military age and would otherwise be conscripted into the Army, and in due course presumably take his place in the trenches?
    I had occasion a few days ago to put down a question to the Minister of National Service as to a certain Mr. Solomon Monossche, who had been recommended for employment to a Department and whose services had been rejected, in consequence of which the Minister of National Service, so I am credibly informed, asked for a return of all the employés of that Department, and struck
    924
    several men's names off the list as not being suitable for this work, and eventually I understand those men were called up under the Military Service Acts. I am informed that Mr. Solomon Monossche is of military age and of a comparatively useful medical catagory, and despite the fact that he is now on work of such a nature and of such national importance that it required the special recommendation of the Minister himself to secure his detention in this country as a linguist, it has taken over three and a half years before his peculiar abilities were made known or before anyone has attempted to place them at the service of the country. I would like the Minister, in reply, to tell me whether there is any truth in the statement that when this recommendation was made the gentleman in question had not even passed any examination as a linguist, and that all his abilities had been accepted at his own valuation, and that this recommendation had been sent through to M.I. 6 that he should be employed? Perhaps the Minister would tell us something more about this gentleman and whether he is still employed at M.I. 6 or any other Government Department in a more or less civilian capacity. I think it would be impossible to overstate the case for impartiality in such a position as that which the Minister of National Service holds. He has the power of placing a man either in the trenches or in a comparatively soft job in England or behind the lines. I would appeal to him to deal in a most impartial way with all cases and not to personally interest himself in the case of any man, no matter how he may be assured of his personal fitness for any Department, and to leave it to those under him to make those decisions, so that he himself may be able at all times to say with truth that, so far as the personal employment is concerned of any man on work of national importance, whether it be in the Army or munitions or in a soft job at home, that he has never taken any personal interest whatsoever. That, I am sure, would relieve a very great deal of anxiety in the minds of many men who feel that a certain amount of influence has been brought to bear in effecting the appointments of many people in this country having special reference to the Military Service Acts. I received a reply to that question by a representative of the Ministry of National Service in this House, that the peculiar abilities of this

    925
    man justified this action, but I did not receive any reply to the most important part of the question, as to whether the Minister of National Service had personally interested himself in this case, and had actually written personally to M.I.6, and recommended this appointment. I do trust, if there is any explanation that the Minister has to give, he will clear that matter up now, purely on a point of principle, because, if what occurs in one case becomes known to Members of this House, one can only assume there are many cases which never see the cleansing light of day.
    Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask, is it not the intention of the Minister of National Service to answer that simple question?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order.

  SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1918–19.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £34,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant-in-Aid." — [Note.— £23,000 has been Voted on account.]
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, '" That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again "— [Mr. Pratt] —put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed," That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. WATT: I beg to move, to leave out the words, "now read the third time," and to add instead thereof the words "re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clause 1."
  926
  I am one of four Members who have put a notice on the Paper to move the recommittal of the Bill in respect of Clause 1. It may be said against us that we are rather late in the day in dealing with this measure, but the excuse I have to offer for it is that the measure was brought in only on the 18th February, and copies of it could not be got by the local authorities, at any rate in Scotland, and, I think, all over the country, until after 5th March. Therefore, the representations that have been made to us by local authorities are, perhaps, somewhat belated, and have led to this line of action in the House. The idea we have in suggesting the recommittal of this measure is that local authorities' securities may be put in the Bill on the same footing as Government securities. No doubt it is an admirable Bill with a very good purpose—to safeguard the investments of trustee savings banks. As the House no doubt is aware, these savings banks have been in the habit in the past of lending their money to local authorities and to School Boards in Scotland at long-dated repayment. Owing to the advantage of investing in War Loans, a run has been made on these savings banks. In the future these banks are to be allowed to lend on Government security for three years, but in the case of other institutions only one year, and with only six months' notice. The idea which I have in view is that the local authorities' securities may be put on precisely the same footing as the Government securities, and in particular that the School Board securities in Scotland shall be put on that same basis. The School Board credit is remarkably good, because there is no limit to the rates which School Boards can put on people in Scotland, and therefore the security is the security of the public in general. Therefore, it is a good security, and, to my thinking, it should be placed on the same footing in this measure as a Government security. I need hardly say that School Boards and other institutions of that type will be greatly harassed by the fact that they will not have this method of getting money in the future as they have in the past. This will deprive them of a source of loan, namely, the savings banks, and they are of opinion that their securities ought to be treated in a favourable way by this measure. We therefore suggest in Committee, if this Motion is carried, an Amendment in Clause 1, alter the words "Government securi-

  927
  ties," to insert the words "or Local Government securities." I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury will be in a frame of mind now to accept this Amendment or a similar Amendment. An Amendment on similar lines was suggested in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), but without success. Since then representations have been made to me, and I hope to the Secretary to the Treasury. If so, I hope he is in a different frame of mind now.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do not think I need add anything to the considerations which my hon. Friend has put before the House. The restrictions placed upon local authorities in respect of borrowing under this Bill have aroused a considerable amount of disquiet among certain local authorities, particularly in Scotland. On the Committee stage expression was given to that feeling by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, and since then other local authorities, who before had not been aware of the precise effect of the provision of this Bill, had their attention called to it, and are anxious that their position in relation to these banks should not be prejudiced. Under the Bill a privileged position is given to Government securities. It is felt by these local authorities that, as they have the security of the rates, borrowing by them from these banks is in a position of equal security to borrowing from the Central Government, and they think that the privileged position granted to the Central Government should equally be extended to local authorities. I hope that the Amendment which my hon. Friend has suggested may be found acceptable to the Government. If it is, the position will be made absolutely clear, and I do not think that there need be any concern, so far as the objects of the Bill arise, that those objects will be prejudiced if the Amendment which my hon. Friend suggests is accepted.
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I hope I can explain in a few words the exact position in such a manner as will satisfy the hon. Members from Scotland that the Clause as it stands is a necessary and integral part of the Bill in the form in which it is drafted, and that there is no intention either of impugning the credit of the local authorities
  928
  or of placing Government stock in any preferential position. The whole object of this Bill is to safeguard the special investing departments of trustee savings banks, these special departments having themselves, in the early stages of the War, experienced difficulty owing to the fact that they had locked up their money in precisely the form of security which my hon. Friends 'are now asking me to leave available for them all the same shape. The House must remember that depositors have a right of calling their money in, and they are not obliged to give longer notice than one month. I ask the House also to remember the great difference between these banks and what we ordinarily understand by banks. There are in these cases no large amounts of liquid assets over and above the investments of the bank which, are available for a sudden run, nor is there any uncalled capital. These banks are deprived of the great safeguards of the ordinary banking system of this country. A Committee was appointed to examine into the affairs into the banks and to make representation. That Committee decided to advise the Government that the terms of repayment should not be three years, even for Government securities, but only one, and the reason why three years was put in the Bill was not to give preference to Government securities as such, but because the trustee savings banks felt that they were almost too cramped in the range of investments open to them, and they pleaded that if the term were extended for Government securities to three years it would admit, as time went on, of the investment in Exchequer Bonds, which would be useful as a backbone to their investment fund. We gave way on that point.
  10.0 P.M.
  But I would remind my hon. Friend that there is a very easy way out of the difficulty, so far as the local authorities of Scotland or anywhere else are concerned. The last words in this Clause permit investors to lend sums for any period, provided that notice can be given for repayment at any time in six months. That reserve amount of liquidity would be absolutely essential to the solvency of these funds, and it rests with the local authorities, if they wish to keep this opportunity to themselves, to make an agreement by which they can consent to the money being repayable at six months' notice. I pointed out on the Committee stage of this Bill that this would be no hardship for the local authorities, for the

  929
  very reason that this type of borrowing was the fairest type of borrowing for the special investment department, because they could probably get a slightly better rate of interest from the local authorities than from any other source, and it would give them every inducement both to lend and to hold money on a notice of six months. They would naturally be pleased to lend the money, because they would get the best return. But in the event of their being a run on their bank it is essential that they should have this right, because if they were allowed to lock up their funds in local securities that were not fairly promptly redeemable they would not then have sufficient liquid assets to be able to redeem them in time to meet any trouble that might be impending in a very short time. I am afraid that this Clause as it stands is of the very essence of this Bill, which has been drafted in agreement with the trustee savings banks for the sole object of maintaining their solvency against any contingency that can be foreseen. With this explanation, and in these circumstances, I hope my hon. Friends from Scotland will be satisfied and will allow the Bill to have its Third Reading to-night.
  Mr. WATT: After the explanation of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  IMPERIAL WIRELESS STATIONS.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. PRINGLE: At the end of Question Time to-day the House listened somewhat impatiently to two long personal explanations—one by the late Postmaster-General, the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Bristol (Sir C. Hob-house) and the other by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Black-bum (Sir H. Norman). These two personal explanations arose out of a case which had been before the Courts during the past two days, and upon them a cer-
  930
  tain number of questions naturally arise It seems to many people remarkable that in this case, after it had been opened by counsel for the plaintiffs, the Crown should have immediately agreed to judgment for the plaintiff. The considerations which were brought forward in the Court must have been present to counsel for the Crown, and the documents which were referred to as well as the correspondence must have been available before the case went to trial. In these circumstances it naturally appears strange that it should have been necessary to wait until the case for the plaintiff had been opened before the Crown agreed to the course which was ultimately adopted. There is this further point. In the course of the opening certain allegations were made relating to the conduct of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Blackburn. As these allegations had been made, many people expected that before the case was withdrawn from the Courts an opportunity would be given to the gentlemen affected to present themselves as witnesses in Court so that their version of the circumstances referred to could have been submitted to examination and cross-examination. That course, unfortunately, was not adopted. What has happened is this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn have been forced to come down to this House and to make in the form of personal explanations to the House what are clearly ex parte statements. Obviously, that is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with a question of real public importance. I am not entering into the merits of what those Gentlemen are alleged to have done, or as to whether they in fact did what they were alleged to have done, but obviously the method of personal explanation in this House is the most unsatisfactory way possible by which the matter could be dealt with. We are faced —I think we may assume this to be so—with a prolonged controversy on the matter. The other people affected are not going to rest satisfied that the matter should be left where it was with the statements of both my right hon. Friends. We shall probably see in the Press to-morrow a statement—I do not know—contradicting to a large extent what they have said, and we may in consequence of that be involved in a further course of litigation which I think hon. Members will agree is not in the public interest.
  Mr. BILLING: Why?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I do not think it is in the public interest that such questions should be the subject matter of pro longed litigation —
  Mr. BILLING: Let the whole scandal be exposed.
  Mr. PRINGLE: If, as I think was possible, the matter could have been dealt with by the right hon. Gentlemen presenting themselves in Court and thrashing the matter out once for all in the witness box when the case was before the Court yesterday and on Friday last. I thought it right after the statement of my right hon. Friends to say that I would raise this matter on the Adjournment this evening. I thought it right that the Attorney-General should have the first available opportunity of explaining the ground upon which the particular course he adopted came to be taken. We know that there have been many suspicions aroused as a result of what is known as the Marconi mystery. I do not express any opinion as to the foundation for those suspicions, but undoubtedly it would be deplorable in the public interest that that mystery should foe increased and intensified. The best thing in the interests of the Government, as well as of everybody affected, is that here in this House of Commons we should have a public official statement from the Attorney-General of the reason which induced him to adopt the course which he has pursued. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend will welcome this opportunity of stating the grounds of his action, as he will be undoubtedly desirous of having the air cleared on this particular matter. The two questions which require answering are, Why was it necessary to have the case opened at all, if the case for the plaintiffs was so clear that the Government had to give way immediately it was opened? And secondly, having allowed it to go on, Why should it not have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman, whose good faith was affected by the allegations made in the opening, to have had an opportunity of going into the witness box and dealing with the allegations made against them?
  Mr. BILLING: I think it is the duty of some Member of this House to rise and call the attention of the House to the extraordinary statement that was made after Question Time to-day. One right
  932
  hon. Gentleman, in using this House as a forum for clearing his own character, stated distinctly that during the time that he occupied the position of Postmaster-General the managing director of the Marconi Company produced two letters which were likely to incriminate and ruin his public career, that by arrangement those letters were shown to him, and that a threat—which I do not think any Member who listened to that public statement will consider was a veiled threat— was made that unless the Postmaster-General in his official capacity was prepared to make advantageous concessions to the Marconi Company his negotiations with the German company would be exposed, and he would be politically ruined. The only inference that we can accept from that is that Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, acting in his capacity of managing director of this company, actually blackmailed a member of His Majesty's Government by threatening to expose him by exhibiting certain documents. I think that is an alarming statement to come from an ex-Minister of the Crown, but it is the least alarming part of the statement. What is infinitely more alarming is what the ex-Minister of the Crown does. He goes to the brother of Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, who happens to be the Lord Chief Justice of England, and appeals to him to intercede between himself and the blackmailer so as to have this thing hushed up. What does the Lord Chief Justice do? Arrange an appointment so that this matter may be hushed up. He arranges an appointment with his own brother, who has been blackmailing a Minister of the Crown— according to a statement of the right hon. Gentleman—to see if this matter cannot be hushed up, and when we turn to some of the share reports—I do not know whether I have been misinformed, but it appears that the Lord Chief Justice of England, as Sir Rufus Isaacs, was the holder—so I am informed—of about £10,000 worth of shares in the company concerned, and that the directors of the Marconi Company itself were in many cases the same people who were the directors of what I believe is called the group of the Allgemeine Electricitaets Gesellschaft, which is practically the German organisation. I think it is a much more serious matter than the hon. Member on the other side of the House seemed to suggest. It is not a case of abusing the privileges of this House for clearing the public honour of an ex-Minister, but it is

