Sitting of 20 March 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Paper [presented 26th February] to be printed. [No. 34.]
NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT AND BRITISH-OWNED SHIPS (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 5, 1918).
Copy presented of Correspondence with the Netherlands Government regarding the requisitioning by His Majesty's Government of British-owned, or chiefly British-owned, Ships under Neutral Flags [by Command]; to lie upon the table.
ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
Copy presented of Statement of the Amounts due by the Public to Depositors on 31st March, 1916, and of the Receipts, Interest, and Disbursements during the year ended 31st March, 1917, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 35.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    INDIA.

      DECEASED OFFICERS' ESTATES (CHARGES).
      Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has sanctioned the widow of an officer, who has given his life for his country, being charged anything between £50 and £100,
      950
      in name of official expenses, by the Administrator-General for Madras, etc., for the mere completion of her title as executrix, apart altogether from Government duties here and in India, to a small parcel of shares in a Madras rupee company, valued for probate at £400 odd; when, if ever, the scale of official fees and costs exigible in this office were last revised; whether the India Office has any control over the charges made by the leading firms of Service bankers in London for transacting this class of business for officers or their widows or for civilians; whether delay of a year and upwards is not uncommon in the Madras Administrator-General's office; and whether he has power to restrict the official fees in the case of small estates?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): If the hon. Member will kindly let me have the name of the deceased officer to whom he refers the Secretary of State will cause inquiry to be made. The Administrator-General's commission in the case of an estate of the value of £400 would in the ordinary course be 5 per cent., or £20, and might be reduced to £10, while if the estate were that of an officer transferred to the Administrator-General under the provisions of the Regimental Debts Act the maximum commission would be 3 per cent. In addition, there would be some legal charges; but, if the officer were killed in action, there would be no Government duty on the first Rs.5,000.
      The present rules were approved by the Governor of Madras an Council in 1914, and amended in 1917. The India Office has no control over the charges made by-bankers for transacting this kind of business. The period required to settle an estate would depend on the nature of the assets and liabilities. The Secretary of State is not aware that needless delay occurs. The amendment of the Rules in 1917 provided for the reduction of the Administrator-General's commission in simple cases by any part not exceeding one-half.

      ARMY PENSIONS (ROYAL WARRANT).
      Colonel YATEasked whether officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who are compulsorily retained in India after their pensions have become due are permitted to draw their pensions; and, if not, will he say why such permission is refused?
      Mr. FISHER: The provisions of the Royal Warrant of 3rd December, 1917, apply to warrant and non-commissioned officers of the British Army serving in India, and arrangements for putting them into effect will be announced in India shortly, including an extension of the period for electing to take pension on completion of twenty-two years' service. The question of the extension of the provisions of the Royal Warrant to warrant and noncommissioned officers and men of the Indian Unattached List is before the Government of India. In India as elsewhere, commissioned officers retained in the Service cannot draw pension.

      ROYAL INDIAN MARINE TRANSPORTS.
      Commander BELLAIRSasked, in view of the numerous old cruisers we possess and the Far East being out of the war zone, whether there is any reason for the Royal Indian Marine transports "Dufferin," "Hardinge," "Northbrook," and "Dalhousie" being used as inefficient war vessels instead of carrying troops; whether he is aware that fine large British- India boats are doing this transport work in the Indian Ocean when, by reason of their speed, they are most suitable for the war zone; and whether he will take steps to release the Royal Indian Marine trans port vessels for transport duties?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The possibility of releasing the Royal Indian Marine ships referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend from their present service was fully considered in 1917, but it was decided by the Board that this could not be done. I may mention that the "Hardinge" does in fact carry out a good deal of trooping work in addition to her other duties.
      Commander BELLAIRS: Will the new Board reconsider the matter?
      Captain G. A. LLOYD: Can the right hon. Gentleman state to the House the very fine war services which the "Hardinge" and the other steamers referred to have done in the Red Sea?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I will put the point.

    TRAWLER "W. H. RODD."
    Commander BELLAIRSasked on what date the new trawler "W. H. Rodd," M L, of 11½ knots, was brought into naval
    952
    service for the War; if the vessel was frequently employed, and, if so, between what dates, in catching fish in Rye Bay, where fish is scarce, for the Dover Command; and, if so, whether he will be willing to submit the log-books to a reporter for the Committee on Expenditure in order that they may investigate why a vessel taken up to defend ships from disaster and crews from drowning was so employed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A report on the circumstances alleged in my hon. and gallant Friend's question has been called for.