  933
  a question whether the Government ought not seriously to consider—as I trust they will—the immediate institution of an action against Mr. Godfrey Isaacs for blackmailing one of His Majesty's Ministers, and, if there is any truth at all in the statement we have heard this afternoon, coupling with that prosecution the name of the Lord Chief Justice for aiding and abetting. The public are gradually awakening to the fact that the whole of this Marconi swindle reflects gravely to the discredit, not only of members of His Majesty's Government but of the Prime Minister himself. Certain papers in this country started, some time ago, a most violent attack against members of His Majesty's Government in connection with their association with the Marconi gamble. I had occasion, some twelve months or fifteen months since, to call the attention of the then Prime Minister to certain statements which were made by public men of great repute at the Queen's Hall, in which they denounced by name certain members of His Majesty's Government as having been closely associated with a scandal which had done a very great deal to involve the Government's position in relation to the successful prosecution of this War. I asked whether it was proposed to bring any action against these gentlemen in question. I was told it was not in the public interest to do it. Then, one of the speakers, being the editor of that paper—the "Financial News "—which has fought right through this War to endeavour to expose the corruption of international finance, continued an attack of such a character as was calculated to rouse action even in such a spunkless, spineless organism as the present administration has led the public to believe they are. What was the result? No notice was taken of it. Question after question was put down in this House, asking whether it was not proposed to take up the gauntlet. Then, some mysterious thing takes place. An hon. Member gets up—I think he has not the reputation of being an attacker of the Government—and puts the same question which many of the hon. Members, who have attacked the Government, have put in the past, and the Leader of the House says: "If any more attacks of this nature take place, we shall take action." But I suggest to the House that the Govern-
  934
  ment had taken steps to see that no more attacks did take place before they came out into the open. The whole thing—I hope I speak quite frankly—as far as I can see, was a pure political ramp. Why was this case allowed to be stopped, and why was it so suddenly hushed up? So far as I know, the counsel for the Marconi Company in this case was not unidentified with clearing the reputation of a good many politicians when the inquiry took place. The whole thing is hidden again. What are the public to think? When we get into big international undertakings such as this it is not only this country which is involved, it is not only our Allies who are involved, but it is the whole issue on which this War is now undertaken which is involved. If information is the life-blood of the conduct of a successful campaign, surely the most rapid means of transmitting information is of very considerable significance in the conduct of the War. Yet we find that the directors of practically all the wireless combines in the world are practically one group; that in the German group we, have British directors; we have these huge shareholdings, presumably, by members of His Majesty's Government; and, just before this case is to come on for trial, when, I would suggest, one of the most important witnesses to be sub-pœnaed in the case was the Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Beading, he anticipates the possibility, intelligently or by accident, and is appointed the representative of Great Britain, the representative of John Bull, in America. The thing would be a farce were it not so serious, and I appeal to hon. Members of this House not to allow this matter to rest here, and not to be satisfied, with a personal explanation made on privilege. I say that it is the duty of both those right hon. Gentlemen who made those statements this afternoon to repeat them in public, so that their accuracy may be challenged in an open Court of law. I consider that that is the only course they can adopt. To claim the privilege of this House to make allegations of so astounding a character is abusing them. Presumably, they claim, on the assumption that two wrongs eventually may produce a right, and the fact that the Law Officers of the Crown may have abused their privileges in the law by pre-

  935
  venting them from giving evidence in the Court, that they are justified, in their turn, in using their membership of this House by making a statement here. If this matter is allowed to rest here it will mean that the prostitution of our public life is complete, that our Government have arrived at such a state that they do not even wish to retain any vestige of trust which they think the public, in their ignorance, still have for them. No, Sir; I only hope that the hour we have at our disposal will give other hon. Members an opportunity of bringing to bear what influence they may have on the Government to insist that this matter shall not rest here, and that out of respect to the dignity of the British Constitution, a successor shall be found for Lord Reading in America pending a complete inquiry into this case, which will also give facilities for him to occupy the witness box in this country. If a secret ballot of our Bar were taken to-day as to their opinion of the Lord Chief Justice's action in connection with this matter, I have no doubt what the result would be. I am not asking the Attorney-General to give an explanation of this case. I am only asking him to say that he will assure this House that his advice to His Majesty's Government will be that whatever steps are necessary for this Marconi ramp to be made public shall be taken, and that no member of His Majesty's Government, no matter how highly he may be placed, will be permitted to use the law and the privileges which are afforded in the interests of justice to shelter himself from public exposure and the ignominy which his action has entailed.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): I am so far from making any complaint of the action taken by my hon. Friend who introduced this subject to the attention of the House that I rather welcome, as he anticipated I might, the opportunity he has afforded me of explaining the circumstances under which the recent action brought by the Marconi Company against the Post Office came to an end. My hon. Friend was concerned with two questions each of which might very reasonably be put to a Law Officer of the Crown, in respect of each of which he is entitled to an answer. If I understood his questions aright, they were, in the first place, how was it, when
  936
  grave reflections had been made upon two well-known Members of this House, one of whom had held the office of Postmaster-General and the other of whom is in an official position to-day, that the case was allowed to end without these two Gentlemen being allowed to go into the witness box in order to make statements on oath as to the truth of the allegations made against them or about them, and to submit themselves to cross-examination in respect of those statements? I think the House-will understand that it is a little difficult to explain a matter of great technicality and complication within a very short space, but I think that I can explain it sufficiently within a reasonably short space. I ought, I think, to begin by saying that the whole of this litigation with refer-once to the particular contract between the Post Office and the company were, of course, of old standing. The House will be generally aware of the circumstances under which I deliberately adopted the neutral phrase "the contract was determined by the Post Office," and as the House is entitled to be clearly informed of the stage in which this controversy was when I became Attorney-General, I will tell hon. Members that when this matter was first introduced to my official attention the company were complaining of a breach of contract and the Post Office were contending that there had not, in fact, been a breach of contract.
  The controversy ranged principally round two points. First of all, had there been or had there not been a breach of the contract by the Post Office, or, in other words, had the Post Office without legal justification broke their contract? There was a second point subordinate to the first point. If, in the month of December, the Post Office had broken that contract, had their liability for damages been limited by the circumstances in January when Mr. Godfrey Isaacs wrote and said that there would be a heavy claim for damages by the company, and when the Post Office wrote back and said, "If you take this view, we are still prepared to go on with the contract." The first point was whether or not there had been an unjustifiable breach by the Post Office of their contract? and the second question was whether, if there had been such a breach, the letter written on 21st January saying in effect, "We are still willing to go on with the contract," was sufficient to defeat the

  937
  claim for heavy damages. There was left a third question. The original contract had contemplated the erection of six stations, but the contract contained a clause which entitled the Postmaster-General to exercise an option in relation to three of the stations. On the view which I took of the contract, and which I am still prepared to defend, the effect of the stipulation in the contract was that the Postmaster-General could at any time, and on payment of compensation, exercise an option in relation to three stations. I think I have made it clear to the House. The first issue was damages or no damages, or had there been a breach by the Post Office; secondly, if there had been a breach, were the damages limited to the period between the date of the breach and the date of the letter in January, in which the Post Office had said, "If you take this view, we will still go on with the contract"? and the third question was were the Post Office compellable in law to pay damages, not merely on the basis of the three stations, but on the basis of the six stations? Let this be clearly understood: I did not advise either upon that contract or upon the breach of that contract. Though I take the fullest responsibility from the moment I became Attorney-General, in fact I had nothing whatever to do, and my colleague, the present Postmaster-General, had nothing whatever to do, with the long correspondence that took place between the Post Office and the company, in which the company were continually asserting their claim upon the largest possible scale, and the Post Office were continually disputing that claim. When I became Attorney-General I saw at once that a most formidable claim was pending against the Government, and one in which damages upon a very large scale were being claimed by the Marconi Company. It was my duty at once to arrive at a conclusion as to where the merits of the controversy lay, and I arrived at certain conclusions, which I conveyed formally— they are on record—at every stage to the Government, as to what their legal position was.
  The first point on which I would lay stress in relation to the point raised by my hon. Friend is that this question concerning the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Bristol (Sir C. Hob-
  938
  house) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman) was of the most secondary character conceivable in relation to the only issues of the dispute as I understood them. Let me make that clear to the House. As these grave matters have been raised, they ought to be quite clearly explained and understood. I will tell the House how it came about that the names of those two right hon. Gentleman were even mentioned in this case. I have told the House that there was an issue as to whether or not the Government was entitled to exercise an option to cancel in relation to the second three stations. Mr. Godfrey Isaacs was concerned in the course of his case to contend that there was no such option. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General suggests, I might state, it was also intended that the option was exercised once for all. It may be so, but that does not affect the argument I am laying before the House at the moment. That contention occupied much correspondence. It was in the attempt to show that those who were then responsible for the Post Office had not only broken their contract, but had broken their contract under circumstances which showed a de-sire to treat his company with conspicuous lack of consideration, that Mr. Godfrey Isaacs read a letter from the Telefunken Company, in which they stated that the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Bristol, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Blackburn had, while they were on a visit to Berlin, made certain proposals to the Telefunken Company. Whether or not those Gentlemen had made those statements had, in my clear judgment, nothing whatever to do with anyone of the main issues before the Court. I say, deliberately, that no competent lawyer who followed that case will raise the contention that that matter could have been introduced except as a matter of prejudice. I, as Attorney-General, recognised to the full my duty to afford any protection which was in my power to any Gentleman who had held the high office of Postmaster-General in His Majesty's Government, and, as it was before me in instructions that Sir Charles Hobhouse entirely denied this statement, it was my duty and I intervened. I objected at first technically, but unsuccessfully, to the production of the Telefunken letter at all, because I made the submission that it was prejudice, and thereupon, because I knew this was the

  939
  statement that the right hon. Baronet desired to make, I said to the Court, "As this statement will obviously be repeated by the Press, it must be made most clear that on my instructions the right hon. Baronet explicitly and specifically denies every one of these statements," and so I did my duty to one who had been my colleague. My right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson), who conducted the case for the company, assented.
  It is suggested by my hon. Friend—I am sure he did not appreciate the point I am now stating—that I, having arrived at the conclusion that, for reasons which I am about to make plain, this case ought to be ended as on my responsibility I ended it, ought to have afforded these two Members of the House an opportunity of being examined and cross-examined upon this statement. Either I was right or I was wrong in my view that the matter ought not to be proceeded with further in the Court at that stage. I shall justify the view that I took in a moment. I can only at this point ask the House to make the assumption in my favour that I was entitled and that I was right in the public interest to end the case as I did end it. If the House makes that assumption in my favour, observe what the suggestion means. It means that I was to continue the case, which would undoubtedly have lasted for a fortnight, involving the expenditure of large sums of public money, allowing all the company's witnesses to go into the box, examining and cross-examining them, and cross-examining Mr. Godfrey Isaacs upon this question, which, in my view, had no relevancy to the issues of the case, and that afterwards I was to call these two Gentlemen on a point which I say, and which no competent lawyer will deny, had nothing whatever, except by way of collateral prejudice, to do with the issues raised in the case. I should have spent thousands of pounds of public money in order to allow these two Gentlemen to attempt to vindicate themselves.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Did not the Judge hold it to be relevant?
  Sir F. SMITH: The hon. Member him not really appreciated the point. I thought I was speaking very clearly The judge did not hold that it was relevant except in this sense, that Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, apparently under the impression
  940
  that it would strengthen his case, sent to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Hob-house) a copy of the letter of the Telefunken Company. No one can exclude for evidence in a case the fact that such a letter has been sent and received, but such a letter is not evidence of a single statement contained in it, and no such evidence could have been given in chief. No one can say that there was evidence which was admissible which affected any one of the issues in the case, and as long as I am Attorney-General I will absolutely refuse to allow a case to proceed for ten days, involving an immense expenditure of public money, in order to allow two Members of this House to make a vindication in a Court which they can perfectly well make elsewhere, to be made at the public expense and after tea days of litigation. When I am told these Gentlemen have made a statement which is protected by privilege here, in the extremely intemperate speech to which the House has just listened, I reply to the hon. Member who has made that extremely characteristic statement, that he also has just made a speech in this House which I gravely doubt whether he will repeat to-morrow removed from the protection of this House. I will ask the House to remember that the main question that is involved to-night is whether I was right or whether I was wrong, at the conclusion of the opening speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), in taking the course which, in fact, I did take. On that point I shall speak to the House very frankly. I had no responsibility at all, as I have already said, for the original Marconi contract. I had no responsibility at all for the determination of that contract by the Government of the day. I did not give the advice upon which the letter of 21st January was written, and which it was hoped that it might have the effect of limiting the damages which the company could recover. I had taken no pa it whatever in the discussions or the negotiation between the company and the Post Office until I became Attorney-General. I tell the House quite plainly that the view which I formed of a most difficult and complicated case has never varied. I former the view that the Post Office had, without legal warrant or justification, broken the contract, and that they were liable in damages for that

  941
  breach. On the first occasion on which I was consulted I gave that clear advice verbally in consultation, and I repeated it some time ago in a written opinion. The second question arises as to whether, if I was right in my view, the letter written three weeks after the breach on this hypothesis by the Post Office, in which they announced their readiness to resume the contract, limited the damages, so that those who appeared for the Government could successfully contend that the only damages the company were entitled to were damages for the three weeks of that breach? I clearly again formed the view that it was not possible to advance that contention successfully, and I so advised the Government at the time. I tell the House plainly that very accomplished predecessors of mine have taken a different view. Predecessors of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General have taken a different view, and had been advised in a contrary sense. I found that there were great masses of correspondence in which, for a long period of time, the opposite contention had been raised, and I found also that an extremely accomplished predecessor of mine in the office of Attorney-General had actually advised upon and drafted the letter of 21st January upon which reliance was placed as limiting the claim for damages. The Government of the day were entitled to claim at my hands two things: first of all, that I should give them my own view as to what the legal position was—that I gave them, and it stands upon record— and, in the second place, that I should advise them as to the course they should adopt having regard to this claim. I advised them that, in my judgment, there had been a breach, that the letter of 21st January was no answer to that breach, and that the Government would have to pay damages. What came next? There was this controversy in relation to the six stations. There, again, I was bound to give perfectly clear advice. I gave it, and I will tell the House what was the advice I gave at the earliest moment. I said "the construction of the contract which is being insisted upon by the Marconi Company is in my judgment ill-founded, and I think there is a technical answer which can be successfuly made by the Government." But I added this: Governments cannot conduct litigation except in one spirit, and that is that
  942
  Ministers in high positions are given authority to bind those on behalf of whom they act by what they say. That is accepted and relied upon by those with whom they deal.
  The question of the six stations, I may tell the House in the most untechnical language at my command, is this: It was originally contemplated that six stations-should be constructed, but it was felt, and reasonably felt, by my right hon. Friend, whom I am glad to see here, himself a former Postmaster-General, and most wisely felt, that while there was an immediate intention of proceeding with the first three stations, there was no such immediate pressure in relation to the second three stations, and it might conceivably be the case that some new and unsuspected development of science would render it unnecessary or unwise to accept the Marconi plans in relation to the second three, and therefore he, in my judgment, most prudently declined to bind himself in relation to the second three stations, and retained an option under the contract, and under the terms of the contract, in my view of that contract, he left himself an absolute discretion at any point to withdraw in relation to the second three stations until the moment of completion, merely paying compensation on the ground of proper expenditure by the company. That is the contract, but it was undoubtedly true that in the negotiations between my right hon. Friend and Mr. Godfrey Isaacs my right hon. Friend quite rightly and prudently confining himself to what was the real matter of importance to the Post Office, made this observation, and this is on record in a memorandum which was preserved of the negotiations:
  "The point is that, though Mr. Marconi regards it as a. most unlikely event, if there is some epoch-making invention which may prove itself so obviously better than what is now existing, that it would clearly be desirable for the Government to adopt it for the other three stations, or perhaps the whole six, we shall be bound to you for the first three, but I think that if such an improvement be clearly established and such an epoch-making invention were made it would be right that the Government should preserve a free hand."
  Most plainly I say then, on the faith of a Cabinet Minister who entered into that negotiation with the company, it was the intention of the then Postmaster-General that the option in relation to the second

  943
  three stations should only be exercised if some epoch-making invention developed in the interval.
  Now a very difficult question arises, and I deeply regret that I have to be so technical in speaking to the House. A legal question of great complexity arises as to whether or not, even if the option were to be properly exercised by the Government as defined by the contract, that option ever had been asserted at all. I may tell the House that my own view is that even if the terms of the option were to be construed in the terms of the contract and not in the terms of the negotiation which I have just read to the House, that there never had been in fact such exercise of the option at all. I might have dealt with that situation in one of two ways. I might have said to the representatives of the Marconi Company, "I will settle this case with you if I can." I tell the House plainly that, in the public interest, I tried to settle the case, and I only ceased to try to settle the case when it became clear to me, in my judgment, that the company were claiming what was a wholly excessive sum by way of damages; and it was only after repeated discussions, in which I gradually satisfied myself that no compromise existed between the view taken by the company on the one hand and by myself and my technical advisers on the other hand as to the sum properly to be paid to them, it was only then that the negotiations ceased. In the meantime all the time the case was approaching trial. When these negotiations broke down I was confronted with two alternatives, and two alternatives only. The one was that I should abandon privately every legal contention that had been raised for three years by the Post Office, and that I should say to the company: "I will go to arbitration, sub süentio, I will agree that the contract has been abandoned; I will agree that the letter of 21st January has no legal force; I will agree that the contract must be construed, so far as damages are concerned, in relation to six stations instead of the three; and you may go to arbitration on the basis of the complete abandonment of the legal contentions raised for three years by the Post Office." I advised the Government, I tell the House quite plainly, that in my judgment none of these contentions would in the event be
  944
  successfully sustained. But I had also told the Government that predecessors of mine had taken a different view, and that they had argued in official correspondence, over a considerable period, one or other of these contentions. I told the Government that there was much that could be said for the matters raised, although I never concealed my views as to their non-success. What was the right course, in a most difficult matter for the history of which I have not the slightest responsibility, for a Minister in my position to adopt? I say without hesitation at all that it would have been impossible for me to have agreed to the abandonment of these points, some of which had actually been raised by the industry and ingenuity of my predecessor. I would invite the House of Commons to consider what would have been said to me supposing without any discussion in public at all, without guidance from the observations made by the very acute judge who considered the case, and had tried the case and said that the Marconi Company can be legally bound in regard to that which my predecessors had insisted upon, and you can take your reference on your own terms. I should like to know what we should have heard then about the many suspicions to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, without any offensiveness, but he did speak of the many suspicions. I think I can hear the speeches that would have been made, but I assert in my own interest, that for my own reputation, I was entitled to insist upon a public statement in Court on the grounds I had taken. That statement was made in open Court for two days, and the whole of the correspondence in this matter was read by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Trinity College, Dublin, and we had the advantage of ascertaining very clearly what were the views which that extremely acute and industrious judge who heard this case, formed on every one of those points. I had, at least, the partial professional satisfaction of discovering at a very early stage that the learned judge had formed a view which agreed precisely with my own, but which did not agree so precisely with some of the views of my predecessors. It has been said that the learned judge formed his view on an ex parte statement, but I would remind the House that it is not the case of a judge forming his view on an ex parte statement, for this is a case where an experienced judge, who had all

  945
  the documents read to him, and who, after hearing all the documents read to him, formed the view that, on the whole, he thought I was right. I say this, choosing my words deliberately, that on every one of the main points of the case the learned judge showed that he was distinctly adverse to the contentions of the Crown. I agreed with the learned judge. I always have agreed with him. It would be very easy for me to go on for a fortnight, earning very considerable fees and arguing this case against my own convictions, and spending, I suppose, thousands of pounds, and, if I had done so, there would have been no discussion in this House and no comment.
  Mr. TILLETT: It is never done by barristers.
  Sir F. SMITH: I took the responsibility of saying that I would not allow the case to go on the moment that the public had been informed of the circumstances under which the legal contentions of the Post Office had been put forward. Here are the observations made by the learned judge who heard the case, after three days in which he displayed the greatest industry, and it will be universally agreed that there is no shrewder judge on the Bench:
  "I think that the Crown are acting with great propriety in taking the course which has been announced by the Attorney-General. The case is one of great intricacy; and it has involved many difficult and complicated questions of law. If it had proceeded, a great body of facts and documents would have called for consideration, but, as the result of the very full and lucid statements by Sir Edward Carson in opening the case, certain important points emerge, and, in my view, have emerged in favour of the petitioners in this case. I think it right to say that in my view the Attorney-General has acted wisely and properly in the assent that he has given to the points that have been made by Sir Edward Carson. But for the most full and most useful discussion which has taken place in Court during the last two days the points as they are now understood would not have emerged in so clear and concise a manner. In my view, that which has taken place in Court will be of the greatest possible utility to the gentleman who has to determine the question of damages in the future."
  I would rather have the opinion of the learned judge as to the usefulness of those proceedings than the opinion of any one who has not been called upon in a judicial capacity, to give the attention and the industry to this case which the learned judge gave. I will only make a very brief observation with reference to the speech which has just been addressed
  946
  to the House. I am amazed that any Member of this House, and I do not believe any Member of this House but one would do so, should, at the moment when the Lord Chief Justice of England is engaged on behalf of this country in work which our Allies in America approve of and appreciate, have chosen such a time, and behind his back, to make this cowardly attack on his reputation.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the two minutes which remain perhaps the House will allow me to say a very few words with respect to this matter. As I was the Postmaster-General who was concerned in the original making of the contract, I regarded that contract, and I still regard it, as a remarkably good bargain for the State. It was confirmed by Parliament, and it provided, in my view— I refer to something said to-day by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman) —for complete State ownership and control of the stations concerned. The contract was not determined by me; it was determined by my successor, owing to conditions that had supervened on account of the War. I have not been able refresh my memory by references to any of the papers and therefore I am not in a position to comment upon what the Attorney-General has said with respect to the option of the second three stations which appears to have been made a point of this case. But my recollection is that always it was assumed that the Post Office had the right of proceeding or not, as it chose, with the second three stations. That was clearly understood by all parties. [An HON. MEMBER: "On certain terms."] Yes, on certain terms. But there was no obligation at all to proceed with the second three stations. If it were decided to proceed with them, if conditions arose which made it desirable, then indeed there was an understanding that except in very exceptional circumstances they should fall into the general contract and be erected by the Marconi Company. But there was no obligation to erect them at all. The phrase "an epoch-making invention" was, I believe, a quotation, so far as I recollect, from words used by Mr. Godfrey Isaacs or Mr. Marconi, or my phrasing of what they had put forward. It was not a phrase of mine, and I do not think it excluded other possible considerations. Those are the only points I have time to

  947
  make to the House, but perhaps I may say in conclusion that if this matter had not been the subject of great controversy in Parliament and elsewhere, and had not been surrounded by a miasma of suspicion owing to circumstances for which I was not personally in the smallest degree responsible, and if only those stations had been erected, as I originally intended, in 1910 or 1911, and as the Committee of Imperial Defence desired they should be erected at that time, I believe this nation
  948
  in the War which has since intervened would have found itself provided with an invaluable means of international communication.
  It being one hour after the conclusion of Government Business Mr SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February.
  Adjourned at One minute after Eleven o'clock

WAR
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FARMERS' LOSSES (COMPENSATION).
  FARMERS' LOSSES (COMPENSATION).
  LINSEED OIL.
  LINSEED OIL.
  3RD ROYAL WELSH FUSILIERS (PRIVATE W. HUGHES).
  3RD ROYAL WELSH FUSILIERS (PRIVATE W. HUGHES).
  EAST AFRICA CAMPAIGN (MENTIONS AND DECORATIONS).
  EAST AFRICA CAMPAIGN (MENTIONS AND DECORATIONS).
  MAISONS TOLEREES (FRANCE).
  MAISONS TOLEREES (FRANCE).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (SECRETARY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read and to be printed.

SOLICITORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
The EARL of HALSBURY The EARL of HALSBURY had given notice, on the Motion for the Third Reading, to move, That the Bill be read a third time this day six months.
The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, I move the Motion which stands in my name. I confess that I am a little surprised that the noble and learned Lord who has moved the Third Reading of the Bill has not said anything about it. I do not know whether he thinks that the matter has been so discussed that it is not worth while discussing it any more. If so, perhaps he is right. I should like, however, to say, in justification of the Motion that I have made, that a great deal has been said with which I wish to express my thorough agreement. And I wish further to say that I feel grateful to the noble and learned Lord himself for the extremely interesting and useful speech that he made upon the Second Reading.
My objection is in a great measure to one proposition of his—namely, that this Bill is not inopportune. I think it is extremely inopportune for this reason, that the persons who are most concerned in this matter have not been consulted. Nothing has been done in respect of the examination or knowledge of what solicitors are doing at this moment—solicitors and attorneys, for we have got so much into the habit of speaking of those who proceed by petition and not by writ that we speak of them as if they were the only persons, and as if solicitors were not attorneys and attorneys were not solicitors. The solicitors and the attorneys together form a very important body in the State, and one would have thought that something would have been done. I will undertake to say that if it had been any profession or trade other than that of the law which was in question, we should have had some inquiry and some facts put before us, which would have rendered it easier for us to discuss this matter. But nothing of the sort has been done, and I think a great many of your Lordships would be extremely surprised to hear what is the number of solicitors in whose absence this question is being considered. So many of them have been now and for such a long time in the service of their country that it seems to be forgotten that they have an interest in the numbers of persons who are admitted to that which is described as a privileged class. No inquiry appears to have been made of these solicitors who are actually serving their country at the peril
462
of their lives at this moment as to what their view is of the education which ought to be given to those who are privileged to appear in the Courts either by petition or by writ. I find that on December 31 last, 3,024 solicitors and 1,397 articled clerks were serving in His Majesty's Forces; and 440 solicitors and 285 articled clerks have been killed.
My principal—in one sense my only—objection to permitting women to be solicitors or attorneys is the fact that a great deal depends upon the correspondence between the parties in the first instance before the litigation is actually commenced. I am sorry to be obliged to state any objection which seems to be an objection merely on the ground of sex, but it is an objection. A woman has no recognition of any side but her own. If there is one thing more than another which is desirable in the commencement of litigation it is that you should avoid litigation if you can, and many and many a time in my own experience I have seen litigation avoided by judicious correspondence, and this can only be done by recognising that there is another side to the question, and that possibly a little modification on one side or the other would avoid litigation altogether. With the greatest respect for the sex, I must say that in my experience it is not easy to get a woman to understand that there may be another side than her own, and the extreme danger is that the correspondence which precedes litigation may sometimes end in producing an angrier spirit.
One noble and learned Lord spoke of this matter as a question merely whether you should charge 6s. 8d. for an interview or 3s. 4d. for a letter. I think nothing could be a greater misrepresentation of what is now in question. By a Statute there are certain things that the person who wishes to be a solicitor must go through—his articled clerkship, his education, and so on. All this is a thing to be considered, and if both sexes were admitted I believe there would be a considerable modification of this compulsory education. In these circumstances, I confess I think that the matter requires further consideration, though I will not absolutely say that I might not change my views, which at present are adverse to women being admitted, if it were shown that there

463
was no difference made in the education required as between the sexes.
I do not want to make this matter in itself decisive, but with regard to the noble and learned Lord's speech—the merits of which I otherwise recognise—I want to call attention to the fact that he said the question of the perfect equality of the sexes was to be decided then and there. I think it must depend very much upon the particular thing we are discussing, and upon whether or not there ought to be a different education and a different preparation for that which is to come. In these circumstances I think the solicitors and the attorneys have been treated in this matter in a manner in which no trade union in the country would be treated; and for that reason I wish to abstain from taking a decisive opinion upon the subject until the proper time conies for this question to be determined, and after proper inquiry. At present I do not think that the subject has been properly considered.
I think I ought to mention another set of statistics that I have here, because it is only justice to the profession of which I have spoken that they should be commemorated for the way they have done their duty in this war, which, as I say, has given them no opportunity, and will by reason of their sacrifice to their country give them no opportunity, of opposing this matter. I find that 224 solicitors and 44 articled clerks have been mentioned in Despatches; 117 solicitors and 90 articled clerks have won the Military Cross; and 45 solicitors have received the Distinguished Service Order. In these circumstances this question is merely incidental. I think that to have a matter so important to solicitors, and to those who hope to be solicitors and attorneys in time, considered now is not right; it should be considered at another time and in other circumstances, when those who represent this profession will have an opportunity of being heard and of urging their claims upon the Legislature. It is for this reason that I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved—
Leave out "now" and insert at the end of the Motion, "this day six months."—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I need not assure the House that I have listened with close attention to every word
464
that has fallen from the noble and learned Earl; and I may add that I listened with some anxiety, because I thought it might be that his unrivalled experience might place before your Lordships some facts, some circumstances, and some arguments which, on the previous occasions when this Bill has been considered in this House, had been overlooked. I cannot find that any of the arguments which the noble learned Earl has laid before your Lordships is an argument which was passed by in any of the previous debates. Let me, if I may, quite briefly recapitulate what they were. There were two main arguments directed to the unfitness of women for the profession itself. The noble and learned Earl, in his kind and generous references to former observations of my own, admitted that those arguments were of a class that he thought time might possibly remove. But if one regards them at the present moment, what are they? The first is a fear lest the educational restrictions which are now placed upon the entrance to this profession might be relaxed. What possible reason is there for thinking anything of the kind? The regulations that control admission of solicitors are in the hands of bodies on which women have not, and I should imagine for the best part of a generation or two never will have, any representation at all; and anybody who knows anything about those examinations will admit that they in themselves afford a very effective and complete barrier against anything like an inundation of the profession by the admission of women. The period of qualification, as I have pointed out to your Lordships more than once, is normally a period of five years, during which time three examinations have to be passed. All of those examinations are in subjects which, I thoroughly agree with the noble and learned Earl, do not form part of an ordinary woman's training. But all this means is that you make it the more difficult for them to enter. It means that there is, in fact, no danger whatever of flooding the profession if this Bill be passed.
The next argument was one which, if the noble and learned Earl will forgive roe for saving it, appeared to me to be rather a personal one. He seemed to think that there was some personal incapacity in a woman which prevented her from writing conciliatory letters at the commencement of a law suit. It is really impossible to answer that. Women have not had an