    GERMAN SPIES (BRISTOL CHANNEL PORTS).
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has yet investigated, and with what result, the allegation that there are German spies in all the Bristol Channel ports; whether he is aware that at Liverpool practically no restrictions are imposed on strangers entering the docks; whether the same laxity prevails at all mercantile docks; and whether it is proposed to continue this neglect of precaution, to which the public attribute responsibility for a large proportion of losses by enemy submarines?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: From the information in the possession of the various Intelligence Departments responsible, there is no evidence to show that there are German spies in the Bristol Channel ports. The regulation of access to docks, whether at Liverpool or elsewhere, is in the hands of the competent naval and military authorities and the local police. These measures of restriction on aliens and strangers are, and have been, carried out in every possible way.
    Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it not a fact that officers who have been found unfit to carry out their duties in the Air Service have been transferred to the Intelligence Department?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think so.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I presume there may be officers who are suffering from some physical defect, but the suggestion that they are put into the Intelligence

    953
    Department because they are incapable of doing the work of the Air Service is not well founded.
    Sir F. HALL: If the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiries, he will find that the officers referred to were not transferred on account of any disability, but because they were not able to carry out the duties required of them in the Air Service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will inquire.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Have the Admiralty yet approached the Government with a view to requesting them to remove enemy aliens from these districts, and are they now under police surveillance?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member had better read the answer which I gave on the 11th of March and that given by the Home Secretary on the 7th of March.

    MERCHANT TONNAGE OUTPUT.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has now completed his inquiries into the statement made by Sir John Ellerman regarding tonnage built during the last thirteen months; and whether ships were launched in November and December of last year before they were in a proper condition to be put into the water?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for raising this question. With regard to the first part of the question, I dealt with the statement made j by Sir John Ellerman in my answer to a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Wirral Division on the 14th instant. The whole question of tonnage output will be dealt with by the First Lord in the statement he proposes to make this afternoon.
    With regard to the second part of the question, the figures of output do not deal with launchings at all. They give the tonnage of vessels completed and handed over for service. No question, therefore, of launching vessels during the latter months of the year before they were in proper condition, can arise.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked if the officials responsible for the output of the apparatus for the destruction of submarines, and for merchant tonnage, are still in employment by the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir.
    Sir F. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the percentage in the reduction of output in the shipbuilding yards in the Clyde for December, 1917, and January, 1918, as compared with the estimates that had been made by the Government?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Undoubtedly the actual output on the Clyde for December, 1917, fell seriously below the official forecast; that for January, 1918, more seriously below the official forecast. I have already endeavoured to state the main reason, in the answer I gave my hon. and gallant Friend on the 18th March. I am afraid I am not in a position to give precise percentages.
    Sir F. HALL: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the actual percentages? Have they not been worked out?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I told my hon. and gallant Friend on the 8th that a very serious defect indeed had occurred in the output because of the strikes to which I refer, but it would be very difficult to say precisely in percentages the effect.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what ton meant by output? Does he mean the tonnage launched, tonnage completed, or the number of tons of material worked into ships in course of construction?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should say the second—tonnage completed.
    Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, in view of the serious state of the shipbuilding industry, that it would be to the general interests, of the country if he were able to give the figures showing exactly what losses we had sustained in consequence of these strikes?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have categorically answered the question as closely as I could in the answer I have given to my hon. and gallant Friend. If we were to give arithmetical calculations on definite points, and if inadvertently they were untrustworthy, then we should have controversy on that particular reply.
    Mr. WATT: Can he give the same statistics for the Tyne as for the Clyde?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already stated in my answer that the strikes had a very serious effect on the output.
    Sir F. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, at certain shipbuilding yards, the joiners have been on strike for a considerable period owing to their refusal to do piece-work; if the action of these men is delaying the construction of vessels to be used for bringing men home on leave from the front; if the men on strike are exempted from military service on the ground that they are indispensable; and whether the Government are prepared to take steps to release such men from the shipbuilding yards in order that they may fill up vacancies in the Army?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Since the 21st February 133 joiners have been on strike at one shipbuilding yard, that of Messrs. Denny Bros., Dumbarton, on the ground mentioned. The Minister of Labour and the Navy Controller have interviewed the representatives of the Employers' Federation and of the society concerned, and in the meantime the union has given an undertaking to use its influence with the men to return to work. Some of the men have returned to-day.
    The men are on plain time-work pending a further consideration in the matters under dispute and the action of the society therewith. Undoubtedly the action of the society and the men has caused delay to several vessels which are urgently required, amongst others one vessel of the type used for bringing men home on leave from the front. The joiners in the shipyards between the ages of twenty-three and forty are at present exempted from military service.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that the Government have allowed men to remain on strike for two months without intervening?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I said that 133 men had been on strike for the reasons stated since 21st January, that the Navy Controller and the Ministry of Labour had intervened, that we had had discussions, and that pending a decision the men were going back and some had gone back.
    Mr. PETO: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. SPEAKER: There are nearly 140 questions on the Paper.