465
opportunity of trying, and I do not see why their letters should be less conciliatory than those of a man; women are certainly conciliatory enough if they think that conciliation will gain the purpose they have in view. The final argument undoubtedly is—if I apprehended the noble and learned Earl's speech aright—the one which has the most profound weight with him at the present moment. He thinks that this is an inopportune moment for the discussion of this Bill; and the noble Earl thinks so because of the number of solicitors who have, most valiantly and patriotically, given their services to the national cause. Pride in one's profession is, I think, the possession of every one who has practised the profession of the law. It is a pride that is not always shared outside the profession itself. But the pride that we feel at this moment in the magnificent response that was at once given by both branches of the profession to the call of duty at the outbreak of the war, is one which we share with the nation; and certainly no word of mine could be—and I am sure the noble and learned Earl did not think that it had been—used in any way to depreciate the splendour and the glory of that effort.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: But does it follow that this is an inopportune moment for the introduction of the Bill? As I pointed out to your Lordships on previous occasions, the demand that has been made upon our reserve of man-power in this country has already caused women to be taken into solicitors' offices, where they are, in fact, doing legal work; and they are doing legal work not necessarily in the place of men who are qualifying for the law, but in the place of a large and more humble body of men—in the place of the solicitor's clerk, who is not, and never will be, qualified; and if the noble and learned Earl were right in saying that the absence of these men on military duty to-day was a reason why this Bill should be rejected, I cannot help thinking that logically he ought to move that no woman should at this moment be admitted to perform the legal duties that were formerly performed by the unarticled clerks who have no hope whatever of becoming solicitors. The fact that such a thing is impossible is, I might submit to your Lordships, a reason why
466
the real foundation of the argument of the noble and learned Earl fails. To say that this Bill is going to deprive of their work men who are now at the Front is, with all respect, something that the barest examination will prove to be a mistake.
The five years that have to elapse, the extremely limited number of women who at the earlier stages of this opportunity will be able to avail themselves of the chance, the small class of work that they will begin to do—all these are things which I trust will satisfy your Lordships that the interference with the men who are away from London, and away from England, at the present moment, is of the slightest and most negligible character. But is it right to state that these men who are away have no chance of having their case represented? There is left in this country the whole body of formidable law societies, the very people who would represent on their behalf their case. If I had presented this case to your Lordships as one in which I asked you to assume that this is a measure which every one out there would welcome and accept, I think there might be some good reason for saying, Let us wait until they return and then see. But I have, throughout, placed this matter before your Lordships upon the assumption—an assumption which I do not believe to be justified but which I think it fair to make—that the people who are away will oppose it, and I have asked you to deal with it upon that hypothesis. It is that which leads one at once to examine the merits of the matter, and I submit that when the merits are examined there is no longer any reason why a woman should be able at this hour to do the work of a solicitor for somebody else but be prevented from doing it for herself. This Bill will enable her to do it for herself, and I trust your Lordships will not now, when the Bill passed through all its stages in this House on its first advent, and on its second advent was given a Second Reading without opposition—I trust your Lordships will not now reject it because of the arguments of the noble Earl, the force of which I recognise, as I do the unrivalled experience which lies behind them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): I had not intended, my Lords, to speak on this occasion. I should not have done so but for the Motion made by my noble and learned friend Lord

467
Halsbury, and I shall say only two sentences. On the last occasion when this Bill was before the House I stated my views, and I have seen no reason to alter them, and I shall not repeat them. On the other point made by my noble and learned friend I must express my agreement, and that is as to the inopportuneness of the Bill. The grounds for thinking so have been so
Resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly.
Clause 1:
Women not disqualified from acting as solicitors.
1. A woman shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage for being admitted as a solicitor or for acting or practising as a solicitor under the Solicitors Act, 1843, and the Acts amending the same, and the other enactments for the time being in force relating to solicitors.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved after "A woman shall not," to insert "after the expiration of twelve months from the termination of the present war." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not move this Amendment with the smallest intention of defeating, delaying, or obstructing this Bill by dilatory tactics. The best proof I can give of that is the fact that I have just voted on the substantial question for the Third Reading of the Bill. But I move this Amendment in the interests of those to whose relation to this subject
468
clearly stated by my noble and learned friend that I shall not weaken them by repeating them.
On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 19.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Devonport, V.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

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

Haldane, V.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Peel, V.

Parker of Waddington, L.

Parmoor, L.

Crewe, M.

Balfour, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Lansdowne, M.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Pontypridd, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Carnock, L.

Queenborough, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Cawley, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Grey, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Ribblesdale, L.

Loreburn, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Rowallan, L.

Russell, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Shaw, L.

Selborne, E. [Teller.]

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Strachie, L.

Verulam, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Farrer, L.

Suffield, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Harris, L.

Sumner, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Leigh, L.

Sydenham, L.

Bryce, V.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Wrenbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Falkland, V.

Lamington, L.

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

Mersey, V. [Teller.]

Roundway, L.

Portman, V.

Saltoun, L.

Stanmore, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Armaghdale, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Lindsay, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Forester, L.

Sudeley, L.

Allendale, V.

Hylton, L.

Templemore, L.

such eloquent reference was made by the noble and learned Earl who moved the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. I say that though this is a proper Bill to be passed, it is not a proper Bill to be rushed; least of all, to be rushed in the circumstances in which the nation, and therefore also the profession principally concerned, at present stand owing to the state of war.
The noble and learned Earl drew your Lordships' attention to the claims of the class of young solicitors who have taken service in this war. He reminded your Lordships of the services they have given, of the losses they have incurred, of the distinctions they have gained, and of the sacrifices they have made, of which the country has had the benefit. I may remind your Lordships that there is no doubt that they have supplied, even among the splendid personnel of the officers of our regiments fighting at the Front, some of the very best material that we have sent to the war. As your Lordships all know,

469
they have, added to their University training and all that that means both physically and mentally, all the qualifications which come from a specially severe and exacting professional training which has followed upon their University training. That being what they are, my Lords, let us consider what they have done, or rather what has happened to them or what is likely to happen to them in consequence of their having taken up service for their country. It is clear that in many cases they must have abandoned promising prospects of establishing high reputations; they have interrupted the formation of growing business connections, and they have forborne for what is now a long period unfortunately, and may be a still longer one, the acquisition of that experience which is so extremely necessary as a condition of successful practice. I submit that these are matters which we should remember if we are considering what this absent class deserves of this House and of Parliament.
What will be the effect of the Bill if it passes without my Amendment? These young men who went out to fight for us will come back to find not only lost businesses to be picked up again, but also they will find their professional market profoundly changed against them by this sudden and incalculable increase in the supply of the services and qualities which it is their business to offer to the public. Having supported this Bill, I do not for a moment say that women are not qualified to be solicitors—far from it—and, of course, no one will be obliged to employ them if they are, so that the question of fitness will settle itself by the ordinary rule of supply and demand. It may well be that a woman in legal matters might prefer in certain cases to have the more intimate consultation which she would get from a qualified member of her own sex than she could get otherwise. I submit in moving this Amendment that the least we can do when changing, as we shall be changing in their absence, the position of male solicitors who have gone to the war, is to give some interval of time in which on their return they can look round to regain the business connections which had been suddenly abandoned and which they seek to resume after a lapse of time which can be counted not merely in months, but, unhappily, in years. These business connections are surely not to be restored without long days of hard work and some opportunity for turning round, such as my
470
Amendment will give. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after ("not") insert ("after the expiration of twelve months from the termination of the present war").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Amendment seems to be possessed with the idea that the effect of this Bill will be at once to open a vast reservoir which will flood the solicitors' market and deprive these young men who are away of the advantages of their training. I cannot but think that if he had studied a little more closely the conditions which regulate the admission of solicitors, he would have realised that except in wholly exceptional, and, we must all trust, impossible circumstances his Amendment will effect nothing of the kind that he desires. I pass by the argument, with which I have already dealt, as to the number of people who will enter under this Bill. At the beginning they must obviously be extremely few. What the ultimate prospect may be is another matter, but in the early stages it is quite plain that they cannot enter in anything like the numbers that the noble Lord anticipates. He overlooks in the first place that no persons can become admitted as solicitors unless they have been articled. Some existing solicitor must grant them their articles, for which a considerable sum of money must be paid. They then have to pass the examinations to which I referred, and, except in rare cases, where there is some special exemption given—it applies only rarely in the case of men and would apply still more rarely in the case of women—they must train for five years. It must be five years before they can be admitted as solicitors. There fore, unless this war is going to last another four years, the Amendment effects nothing at all, and, indeed, would suggest that the period of qualification may be shortened from five years to three years if the war ended at a earlier day. I submit that this Amendment effects nothing; if introduced, it would make the Bill confused, and would certainly suggest that women might be admitted at an earlier date than would be possible under the Bill as it now stands.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

INCREASE OF RENT, &c. (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I want to say a few words on the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. I am a little disappointed that the Lord Chancellor has not put down an Amendment making the Bill, at all events to some extent, retrospective. The noble and learned Lord will remember I pointed out, when the Bill was read a second time, that if it was not made retrospective a great many injustices that have been done by a colourable reading of the present law will hold good. As the law stood, or as it stands, the landlord may take back one of the small houses for purposes of his own. The law has been made use of in this way—namely, that the landlord has, nominally, resumed possession and given in seine cases an option to the tenant to pay a largely increased rent. The tenant has not been able to pay the increased rent. and it has often happened that a colourable sale has taken place. The result has been to turn out these unfortunate people from their houses, and the houses have been sold to other persons. It seems to me that this is a serious act of injustice. In dealing with agricultural land the law provides that the landlord is not to increase the rent, and therefore he cannot increase it. In the case of these small houses the effect of the law as it stands, and as it has been administered, has been that the landlord, first of all, can either increase the rent or he has the power of selling the house over the tenant's head, although the tenant is quite prepared to continue paying the existing rent. On the former occasion the Lord Chancellor admitted that this was a hardship and said he would consider whether it could be met. I was hoping to have seen an Amendment in his name when this Bill was taken in Committee, but there is no Amendment down. If the Bill is to pass in the form in which it now is a number of cases of very great hardship will exist, many of them concerning widows and wives of men out at the war who really are not able to meet the greatly increased rents. Parliament has professed that it is preventing landlords from increasing rents. In
472
this particular case Parliament has done nothing of the kind, and I think some Amendment is required to make this Bill retrospective.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I, of course, have had very much in my mind the observations made by the noble Earl at the previous stage as to the advisability of making this Bill retrospective. The matter has formed the subject of very careful consideration, not only by myself, but in consultation with the various Departments—and there are a good many of them—who are concerned. What is felt is this, that we are hardly in possession at the present moment of sufficient materials for taking the step of making the Bill relate back to an antecedent time, but materials are coming in, and I should hope, before the Bill arrives at the Committee stage in another place, that sufficient materials will be available for the decision of the question, and for deciding what the extent of the retrospective effect of the Bill should be. I most thoroughly realise the class of cases to which my noble friend has referred. At the same time I think that your Lordships will he disposed to agree with me that as a general rule retrospective legislation is to be avoided, and that you should proceed with it only if there is a very clear case to show that justice requires it in that particular instance. The whole matter is being most fully considered, and if it is decided that the materials available justify an Amendment of the kind indicated, no time will be lost in deciding the point. If there is to be such an Amendment, it will be moved in another place. In these circumstances I hope that my noble friend will realise that I have not been in any way forgetful of what he said, and that I am most fully conscious of the importance of the question.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I realise, as I think any lawyer must, the objections to retrospective legislation, and the extreme difficulty that is involved in not doing injustice by legislation of that character. But I think that the man in the street now feels rather strongly about what may be regarded as cases of the profiteering character during the war—cases of taking advantage of people's necessities. If I might make a suggestion to the noble and learned Lord, it would be this. Would it not be possible in another place to put in the Bill a subsection giving powers to some

473
tribunal to annul these colourable sales where they were distinctly proved to have been colourable, and to have really evaded the intention of the Act of Parliament? I am certain that no one in this House desires that any member of the public, merely for grasping reasons, should have been enabled colourably to evade a Statute, and some method might be devised—I agree that it would be extremely difficult—by which a tribunal could at any rate decide in a clear case that it had not been anything but a colourable evasion of the Statute, and could therefore say that the transaction must be set aside. It might be possible to introduce words of that character into the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL, of KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Restriction of meaning of landlord in 5 & 6. Geo. 5, c. 97, s. 1 (3).
1. Subsection (3) of section one of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, shall have effect as if at the end 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.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I desire to raise a small point on Clause 1 to which I want the kind attention of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. This Bill was presented to your Lordships' House on the 14th inst. and was read a second time on that day, but it is dated back to operate from the 12th. That, I am informed from Glasgow, will cause a good deal of hardship to perfectly innocent people in that city. I have in my possession a letter from a firm of solicitors of high standing who know of a case in which a sale—a perfectly honest sale—took place on the 13th. The date fixed in the Bill is the 12th, and if that date stands the person who bought the house upon the 13th will have his purchase annulled. That person has already given up his own house which he cannot get back again, and if the sale of this other house to him is annulled he will be houseless. It seems to me that
474
it is not fair to make this Bill date back previous to the time when the public, by the ordinary channels of information, could have been made aware of the fact that the Bill was contemplated. My suggestion to the noble and learned Lord is that the word "twelfth" in line 10 should be made "fifteenth." Even that is giving a good deal, but any one following current events in the newspapers would know upon March 15 that this Bill would interfere with the bargain. Future purchasers would also, of course, be aware of the position; and if there is anything of the illicit purchasing—what I call "illicit" purchasing is purchasing for the purpose of private interest—mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, by Lord Camperdown, or by Lord Russell, I quite agree that it should be stopped. I do not, however, think that it would be fair to penalise perfectly innocent people who will be caught in the way I describe, and—purchasing a house on the 13th, having previously given up their own house—will be left homeless if this Bill passes as it is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I may remind my noble friend that this Bill was introduced upon the 12th, and that is the reason why this date is inserted. The introduction of the Bill is, of course, notice to every one, and there is nothing retrospective in saying that from the time the Bill is introduced it will have effect, for its introduction is notice of that fact. Although I do not think that the Bill as it stands can be said to be retrospective, the observations of my noble friend illustrate the great care that must be taken before you propose legislation of a retrospective character. The noble Lord mentioned a particular transaction in Glasgow which would be affected so as to occasion some hardship. Any representations that my noble friend may make to me as to the possibility of many cases of this kind will be most carefully considered by me and communicated to those who will have charge of the Bill in another place. I do not think that my noble friend has moved any Amendment, and I hope that he will be satisfied with having called attention to the point. I will see that it is not overlooked when the Bill is being dealt with in another place.
LORD BALFOUR or BURLEIGH: I did not actually move an Amendment, although it would have been quite fair

475
to do so as we are in Committee and one can move without notice a single Amendment of the kind I have indicated. I quite agree that it would be fairer to wait till subsequent stages, and it is open to me upon the Third Reading of the Bill to move it at that time by giving notice if I think fit. The noble and learned Lord, however, has rather missed the point of what I said. The point was this, that I thought it unfair to date the Bill from a time when it could not be generally known that it had been introduced into this House. It was not generally known until it was advertised by a debate which took place on the Second Reading. I will go no further to-day, but I will communicate with the noble and learned Lord if he will allow me, and upon Third Reading, if necessary, I can move that the word "twelfth" be eliminated and "fifteenth" substituted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will just say one word, if I may, in explanation. On the 13th the fact that the Bill had been introduced would be known through the ordinary channels of communication.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am sure that Lord Balfour has satisfied himself that this sale was an honest and bona fide one, but as a matter of fact it took place in Glasgow, and it is in that neighbourhood, I believe, where a good number of what I might call bogus sales have occurred, and I have reason to think that a good many of them have been made by munition workers who wish to get the houses of other people. After what the noble and learned Lord has said, I am sure we may rely upon it that this matter will be thoroughly and fairly considered. With that I am content.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

A LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to move to resolve—
That this House approves the principle of a League of Nations and the constitution of a Tribunal, whose orders shall be enforceable by an adequate sanction.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should like to emphasise at the outset that my Resolution deals with the principle of a League of Nations, and does not purport to deal with matters of detail. There were two reasons why I put my Resolution in the form in which it stands—first, because I think logically we have to consider the question of principle before it is worth while to consider matters of detail; and, secondly, if the two had to be considered together, I am afraid I should have to encroach for quite an unwarrantable time on your Lordships' patience.
The question in my Resolution, has, I think, been discussed, and discussed several times, in almost every country, both by statesmen and by these who are specially interested in the science or practice of International Law. I am sure I may say this without contradiction, that the result of that discussion has shown that there is a vast margin of instructed opinion in favour of the principle contained in my Resolution. As far as I can gauge opinion, it comes to this—that we have suffered and are suffering from what I may call international anarchy, and that the time has come when we should put a more settled order in place of the existing international anarchy, founded on the restraint which comes from the recognition of mutual obligation as between one country and another. The principle, as I should put it, is that ordinary restraint means freedom as between nations when properly adjusted, as it is recognised to be the only basis of true freedom as between individuals in any particular country.
We know, too, that there is much talk of reconstruction after the war, but I put it to your Lordships that the first measure of reconstruction which will be necessary after the war will be international reconstruction. I will go further, and say that unless you have some process of international reconstruction, bringing with it a degree of stability and permanency in the peace conditions, there is not much hope of the principles of national reconstruction

477
of an industrial and social kind being carried into successful effect. In other words, we want an era of peace after the war if the various nations are to recover from the difficulties and losses of the long period of warfare through which they have gone.
I think the shortest way is to quote a statement of principle from the League to Enforce Peace, which was founded in America. I quote it for this reason. Ex-President Taft is the president of that Association, and it has been supported in the fullest way and in the fullest terms by President Wilson, whom I regard as the protagonist in favour of the principle to which I am asking your Lordships' assent. This was said at a meeting—
"Right-thinking men of every land resolved within a week of the tragedy of the present war that it should never be repeated if they could help it."
Then the statement goes on to say that "It was inevitable"—I ask your Lordships' special attention to these words—
"It was inevitable that some sort of creative action should follow … that would provide something which would take the place of slaughter in settling some, if not all, future international disputes."
The creative action there referred to was the creation in America of a League of Nations, under the name of a League to Enforce Peace.
Of the many statesmen who have spoken in favour of this principle, none has spoken more constantly or more fervently than President Wilson. The principle of the Resolution is, in truth, a restatement in a different form and different words of the original objects for which we undertook the burden and duty of this great war. I think I may say that we, as a people, desired whole-heartedly and with practical unanimity to put an end to an arrogant militarism, and at the same time to enforce a recognition of an adequate standard of international right and justice. I think that is stating quite fairly what had the whole-hearted and practically unanimous approval of us all at the commencement of the war. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, I did and do give it my most hearty assent and approval. If that is the desire, fairly stated, I ask your Lordships this question, Is there any other way in which it is probable that these results can be obtained except under the
478
principle of a League of Nations? I must express my belief that there is no other way in which these aspirations can be realised. So that, in my opinion, the principle that I am advocating may, at any rate from one point of view, be regarded as a restatement of the principles which practically permeated all of us when the war broke out. The alternative—the only alternative that I can see—is to go back to the doctrine of force as the only element in international relationship—force, which enshrines, of course, the doctrine of the Balance of Power, a policy not founded on any principle but on the desire to see how much you can get, which I consider a backsliding in principle as regards matters of international relationship and international intercourse.
Perhaps I may real a small extract from a German paper, Vorwarts; because I think it is of advantage to read foreign papers, particularly when so much of our thought is given to foreign relationships, and because I believe it puts rather cynically what I have suggested. Vorwarts says this—
"Each country sees nothing but light on its own side, nothing but shadow on the other; but amidst the general talk of lasting peace and reconciliation between the peoples there is the question in the background—What shall we get out of it?"
My desire, as a result of this war, is not that the nations should consider "What shall we get out of it?", but that they should bring forward a principle which I believe contains the foundation of a permanent peace based on right and justice in international relationships—that is to say, the principle which is contained in the idea of a League of Nations.
Let me now try to define in a sentence what is involved in the principle of a League of Nations. I would define it in this way. The principle of a League of Nations involves the acceptance of a common public law imposing upon nations the obligation of mutual restraint in international relationships. Or, in other words, to bring about a system of mutual legal obligation between nations as now exists in different countries as between individuals. The result would be, in my view, to secure as far as practicable the maintenance of a stable international order and to solve without resort to war—which is at the present time the only resort known—matters of international dispute. Matters

479
of international dispute, of course, are certain to arise, just as matters of dispute arise between individuals in any given country; but as a system of common law has solved what otherwise would be violence and force between individuals, so it is the hope of those who are advocating the principle of a League of Nations that a similar system, without resort to force or violence, might deal with at any rate a large number of disputes which now cause friction and trouble in international intercourse. It is the old contrast which is common enough in the history of the world. There is the claim on one side of an ordered liberty based on the recognition of a mutual obligation of restraint. That is what the League of Nations desires to bring about. Whereas, on the other hand, there is the unrestrained influence of violence and force which always comes to the front unless you have some tribunal which can decide between the claims and disputes of rival nations or of rival individuals.
In bringing forward my principle I do not believe for a moment what is sometimes stated—namely, that this is the last war we shall have in the world. I think a view of that kind is purely Utopian. If I thought that, it would not be of so great importance whether the principle which I am advocating was adopted or not. I need hardly tell your Lordships that there is nothing novel in the principle of a League of Nations. It was rejected in the time of Grotius, who was at once the earliest and the greatest of our international lawyers, and who insisted—and that is part of the form of my Resolution to-day—that no League of Nations could be effective unless it were enforceable by an adequate sanction. But I will give one quotation from a later thinker of great eminence, Kant. I give it, again, in order to avoid any necessity for repetiton. Speaking of States in their relations to one another, Kant said—
"There can be, according to reason, no other way of advancing from the lawless conditions which war implies than by States yielding up their savage lawless freedom, just as individuals have done, and yielding to the coercion of a public law."
There is no reason why that principle should not be made effective; and I hope to point out later that there are great reasons why a principle of this kind should be brought to the front under the present conditions.
Kant goes on to say that he "regarded the want of a common public law amongst
480
nations as barbarism, the negation of civilisation, and the brutal degradation of humanity." I do not think that those words are too strong; and if they were not too strong in the time of Kant, certainly the conditions of the present warfare have emphasised every particular to which Kant called attention. Let me give two illustrations of what I mean. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in his historic speech, called attention to what he properly termed "the prostitution of science." Now, what does "the prostitution of science" mean? It means the application of scientific research to invent engines of human mutilation or destruction. I do not think that "the prostitution of science" is too strong an expression to use of a tendency of that kind. Take the case of poisonous gases. One of the most terrible and monstrous horrors in this war has been the introduction of poisonous gases. Those who have seen soldiers suffering from the effects of poisonous gases will have no difficulty in corroborating what I say. But, after all, we are only at the outset of inventions of that kind; and there is no reason why science might not develop these poisonous gases to an infinite extent, and to the common degradation and loss of all humanity. The more one thinks of the present outlook surely the more certainly one feels that, unless some new system of international relationship is brought about, there will be no limit to the destructive or mutilating power of the inventions of modern science.
I will take one other illustration. In old days armies were at war and not nations. Now warfare means the clashing of armed nations, with the result that one of the most humane principles established under the ancient principle of what I must call International Law—because many of these principles unfortunately are now disregarded by a somewhat brutal enemy—has been obliterated. One of the most important of these principles was the distinction, in the cause of humanity, between a combatant and a non-combatant. That distinction has practically been obliterated. Take the case of aeroplanes. It does not seem to matter whether you bomb fortresses or open towns, whether you bomb open cities or fortified camps; and I do not think it can reasonably be doubted that if in the time of Kant humanity demanded some interference with the violence and force of war, modern science and conditions

481
have more than emphasised the objections which he so forcibly stated.
Now the difficulty which stands in the way of accepting the principle which I ask your Lordships to affirm must be fairly stated. I am not now dealing with difficulties of detail, because that is no part of my Resolution at the present time, but there is a difficulty in principle which I think ought to be met and which I desire to anticipate in case it should be raised as against the principle of my Resolution. It is this. That you cannot have any League of Nations without some interference with the sovereign rights of individual parties. Unless a League of Nations did, in some respects at any rate, restrain the rights of individual sovereignty it would be ineffective, and I do not deny that there is a strong school of thought which would object, and strongly object, to any interference with the rights of individual sovereignty which particular nations enjoy. That doctrine has been carried further in Germany than in any other country. In fact, it has been carried to the extent of a State worship. It has been carried to the extent of saying that as regards international relationship no morality, and no Christian morality, ought to prevail at all, and that the reign of force should be supreme. The result of a principle of that kind is to justify any brutality which you may desire, provided only it is to the advantage of the particular State.
Having stated, I think fairly, the principle that may be raised against the principle of an International League, my answer to that is that the statement of that principle is one of the strongest arguments in favour of some form of international restraint under a League of Nations. If you assume for a moment, as I am willing to assume, that nations approach one another on the basis that they ought not to be influenced in international relationship by moral conditions of any kind, but only by conditions of force, it appears to me you make in the strongest way a case for some restraint and coercion to which they shall be bound to submit in the cause of order and humanity. This extreme form of State sovereignty is a matter historically of somewhat modern growth, but it has been developed to an extreme form in the case of Germany—an example which certainly I hope none of your Lordships will desire to follow as regards the brutality of
482
their action in certain operations of this war. At the same time, however, that the principle of sovereignty has been exaggerated there have been introduced methods of palliating the consequent disadvantages.
Let us take the nineteenth century as an example. There were 471 international disputes in the nineteenth century favourably submitted to decision by arbitration. I am not one of those who think that arbitration is the best form of tribunal, but whether it is so or not it is certainly a remarkable fact that at the same time as the doctrine of national sovereignty was growing there grew side by side a tendency to bring disputes to arbitration. I recollect reading of the submission of the "Alabama" claims as between this country and America. There were many people who prophesied at that time that the whole virility of the country would he sapped by submitting a question of that kind to arbitration. The arbitration went through, and was not in favour of the case put forward by this country, but I will ask whether your Lordships would not come to this conclusion, that that arbitration largely conduced to the good feeling between this country and America, which is one of the most potent factors in the history of the progress of civilisation in the world at this moment. I know of no case where arbitration has led to the disasters which have been prophesied. I think in every case you have got rid of what otherwise might have been a most difficult international dispute, to the advantage of both parties and to the friendship of both in the long run.
I may say one word further whilst I am referring to the United States of America. They and we form the two great Anglo-Saxon communities of the world. They and we have carried the principle of the rule of law and the supremacy of law further than any other country. They and we have put our legal systems substantially on the same basis—the old common law principles which prevail in England—and what I hope is this, particularly having regard to the work which is going on at this time both in this country and in the United States, that it may be to the glory of those two countries that by joint effort they may bring to fruition a League of nations on the best principle and on the soundest foundation. I see the President of the

483
League of Nations in this country, Lord Shaw, who I hope will address your Lordships at a subsequent stage, and I am sure he will corroborate me in what I say, that the co-operation of principle and thought in this country and the United States on this subject has enabled the principle to be carried further and in a more effective manner than either country could have done without the assistance of the other.
There are three underlying principles to which I want to call your Lordships' attention. They are not matters of detail, but they are conditions of an effective League of Nations. I do not say that we shall all agree as regards all of them, but we must approach them and consider them. In the first place there is some difference of opinion as to whether or not the Central Powers should be members of the League. I put before your Lordships this consideration. If the object of a League is to be a restraint on the violence and force of nations, it is all-important that those nations should be included from whom you may possibly anticipate violence and force in the future. If you are to have a peace founded on a League of Nations—that is to say, a peace that gives some guarantee for its permanency—it appears to me to be all-essential that the Central Powers should come under an obligation that can be enforced against them if necessary by an adequate sanction. Of course, if they will not come in, I know no way in which force can be used in a matter of that kind, but I do say with all the earnestness that I can that if you desire to find in a League of Nations a guarantee against the outbreak of war in future, you must bring within the restraint of that League those from whom you most fear the repetition of violence and force. Really, that is the answer to what is often said as regards a premature or an immature peace. I understand that a premature or immature peace means a peace that is only likely to last for a short time, a peace where you leave outstanding matters of difference which are likely to cause fresh outbreaks of violence and war. If that is so, the answer is, by the restraint of an adequate sanction, not to leave it to any nation to bring about a condition of war in future, and to place it under the restraint of a mutual obligation which will make its action in that respect practically impossible. I recollect again, if I may refer to it, that in the letter written by Lord Lansdowne great
484
weight was thrown on the League of Nations as a protection against the possibility of a re-outbreak of war, because you would have a system by which you could place adequate restraint upon offending nations.
Secondly, I think it is quite clear that you must have some system of what is called relative disarmament. In other words, any individual nation must not be sufficiently strong to menace the force of the whole co-partnership. In every speech that I have seen and in all the literature that I have read—I think I have read the literature of every country upon this point—it is recognised that there must be some system of relative disarmament in order that a League of Peace may be effected. It may be said that that is not likely to be brought about. My Lords, I believe there never was a more favourable time than the present moment—I will not say the present moment, but in the conditions after the war—to bring about a state of a relative disarmament. For this reason. All countries after the war will need all their financial resources for industrial and social reconstruction. The condition of exhaustion will be such that it will be almost impossible for them to keep up their armaments at the old height at which they were kept before the outbreak of war. I know that there is a view that you might keep up the expenditure on armaments by repudiation of loans or of interest on loans. I regard that as an unthinkable proposition among civilised countries, and, therefore, if nations are to recover from the extreme financial exhaustion which must certainly follow the end of the war, one of the only means of economy, so far as I can see, will be a measure of relative disarmament, and I do not think any statesman in any country has taken any objection to the general application of that statement.
The last of the conditions is this, that all schemes, however carefully drawn, will be utterly ineffective without you have an adequate sanction. You find I use that phrase in the terms of my Resolution—"whose orders shall be enforceable by an adequate sanction." Of all forms of adequate sanction which have been suggested, personally I admit I am in favour of that which has been put forward by the American League. It appears to me to be simple and effective, and I will ask your Lordships' permission to allow me to read quite shortly a passage from the

485
Memorandum of the American League to Enforce Peace, in order to show what the adequate sanction there suggested is. It says—
"The signatory Powers—"
That is, the Powers who are signatories to the League—
"shall jointly employ diplomatic and economic pressure against any of their number that threatens war against a fellow-signatory without having first submitted its dispute for international inquiry … awaited a conclusion, or with at having in good faith offered so to submit it."
That is the first stage that if a fellow-signatory does not submit an international dispute to the accredited tribunal, then the other members of the International League should bring to bear all diplomatic and economic pressure. Then the question arises, suppose pressure of that kind is ineffective? They go on to state what in their view should be the form of coercive sanctio—
"They shall follow this forthwith by the joint use of their military forces against that nation if it actually goes to war or commits acts of hostility against another of the signatories before any question arising shall be dealt with as provided in the foregoing."
I see no reason, my Lords, if you seek to impose a measure of restraint, of mutual obligation, why you should not enforce that obligation in the last resource by an appeal to arms. It appears to me quite certain that an appeal to arms under these conditions would be infinitely less disastrous to the cause of humanity and of right than the outbreak of a European war such as we are undergoing at the present moment. You would have a smaller area, you would have more concentrated warfare, and it is almost certain that if such a war broke out it would he settled in a comparatively short period. At the same time, I should like to say that if you have an international tribunal you will have the gradual growth of precedent and authority. You will not have it in the first instance. You never do have it in the first instance when courts are constituted; but as you have that gradual growth of precedent and authority, so do I believe that the necessity for resort to force would be quite an exceptional and unusual necessity.
I think I have explained what I have called the principle of the Resolution which I am asking your Lordships to accept. I have tried to do it with precision and in as short a space as possible; it is not for
486
me, at this stage, to enter into any matters of detail. Let me give, in conclusion, the final considerations. How far, if there had been a League of Nations in operation, would it have had an influence in preventing the outbreak of the present disastrous war? That is the first question one naturally asks. As regards the condition of Europe at the time of the outbreak of the present war, I will quote one passage of what was stated in eloquent terms by the late Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, when he was speaking at Dublin. He was speaking of the approval of the principle of a League of Nations as a method of dealing with the difficulties which existed in Europe at the time of the outbreak of war, and this is how he described those difficulties—
"Such a state of international relationship, without any solid foundation, ethical or political was bound by its very instability to stimulate naval and military activity, and on one felt secure."
Taking that to be a clear statement of the conditions of Europe at the outbreak of war, what would have been the effect of, or what would have been the assistance to be given by, a League of Nations had it been in operation? I desire to make three statements. The first is that many of the questions which in the aggregate led to the friction from which we had the outbreak of war could have been settled on the principle of mutual obligation in an authoritative manner; or, in other words, they would have been dealt with and settled. I think an eloquent testimony on that point, as to what might have been done, is to be found in the disclosures of the late German Ambassador to London, disclosures which are worthy of all study, for we see the unfortunate conditions under which, when there is a state of international anarchy, you may have a sudden outbreak of war. Secondly, if you had had a League of Nations you would have had a period of delay for consideration before war could have broken out. I do not know whether your Lordships recollect the statements made by the noble Viscount, who was then Sir Edward Grey, and at the head of the Foreign Office. He made every possible effort a statesman could make in order to secure sufficient delay to see if matters could not be settled. But it is too late to attempt to create machinery at the last moment; you want the machinery in operation and ready to hand, and that is exactly what a League of Nations would

487
have provided. And, as regards the third point, suppose there had been a measure of relative disarmament, what would have been the effect of that? It would have been utterly impossible for any country to have taken the aggressive attitude which Germany did if you had had armies of the number only which would have been possible under a measure of relative disarmament. It would have been impossible, if you had had a League of Nations, for the outbreak of war at all; there would have been full opportunity of settling the matters in dispute, and there would have been a delay, which would have allowed statesmen to promote conciliation before the actual mobilisation of the conflicting forces.
On the other hand, what is the probable influence of a League of Nations on the question of a settlement after the war? I think no one has emphasised the close connection between the acceptance of a settlement and the principle of a League of Nations more closely than President Wilson and the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. I do not venture to say in his presence what Lord Lansdowne has already expressed, and every one who has studied this question knows the reiterated views of President Wilson. They have both advocated the principle of a new international order, founded on the broad principles of international right and justice, and guaranteed under international sanction. It may be said that those words are vague. I suppose that is inherent in a statement of principle, but, as I understood it, these principles which these great statesmen have advocated are to be found in recognising the rights of peoples and are not to be found in the secret treaties of Governments. I do not care whether the treaties of Governments may be those made between Germany and Russia, or whether they are secret treaties, which I regretfully understand have been entered into at various periods during the present war. It is the rights of peoples, and not the secret treaties of Governments, that we must follow if we are to have an international order based on international right and international justice.
I confess, personally, that I am equally opposed to what is called a defeatist peace as against the Allies, or a punitive peace as against the Central Powers. I agree with the statement made by Prince Metternich many years ago when he said, "You may have a permanent
488
peace or a punitive peace, but you cannot have both at the same time." I look on the permanent peace as far the more important, and a permanent peace, if it is to be really a permanent peace, must be on a fair consideration of mutual obligation and mutual restraint in the future. If I might express my hope, and the hope of many other people, our hope in the future depends on a new order of international relationship in which a common measure of right and justice is guaranteed to all peoples alike, irrespective of the power or force which they have at their command, and that this common measure of right and justice should be placed under the safeguard of a League of Nations, supported by effective and adequate sanction. That is the principle which I hope your Lordships may accept, and I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves the principle of a League of Nations and the constitution of a Tribunal, whose orders shall be enforceable by an adequate sanction.—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, I promised my noble and learned friend that I would second his Motion, and I do so with great pleasure—with increased pleasure because he has fully dealt with the subject and has left me very little to say. I would like, however, to say one or two things. After this war is over I believe that the best safeguard for humanity in the future lies in two innovations, one of them being quite within the power of the Government of this country and any other country, and that is to place all foreign affairs under direct Parliamentary control. I do not for a moment say that all secret diplomacy can disappear. You would not get communications or confidences from other nations if they knew that they were at once to be published on the housetop. But the system which prevails in the United States of America, by which there is a Committee to deal with foreign affairs who have the means of knowing all the most secret transactions (of course under seal of confidence), who can remonstrate with a Minister, who can warn the Minister, and who can prevent him and his own few confidants from being the sole repositories of most vital information, is necessary if we are to remain in permanent peace hereafter. It seems to me that the experience of this war shows it. Every one agrees—

489
at least I have never met any one who did not agree—that the Foreign Secretary in 1914 was sincerely desirous of peace. He was, I am quite sure. But experience has shown that good intention and desire for peace is not always enough, and in my view, if this nation is to be a self-governing nation in regard to the foreign relations which are so vital to us, it must be that Parliament shall insist as it easily can upon a direct control, and upon the right to know everything in its Committee, the right to check or to warn—not to administer but to warn—and if need be to inform Parliament. That is the first thing that I think has to be done, and I will say no more about it.
The second thing which I hope for is a League of Nations—that is to say, some machinery by which the different nations of the world, to use the language of President Wilson, shall be in a general concert one with another. I do not mean an occasional concert; I mean that they shall have a status towards One another, acknowledged and recognised by them all, by which they should be able to exchange views, and, more than that, by which they should be able to use pressure and stress one upon the other so as to prevent the outrageous exercise of power. I am perfectly well aware—everybody must be who has read anything upon this subject—that there are very great difficulties to which it would be quite idle to shut our eyes. There is the difficulty of getting adequate sanction; there is the difficulty that, whatever machinery you erect, its validity must be dependent upon the faithful observation of treaties. Now the faithful observation of treaties is not a thing to which we have been much accustomed of late. Everybody knows these difficulties. However solemn the treaty may be, you can never be sure that it will be observed.
I notice that the idea of a League of Nations has been accepted almost everywhere. President Wilson insisted upon it, and I think I am right in saving that last December Mr. Asquith, who was Prime Minister when the war broke out, said that that was the one purpose for which we were fighting. Without accepting completely this view, it is quite certain that it is most eagerly desired by every one in this country—by Ministers and the public and by everybody else. A great many people say it is not practicable. I do not
490
know. There are reasons why we should not be despondent in regard to that. In the first place, we cannot—we are too near it at the present moment—realise the frightful amount of suffering that is being caused all over the world to many, many nations, to civilians as well as soldiers, and to neutrals as well as to belligerents. Does anybody doubt that the impression that will be left by the horrible suffering that is being caused by this awful war will be quite beyond any impression that has hitherto been made in human nature so far as we know history? I think that it is very difficult to know what the feelings will be. There are tens of millions of men coming back to their homes in different parts of the world after having undergone the experiences of which all of us have heard from the wounded men and from officers. It will effect a psychological revolution in the nations. These men will communicate their experiences to their friends and relations, their fathers and mothers and wives, and it is quite certain that a frame of mind will be created, not in this country only but in all countries that have suffered, to which there is no parallel in history. That is a look-out which well may encourage us not to be too despondent.
But there is another. People will begin to ask, What is the alternative supposing that the condition of international anarchy that proceeded this war continues after the war is over? Has any one estimated what it means? It means a more mighty armament by land, by sea, under the sea, and in the air. It means the further prostitution of science—two thousand years after the Message of Peace was sent to the world—which ought to be devoted to up lifting and not to destroying the human species, or going as far as the nations concerned can for that purpose. It means constant work of scientific men, of mechanics, of vast industries in the country devoted solely to the purpose of preparing destruction for the future. How there can be any prospect of industrial progress or of success, or of the realisation of those social dreams that we used to harbour in the days before the war, I really do not in the least know, unless, as President Wilson said, some sort of power is obtained. Everybody in this country would gladly see it done. The only doubt is whether it can be done. Our enemies, the German and Austrian Governments, have expressed their anxiety in the same way. I do not

491
invite your Lordships to accept at face value all that they say, but this I think is clear. They are perfectly conscious that they cannot afford to brush aside without notice, and, at all events, without apparent compliance, the language that has been used by President Wilson. Therefore, when I look at that, I feel some comfort. And remember also how in past history so many things that have been thought at the time to be ideal have turned out to be very real, and perhaps even more real than things which were of more substance.
I will not trouble your Lordships further, but my noble friend referred to the letters which my noble friend Lord Lansdowne wrote to the paper, and to the effect which I hope they will have. I need hardly say I entirely agree with what was said. I am persuaded that those documents will be famous in history, and that they will contribute, as I trust and pray that they may contribute, towards the end of this war. But will my noble friend, if he will permit me to call him so, who leads the House allow me to make an appeal to him to leave the League of Nations, the arrangement for these things in the future, out of the question until peace comes. I know there are difficulties. I know some of the difficulties are due to no fault of his. There may be, and probably are others of which I do not know. But I know that this war has lasted far too long already, and I appeal to the noble Earl that he will leave unexplored no avenue, however uninviting it may appear at first sight, that may lead toward the ending of the agony of Europe.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we shall no doubt, before this discussion proceeds much further, have a statement from His Majesty's Government. I look forward to that statement with very sanguine hopes. I will not go as far as to say that I expect my noble friend who leads the House to tell the noble and learned Lord who moved this Resolution that he is only forcing an open door, and that His Majesty's Government agree with him as to the ideal which he desires to pursue. But, even if the noble Earl who leads the House cannot go as far as that, I feel sure that he will say nothing to discourage the noble and learned Lord, and those who think with him, from further exploring the interesting question to which he has addressed himself this evening.
492
I have never concealed my belief that in a prospect which for all of us must be full of sadness and anxiety the most hopeful feature is that to which the noble and learned Lord has pointed this evening. But of course, I realise—and who cannot realise?—the immense difficulty of the enterprise which he seeks to support. It is not possible to deal with those difficulties thoroughly in such a debate as this; but I think, in spite of them, that it is not difficult to arrive at some measure of agreement as to the broad principles which we ought to keep in view.
Let me, in the first place, say what I certainly do not mean when I talk of a League of Nations. I do not mean a coalition of Powers against another coalition. That would only be a perpetuation of the condition of things which we desire to see ended. Nor. again, do I mean merely an increased resort to arbitration. The noble and learned Lord told us in his speech that in the nineteenth century there had been 471 arbitration treaties. That is an achievement of which I think the country may well he proud. Every one of those treaties has been a step in the right direction, but arbitration stops short of what some of us desire to obtain. I venture to think that a League of Nations has two essential features. The first of them is this. I think it must be open to all, and must, if possible, comprise all the important Powers. It may, of course, not be easy to effect such a comprehension, but in my view no League of Nations would really be complete and effectual until it included virtually the whole of the more important Powers. The second essential is, I think, this, that your League must be armed with executive powers—powers sufficient to secure unquestioning obedience to its decisions. There are three forms of pressure which can be applied to a recalcitrant country. There is moral pressure, resort to conciliation; there is economic pressure, which implies the denial of facilities or opportunites which any country may desire to have, but which it may be impossible to accord to it; thirdly, there is the pressure which can be exercised by material coercion. And here, again, I say that in my view no League of Nations will be completely efficacious until it is able to apply pressure in all these three different forms. If the League were able to apply pressure in those different

493
shapes. I think we might say with confidence that, on the most favourable assumption, it would be in a position to guarantee the peace of the civilised world; and, on the least favourable assumption, it would be in a position to secure delay, opportunities for discussion, opportunities for conciliation, which in a great many cases would be effectual to avoid the threatened danger.
I am sanguine enough to believe that the omens are at this moment entirely favourable to the creation of such a League of Nations. There is, I believe, a large measure of agreement in principle in all countries with regard to the desirability of such a League. Our own public men have, I think, nearly all of them, intimated their conviction that, such a League is desirable. Mr. Balfour. I know, has announced it as his ideal an ideal which, he added, would not be complete unless the League was armed with executive powers. Lord Robert Cecil has said that in his opinion it was the only thing worth struggling for. Let me quote in addition what was said a few days ago by the Prime Minister in the remarkable speech which he then addressed to the Free Churches. In describing the aims which he was pursuing, he added—
"… the aim, above all, of making sure that war shall henceforth be treated as a crime punishable by the law of nations. As society is bounded together for the punishment of oppression, of murder, theft, fraud, and all kinds of wrong and injustice inflicted by one individual upon another, so nations shall be banded together for the protection of each other and the world as a whole, against the force, the fraud, and the greed of the mighty."
Those are strong words. I earnestly hope that they may prove to have been inspired by the true spirit of prophecy. French public men, unless I am mistaken, have stated distinctly their approval in principle of the idea of a Society of Nations, with guarantees for peace by general agreement.
But by far the most hopeful of the favourable omens is the way in which the United States are interesting themselves in this proposal. I agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Parmoor) in his opening remarks as to this. I do not think it would have been too much to say that, without the adhesion of the United States, the consummation of this idea would have been altogether beyond reach. I say that, both on account of the great moral weight which the United States
494
bring with them in support of this proposal, and also because the United States are able to bring a material backing, which I do not believe any other Power in the world could bring, in support of a policy of this kind. Considering the great world trade of the United States, I do not think I exaggerate when I say that there is no country which could use the economic weapon of pressure with the same effect that the United States could use it if they so desired. President Wilson has on more than one occasion intimated plainly that in his view it would be a proper thing to refuse admission to the Partnership of Nations to any nation which continued to disturb the peace of the world; and he has indicated clearly that, in such untoward circumstances, it might be impossible to admit Germany to the free economic intercourse which must inevitably spring out of the partnership to a real peace. There you have the two ideas. In the first place, the exclusion from the international pact of a Power which would not fulfil its conditions; and the idea of economic pressure by the denial of commercial intercourse to such a Power.
Something was said—I think by the noble and learned Lord who moved—as to the possibility of obtaining the adhesion of the Central Powers, Germany and Austria, to such a League. I am most-anxious not to put my case too high, but I believe that I am right in saying that both in Germany and in Austria one public man after another has been ready to announce the readiness of his Government, ultimately at any rate, to participate in such an international movement as this. I know, of course, that these announcements have been accompanied by reservations. It has been said that nothing can be done until after the war: that the Powers in question must be satisfied as to the manner in which the League will be composed. That, I have no doubt, is so. But they have at the same time put on record their readiness, at the proper time, to co-operate in setting up such a League.
It has been sometimes objected that there would be no object at all in admitting Germany to membership of such a League because Germany has, upon occasions with which we are familiar, flagrantly violated her treaty engagements. The charge is a perfectly legitimate one. There is the case, with which we are all familiar, of the violation of Belgian territory. There is the more recent case of a

495
disregard of pledges in regard to the portions of Russia which Germany is now occupying. And I can well understand the feeling of those who say that, as Germany has shown herself ready to shake herself free from international obligations in the past, so she will no doubt shake herself free from international obligations in the future. But let me point this out. In this case nobody proposes to rely upon a German pledge or a German signature. The essence of the proposal is that the Powers which are to be admitted to membership of this League will, to some extent, part with their sovereign rights, and enter into a compact which will bind them jointly and severally to conform to whatever code of International Law is laid down by the League itself. I cannot help believing that, if a League of this kind were set up with the power of pronouncing what would in effect be a sentence of international outlawry upon any one country that broke away from its obligations, you would have a material guarantee for the maintenance of peace unlike anything which we have yet been able to imagine.
May I be permitted to express my entire agreement with what Lord Loreburn said—I think it was Lord Loreburn—as to the difference which it might have made in the summer of 1914 if an organisation of this kind had been in existence? I suppose most of us have studied the course of events in Europe during the memorable days which preceded the outbreak of war. I think it is the most pathetic, the most tragic, chapter of history which it is possible to conceive. There were many people at that time who sincerely desired to maintain peace; many people, not only amongst us and those who are now our Allies, but amongst the Central Powers. I have not a doubt of it. On the other hand, I think we now see clearly evidence of a sinister conspiracy to force war at any price. There was a period of distraction; every Chancellory in Europe was strained to the breaking-point; Sovereigns and Ministers were telegraphing or telephoning to one another; there was clamour and confusion, and under cover of that confusion the persons who were working for war pursued their sinister ends, and pursued them, as we all know, successfully. I believe, with my noble and learned friend behind me (Earl Loreburn) that if there had been at that time the kind of international body which some of us desire to set up, you would at all events have had
496
priceless opportunities for delay and discussion which might have given the peacemakers the chance which was actually denied to them at the time. I should certainly desire to see the Central Powers included in the League amongst other reasons for this, because Germany has always been in the past, as Lord Grey well describes her, "the great anarchist of Europe." She has always played for her own hand, always taken short cuts, always sought to evade peaceful discussion; and I say that if you could yoke Germany in the harness of an organisation of this kind I believe you would do more to get rid of Prussian militarism than by any other conceivable means.
I wish to make my meaning clear upon one point. Of course, quite apart from the question of a League of Nations, there must be a settlement of outstanding disputes before this war can be brought to an end, and I am not for a moment suggesting that I would accept the formation or the assent of any Powers or any group of Powers to the policy of an International League as a substitute for a satisfactory territorial settlement. But this I do say, that the settlement is necessary as a preliminary to the setting up of a League, and that the settlement will not be complete and will be shorn of half its value unless you have not only an arrangement of territorial claims but an arrangement with regard to the machinery by which peace will be maintained in the future.
As I said a moment ago, I do not conceal from myself the immense difficulties that lie in the way of the realisation of this dream, if you like to call it a dream. You have to consider, for example, how the International Court is to be composed, and how the different Powers are to be represented on it. You have to consider the question of procedure, and the classification of the questions which might be referred to the Court or Courts. But I say, do not let us be deterred by these difficulties. I will mention 'one difficulty this evening, and it was, I think, mentioned by my noble and learned friend. I think he rather suggested that in his view it was essential that there should not only be a League of Nations but that there should be some understanding as to disarmament. I think he used the expression "relative disarmament." Although I share his views upon that point I am not in entire agreement with him. I believe that this question of disarmament is one of enormous

497
difficulty, and I think it would be a mistake to link the question of disarmament too closely with that of a League of Nations. I will tell my noble and learned friend why I am timid on this question of disarmament. I cannot conceive how it should be found possible, so to speak, to ration the different members of such a League in such matters as the number of men they might keep, the number of guns, of ships, of submarines, and of mines, because all these things hold together, and I think that problem will tend to become more and more difficult as scientific invention proceeds and the machinery of offence and defence becomes more varied and more elaborate.
I came across, the other day, a statement which seemed to me to bear rather upon this question. After the Seven Years' War Kaunitz, the Minister, went to Frederick the Great with a proposal for disarmament. It sounds now rather a fantastic proposal, because the suggestion was that Commissioners should go to the different capitals, attend the annual reviews and count the actual men on parade, and see that there were not too many present. I do not think that kind of census would be quite satisfactory to-day. At any rate Frederick the Great rejected the proposal, and I do not think—I speak subject to correction—that subsequent attempts at international disarmament have carried people very far; but I do think that the acceptance of the policy of an International League would have a very important reaction upon the question of armaments. My impression is that the democracies of the world are sick of the burden of heavy armaments, and that if there were found means of reasonably assuring international peace you would find that disarmament would follow almost automatically. I think one result would certainly occur, and that would be that the Powers would agree to give up some of the more horrible and inhuman methods of warfare to which the combatants have come to resort during the present war—I mean such things as attacks upon unarmed vessels and unarmed towns, and the use of poisonous gases, to which we have been driven by the bad example of our adversaries.
Then one other difficulty. It may well be asked, How are we going to set up a League of Nations? How are we going to begin? Here is an extraordinarily complicated and delicate piece of machinery. It
498
is inconceivable, I am afraid, that it should be set up while a great war is raging; but there are intermediate stages which I think must occur to everyone. There is the possibility of preliminary agreements, of the settlement of some questions, of the acceptance of principles upon which other questions are to be decided. I always read the Prime Minister's speeches with attention, and I notice that he hardly ever makes one without referring to what he describes as "the great Peace Conference" which is to sit at the conclusion of the war. In one of his last speeches he described it as "the Great Peace Conference which is to ripen into the League of Nations." I do not at all object to that suggestion, which seems to me to be one which might very well be followed up.
I will say only one other thing before I sit down. If we are told that this is an unattainable dream, I am inclined to reply with a question. I say, If we are not to look forward to the realisation of this dream to what are we to look forward? Are we to travel again along the old road which we have been travelling of late years, past the same forlorn milestones, travelling the same weary stages? Are we still to have periods of unrest, periods of suspicion and intrigue, periods of sullen hate until at last there comes the crisis and the collision, provoked by people who desire, for interested motives, that the peace of the world should be broken? And are we to have the same kind of internecine struggles as that which is now going on—struggles ruinous to the combatants and calamitous to the whole world, which is impotent to put an end to them? And are these internecine struggles to continue until one adversary or the other has been crushed to the ground, so crushed, that is, that he will submit to any terms, no matter how humiliating, that might be dictated by the victors?
My Lords, this war has taught the world something of the cost—I do not mean the money cost—which these internecine struggles involve, and of their difficulty, and there may be another revelation in store for the world. If we are simply to revert to the old order of things, may the victors in this war not find that when they have beaten their foe to his knees they are still very far from the accomplishment of the object with which they have set out?—I mean the object of saving their children

499
and grandchildren from a recurrence of the catastrophe which has fallen upon us in our time. I should like your Lordships to consider from that point of view whether any crushing of an adversary can be regarded as a final crushing, and I would like, in order to illustrate my meaning, to remind the House of a very well-known episode in the history of Europe. After the battle of Jena, Prussia was crushed by her adversary; she was deserted by her allies; she had accepted at Tilsit the terms imposed upon her by the two Emperors; she had been compelled to surrender territory and to pay a large indemnity; she had been disarmed; and she was treated with every possible contumely during the years that followed. But in 1814 Blucher was marching into Paris. That is a good illustration of the absence of finality in these crushing defeats.
The moral of all this is that success in the field is not a guarantee, cannot be a guarantee, of permanence. It may give you a breathing space, but it cannot give the world a permanent and secured relief from the ills from which we have been suffering. I believe myself that there is only one way in which you can obtain such a permanent relief. It is the way to which my noble and learned friend has pointed in his speech to-night. This is not, as some people would have you believe, the baselesss fabric of a vision. It is not a mere mirage which will fade as you advance towards it. I believe that what some of us think we see in the distance is the outline of a real Promised Land. I earnestly hope that we shall see to it that we get there.
LORD PARKER: My Lords, I sympathise, and I think the House generally sympathises with the object which my noble and learned friend had in view in making this Motion, and I find myself also in much sympathy with what has fallen from Lord Lansdowne, especially in this respect. It seems to me that the only thing we have to look forward to is ultimately something n the nature of a League of Peace, and I hope to show presently that that is the natural development of International law. One thing only I fear, and that is that the movement in favour of the League of Nations runs some risk by reason of the fact that its advocates are in somewhat too great a hurry. They are devoting their attention to the details of the superstructure rather than to the stability of the foundations. Impressed by the fact that
500
municipal law is administered by legal tribunals based ultimately on organised force, they set themselves in the first place to evolve schemes for international tribunals and an international police force. I think they forget that every sound system of municipal law, with its tribunals and its organised police, is a creation of historical growth having its roots in the far past. It is supported in reality not so much by organised force as by that sense of mutual obligation and respect for the rights of others which lies at the root of, and forms the foundation of, those settled rules of conduct among individuals which alone make law and order in the community possible. At the present day, a law may perhaps be defined as "a rule of conduct generally observed, and exceptional deviations from which are punished by tribunals based upon force," but certainly the last part of this definition would have been inapplicable in earlier stages of our history. And I think a little consideration will show that even at the present day, though tribunals based upon force may deal with exceptional deviations from a general rule of conduct, no tribunal and no force is of any avail at all when once the exceptions are so numerous that the rule cannot be said to be generally observed.
I should like to go to the root of this matter. What we are all aiming at is the prevention of war. According to the war philosophy current amongst some writers in Germany, this is quite impossible. War, they say, is the result of tendencies so ingrained in human nature that they may he considered as biological laws; nor in their opinion is war really contrary to the higher interests of humanity. The worthiest and most virile nation will, they say, survive each struggle, and ultimately establish a World Empire in which a permanent peace, for the first time, will become possible, and in which law and order, literature and philosophy, art and science, will have their best chance, and man, the individual man, will attain his highest perfection. I believe this theory to be scientifically unsound, but it will serve no useful purpose to deny that it has some plausibility. The tendencies on which it is based are real tendencies which have been, and are, playing a considerable part in the history of nations. In order to combat such tendencies we must know exactly what they are and how they work, and if I shall not be wearying your Lordships I should like to illustrate that point by

501
one or two references to facts in legal history.
Social life, communal life as it is called, is obviously quite impossible unless each member of the community can count, with more or less certainty, on the action of his fellows under circumstances of every day occurrence. The first step, therefore, in the development of law is the establishment of "customary rules of conduct," a breach of which will disappoint, and give rise to a grievance, on the part of the person who is injured by the breach. One branch of the history of law concerns the growth and development of these customary rules of conduct, and another concerns the growth and development of remedies for their breach. It is with the latter branch that I am now concerned.
There is no doubt that the most primitive remedy for a breach of customary rules of conduct lay in the direction of self help. The injured party, aided perhaps by his family and his friends, exacted forcible reprisals. Those members of the community who were not immediately concerned stood aloof and observed neutrality. Public opinion, it is true, soon gave rise to certain general precepts as to how and to what extent reprisals ought to be taken. The old law of "an eye, for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" gave way to a customary tariff regulating the compensation which might be exacted for loss of life and limb, but behind these precepts there was nothing but public opinion. Individual force as a remedy for wrongs is of uncertain efficacy; it may be that the wrongdoer is stronger than the party injured. This gave rise to the tendency for the weak to attach themselves to the strong, becoming their retainers, surrendering a portion of their own independence for the sake of the protection the strong could afford, and increasing their lords' strength and resources. I remember in one of Stevenson's novels, the scene of which is laid in this country during the Wars of the Roses, the advice given by an old retainer to the youth who had to make his way in the world was summed up in the phrase "See you get good lordship." And we find, in fact, a number of powerful lords, each preserving peace among his own retainers and each maintaining an armed force, nominally for the purpose of defence, but which could, quite as easily, be used for aggression whenever interest or ambition might so dictate. It
502
was not until one of these lords gained supremacy over the others that a universal peace, a universal system of law and order, became possible throughout the realm. Then the peace, theretofore maintained by each powerful lord, merged in the King's peace, and we find traces of this in the fact that in legal processes wrongs are still charged as "contrary to the peace of our lord, the King."
If you turn to international relations I think you will find precisely the same tendencies at work. Such communal life as exists between nations is based, and must be based, upon customary rules of conduct. These customary rules are dignified by the name of International Law, but there is no remedy for their breach otherwise than by war. During a war those nations not immediately concerned remain neutral. There may be general precepts—we know there are—purporting to regulate what is, or what is not, lawful to belligerents; what they can, or what they cannot, do. There is nothing but public opinion behind these precepts, and they may be easily disregarded in the stress of war. War, again, is an uncertain remedy; it inflicts as often as it redresses a wrong. Victory is generally on the side of the big battalions; hence you get international competition in armaments though they may be used for aggression as well as for defence. Hence, too, arises the growing conviction among smaller nations, that the weak nations cannot stand alone. They must get "good lordship"; they must attach themselves to the stronger, must surrender to them a portion of their independence for the sake of the protection which the stronger nation can afford them. Wars result, and on this line of development it is clear that International law, as an instrument of peace, can have no permanency. It may bridge over the intervals during which nations are weary of war or are preparing for the fray, but when war breaks out it will be disregarded, and it will vanish altogether when one nation has attained superiority over the others, established a World Empire, and founded universal peace. Such are some of the considerations which are put forward in support of the German War philosophy, and to some extent they account for the excesses of Prussian militarism. No rule of International Law, no dictates of humanity, must be allowed to stand in the way when the object is to increase the power and enlarge the borders of the

503
German Empire. Those who submit may be spared, but those who arrogantly resist must be destroyed. Belgium is intended as an object lesson. Let the weak nations accept the German lordship; so will Germany at last attain the Empire of her dreams, and establish a permanent peace, a pax Germanica.
If we find in the history of law tendencies such as these which give plausibility to the German war philosophy, I think that we can also find tendencies, or at any rate a tendency, which points to the possibility of the development of international relations along different lines. There have been periods in the history of nations when in the absence of legal tribunals, in the absence of any organised police force, the sense of mutual obligation, which as I have said lies at the root of every legal system, has been so strongly developed that an act of violence done to the person or property of one member of the community has been resented as a wrong to all its members. In such a case neutrality is impossible. It is a disgrace, a crime. The hand of every man is against the wrongdoer. He becomes an outlaw. No one may feed him or succour him, or assist him to escape. Every one must join in his arrest and punishment. The remedy is still force, but force administered not by an individual but by collective action. This strong sense of mutual obligation, leading to a wrong to one being considered as a wrong to all, has played a considerable part in the history of law. To it we owed in this country what is known as the "hue and cry," long regarded as an effective deterrent against crimes of violence. From it arose on the other side of the Atlantic that system of communal justice which, however rough and ready, contributed so largely to the establishment of law and order in the western parts of the American Continent. From it legal tribunals and an organised police will readily develop. Without it no reign of law is possible.
I agree with what was said by the noble Marquess who last addressed the House, that there are abundant signs that international relations are approaching a new stage. I think that new stage is the stage of the "hue and cry" in English municipal law. The last three years have shown us that war is a danger which may well be fatal to our common civilisation. Neutrality has become increasingly difficult. Those nations which at first desired to
504
remain neutral have been one after the other dragged into the fray. The neutrality of others is secured only by fear. If we can once make it clear that in future there will be no neutrality the danger of war will be minimised, because its risk is increased. Many think that Germany would not have embarked on the present struggle had she not counted on British neutrality, but it is almost certain that she would not have done so had she been fully convinced that both this country and the United States and others would have fought against her.
As soon as the risk of war becomes great, nations will begin to settle their differences by other means. Arbitrations may be resorted to, possibly International Councils or International Conciliation Boards may be made use of; but tribunals in the ordinary sense of the word—legal tribunals for the administration of International Law based upon an organised international force—are very different matters, which must be left, in my opinion, to grow out of that sense of mutual obligation which is beginning to exist amongst nations. If we attack that part of the problem at first, I have very serious fears that the whole structure which we are trying to build may fall about our ears. Probably if any dispute now arose between ourselves and any other great nation, say the United States of America, the nations in difference would easily arrive at some means of settling the dispute otherwise than by war, whether by a tribunal ad hoc or in some other way. It is a very different matter to ask great nations in the present day to agree beforehand to submit disputes of whatever nature to the arbitrament of a tribunal consisting of representatives of some two dozen or three dozen States, many of whom may be indirectly interested in casting their votes on this side or on that.
The point I really wish to emphasise is this. Hitherto the efforts of those to whom war is hateful have been directed on the one hand towards laying down rules for the conduct of belligerents in order to make war less dreadful and more humane, and on the other hand to laying down rules for the benefit and advantage of neutrals. What is the result? There is hardly a provision of The Hague Conventions or of the Convention of Geneva touching the way in which war may be properly waged which has not, so far as Germany is concerned, proved a dead letter. There is hardly a rule or precept of International

505
Law concerning neutrality which Germany has not infringed. I venture to say that the labour which we have expended in formulating such documents as many of The Hague Conventions and the unratified Declaration of London has for the most part been labour thrown away. The true line of development lies, not in regulating the hateful thing, but in bringing about conditions under which it becomes increasingly difficult and ultimately impossible, not in consulting the selfish interests of neutrals but in abolishing neutrality. Murders would increase if the murderer could count on the neutrality of bystanders, and it is the same with war. The neutral, in fact, shirks his share of the burden of humanity.
It appears to me that the first steptowards the League of Nations is to recognise that it must be formed on the lines that I have suggested, and then along those lines to come to an agreement, or rather to formulate main points on which we and our present Allies could at the present moment agree. I believe that an agreement constituting a League between our Allies and ourselves at the present moment, showing what we really mean by a League of Peace and how we propose to constitute it, might be a potent influence in itself in bringing a bout a peace with the Central Powers. I believe that the Central Powers look with suspicion whenever we talk of a League of Peace. They think that there is something behind it, and that it is to be a coalition against them. For that reason I agree that the Central Powers should not be permanently excluded from the League of Nations. But while war lasts, until we know its result, until we know whether the principles that we are going to adopt ourselves will be adopted by the Central Powers after the war—how they Will deal with the provinces which they have at present apparently annexed, how they will deal with other problems with which we shall be concerned—it is almost impossible to say that they ought to be allowed to join a League formed with the intention of preventing war. The benefit of such a League would be entirely displaced if it admitted into its ranks nations who were not bona fide committed to its principles.
I do not know whether I have wearied your Lordships, but seeing or thinking that this was the only practical way of dealing with the question, I have devoted sometime to outlining an agreement for the constitution
506
of such a League, leaving out what I considered to be the dangerous points, such as the constitution of international tribunals or an international police force, leaving out the question of disarmament, and confining myself to those points on which an agreement could at present be made between ourselves and our Allies. I do not know whether your Lordships would desire me to outline that agreement to the House. It may serve as the basis of a discussion, or possibly the noble Earl who leads the House may consider that it would be better to leave details for further consideration. But, if your Lordships will allow me, I should like to call attention to the various lines on which I think such an agreement might be made.

(1) First of all, it appears to me that all the members of the League should recognise that war, from whatever cause, is a danger to our common civilisation, and that international disputes ought to be settled on principles of right and justice and not by force of arms.

(2) Each of the members of the League ought, I think, to join in a joint and several guarantee of every other member of the League against any act of war on the part of any nation which is not a member of the League. This follows, of course, the analogy of the municipal law to which I have referred. Everybody who is a member of the community joins in pledging himself against an attack from outside.

(3) For the purposes of these clauses it will be necessary to have a careful definition of what amounts to an act of war, and this definition ought, I think, to include the laying of mines in the open highways of the sea, or damage done to the ships or property of a member of the League upon the High Seas.

(4) It may be necessary also, for the purposes of the earlier clauses, to define the territorial boundaries of the members of the League, leaving any disputed points for the decision of boundary commissioners.

(5) Every member of the League should agree, whenever a dispute arises with any other nation, to take all reasonable steps on the lines of the First Hague Convention or otherwise for the settlement of the matter in dispute by peaceable means and on the principles mentioned in the first clause—those of right and justice.

(6) If the Council of the League, constituted as hereafter provided, determined

507
by special resolution that, having regard to the nature of the matter in dispute, any member of the League has refused, or for a period of, say, twelve calendar months failed, to take such reasonable steps as contemplated in the preceding clause, the member so refusing or failing should forthwith cease to be a member of the League.

(7) In the case of a dispute between a member of the League and a nation which is not a member of the League the Council should have power by special resolution to determine that the former has taken, while the latter has refused or failed to take, reasonable steps for the settlement of the matter in dispute by peaceful means, and that as from the date of such resolution the latter nation should be deemed to have committed an act of war against the former nation.

(8) Any member of the League who is guilty of an act of war against another member of the League should be deemed to have ceased to be a member of the League immediately before the commission of such act.

(9) Every member of the League who is guilty of an act of war against a nation which is not a member of the League, without having obtained such resolution as mentioned in the 7th Clause, should be deemed to have ceased to be a member of the League immediately before the commission of such act.

(10) If an act of war be committed by any nation against a member of the League, the Council of the League should forthwith notify the fact to the other members of the League, and thereupon every member of the League should (a) break off diplomatic relations with the nation guilty of such act; (b) prohibit and take effective steps to prevent all trade and commerce between itself and the guilty party; and (c) place an embargo upon all ships and property of the guilty nation found in its territorial waters or within its territory. The obligation of this clause should be expressed to continue until the guilty nation has compensated the party injured to the satisfaction of the League.

(11) Certain members of the League specified in the schedule, and to consist of the chief Military and Naval Powers, should further agree, if required to do so by the special resolution of the League, to commence war against the guilty nation, and to prosecute such war by land and sea until the guilty nation shall have accepted
508
terms, including compensation for the party injured, which shall be approved by the Council of the League.

(12) If, in the fulfilment of the obligation under either of the two preceding clauses, any member of the League is likely to suffer, or actually suffers, undue hardships, the Council of the League should have power, by special resolution, to suspend such obligation, either wholly or in part, and either permanently or temporarily, or to award compensation, to be contributed by the other members so as to secure equality of sacrifice. In any event, any member of the League should endeavour, by according special trade facilities or otherwise, to mitigate any undue hardship on other members.

(13) If, in the opinion of the Council of the League, any nation not a member of the League is pursuing a policy or course of conduct likely to endanger the maintenance of peace, the members of the League should by united diplomatic action, or, if so recommended by special resolution of the Council, by means of economic pressure, endeavour to secure that such policy or course of conduct be abandoned.

(14) With regard to the Council of the League, each member of the League should nominate one member of the Council. For an ordinary resolution there should be required only a majority of the Councillors present at voting. But for a special resolution there should be required not only a majority of the members present and voting but a majority of the councillors representing those members of the League mentioned in the schedule, upon whom will fall the burden of any warlike proceedings.

(15) The Council of the League should meet at regular intervals, and it should be their duty to consider and report at least once annually on all matters which in their opinion are likely to lead to international disputes and to suggest how such matters should be dealt with.

(16) All international agreements to which any member of the League is a party should be expressly made without prejudice to the obligations of the agreement constituting the League, and should be promptly communicated to the Council of the League.

(17) Each member of the League should agree in its elementary schools and other schools to inculcate as far as may be the desirability of settling international dis-

509
putes on principles of right and justice and not by force of arms; and should explain the nature and the constitution of the League and the circumstances and objects under which, and for which, it has been formed. No member of the League should allow the use in such schools of literature tending to arouse hostility towards, or suspicion of, any other nation.

(18) Every member of the League should accord to every other member most-favoured-nation treatment in the matter of tariffs. This should be, however, without prejudice to preferential tariffs between various parts of the territories of any member of the League.

(19) Each member of the League should agree to afford to the ships of every other member of the League free access to its ports and harbours for the purpose of trade or for obtaining bunker coal and provisions; but this should be without prejudice to the payment of the usual dock and harbour dues, and without prejudice to any regulations as to the coasting trade.

(20)—This, the last, is the most important provision—The Council of the League should have power by special resolution to admit as a member of the League any nation not originally a party thereto, provided that the Council of the League is satisfied in each case that the nation proposed to be admitted bona fide accepts the principles on which the League is founded and bona fide intends that international disputes to which it is a party shall thereafter be settled by peaceful means in accordance with right and justice as distinguished from force of arms.

I think I may claim—at any rate, I venture to claim—that an agreement on those lines would have the following advantages. No member of the League could go to war, while still retaining membership, without the approval of the League. No member of the League could remain neutral in a war approved by the League. Every member of the League will be guaranteed against an act of war from outside by all the force of the League. Every member of the League would have certain economic advantages; most-favoured-nation treatment in the matter of tariffs, shipping, and trading facilities. To every member of the League the freedom of the seas, in any legitimate sense of the word, would be secured. On the other hand, no nation could permanently be excluded from membership, and in course
510
of time we could hope that every nation would join. When that occurred, armament, as the noble Marquess said, would tend to decrease, and nations would find some other way of settling their disputes. Possibly international tribunals might begin to arise. But meanwhile we should have a Council of Nations charged with overlooking the peace of the world, and united with the power of bringing economic pressure to bear on any one who endangered it. International morality, principles of right and justice in international affairs, would be taught in our schools. The sense of mutual obligation which lies at the foundation of all law would be thus strengthened, and upon that foundation we might ultimately arrive at that system of judicial tribunals in international matters—with organised force to see to the execution of the decrees arrived at—such as noble Lords who have already addressed the House so ardently desire.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I believe there is still quite a number of noble Lords of great authority who wish to take part in this debate; and inasmuch as the hour is somewhat advanced, and a Royal Commission has been waiting for some time to come to your Lordships' House, I would venture myself to move the adjournment of the debate, taking advantage of its resumption, although it may be some time from now, to give such a reply as I can on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the various questions and appeals that have been addressed to me this evening.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, debate adjourned sine die.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Moved, That the Viscount Harcourt and the Lord Lambourne be added to the Select Committee.—(The Acting Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bill received the Royal Assent—
Consolidated Fund (No. 1).
House adjourned at eight o'clock.