    ROSYTH NAVAL BASE (HOUSING).
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any investigation has yet been made into the griev-
    956
    ances with regard to housing accommodation and rent in the Rosyth district; and what decision has been come to with a view to meeting the complaints contained in the memorial of the Rosyth Ratepayers' Association?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Nearly all the points raised in the memorial referred to were fully considered by the Admiralty in March, 1917, and discussed with a deputation of workers. No reason is at present seen for altering the decision then come to, but further investigations are being made.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
    Captain SHEEHANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that no gratuities are payable in respect of the War services of officers of the Royal Naval Reserve or other officers serving temporarily with the naval forces or the Royal Naval Air Service; and whether steps will be taken to place them on the same footing with similar officers serving in the Army, and to give such a decision, if arrived at, retrospective effect?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir; and the question is still under discussion between the Admiralty and the Treasury.
    Captain SHEEHAN: If it is granted, will it be made retrospective?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say whether it will be made retrospective, but the matter is being discussed with the Treasury.
    Captain SHEEHAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if it is granted and it is to be fair and reasonable all round it should be made retrospective?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I hope that we shall not be involved in a discussion of the matter. We are now discussing it with the Treasury.

    SERVICE DECORATIONS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if naval officers who served in France in November, 1914, on the inland waterways of France and Belgium in connection with the conveyance of wounded are eligible for the Mons Star and Ribbon?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No naval units have been traced as having been employed on such service. I am going into the matter, however, and if it should appear that any individual or individuals were engaged, as suggested in the question, the matter of their claim to the Star and Ribbon will be discussed by the War Office.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that naval officers were engaged on armoured trains in Belgium in the first two months of the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, but it is not that matter to which the question refers.

    ROUMANIA (BRITISH LEGATION).
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present location of His Majesty's Legation to Roumania lately located at Jassy?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): As far as is known, His Majesty's Legation is still located at Jassy.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (TURKEY).
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any negotiations are in progress with the object of obtaining for British prisoners of war who have been eighteen months in Turkish hands internment in a neutral country?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): The question of arranging for the internment in a neutral country of British and Turkish prisoners of war was carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, but was not found to be practicable for lack of accommodation in any available neutral country, as well as on account of the difficulty of transporting the large numbers of Turkish prisoners from Egypt, India, and Burma to any suitable neutral territory. As my hon. Friend is aware, an agreement for the repatriation of British and Turkish prisoners on the ground of health has been signed and only awaits ratification by the Turkish Government.

    PASSPORTS (CONSUMPTIVE PATIENTS).
    Sir HENRY COWANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a passport applied for by the late Gordon H. Calder, of Tayport, to enable him to proceed to South Africa was refused in October last, although the applicant produced to the passport office medical certificates showing that he was suffering from tubercular consumption which rendered residence in this country dangerous to his life; whether the passport which, after repeated applications to the passport office, was granted at the beginning of March, reached Mr. Calder only two days before his death; whether the applicant was detained in this country because it was considered, notwithstanding medical evidence to the contrary, that he could undertake work of national importance; and whether inquiries will be made into the causes of the delay, extending over a period of five months, in the issuing of a passport to this medically unfit man?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Mr. Calder's original application was refused, at the instance of the Ministry of National Service. In December last he forwarded medical certificates as to his state of health, on the strength of which the Ministry of National Service withdrew their objection. Mr. Calder, however, wished to take his wife and infant child with him, which, under the Admiralty regulations restricting women and children from travelling overseas, could not be permitted. It was only on 21st February that a letter was received from him stating that he would travel alone, and a passport was then issued, and dispatched to him on the same day.
    Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider other cases of men suffering from tuberculosis who wish to leave this country for one of the Dominions, and whose lives may be prolonged by the change?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not quite see how that arises out of the question, but the present case indicates that those responsible for the issuing of passports to consider the condition of health of those who apply for passports. I do not know whether that supplies the answer to the question that the hon. and gallant Member has just asked.

    TERRITORIAL DECORATION.
    Colonel YATEasked the Under secretary of State for War whether previous service in the Volunteers is permitted to count as qualifying service for the Territorial officers' decoration; and, if so, whether there is any reason why previous service in the Militia should not equally be allowed to count?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Previous service in the Volunteers counts as qualifying service for the Territorial Decoration for the following reason: When the old Volunteer Force was reconstituted under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, the Volunteer officers' decoration Became obsolete, and a similar decoration designated "The Territorial Decoration" was substituted, with the proviso that previous Volunteer service should count towards earning it, thus preserving the continuity between the Volunteer and the Territorial Forces. No such analogy exists between the Territorial Force and the Militia, and there is, therefore, no reason why Militia service should count.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      MAJORS-GENERAL.
      Colonel YATEasked the Under secretary of State for War how many of the majors-general who were removed from their commands at home to make room for tired generals sent back from France for a six months' rest have now been re-employed?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed that there are no such cases.

    ARMY FORM OBSOLETE.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what has become of the Army Forms No. 3529, signed by the men to whom they were sent; and approximately how many of such forms were signed?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The forms are filed with the men's documents. As regards the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, as I informed him in answer to a question on the 11th March, the information is not available. I shall be very glad
    960
    to have the whole matter explained personally to my hon. Friend if he wishes, but as the form is now obsolete, I deprecate further questions on the subject.

    OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS (RATIONS).
    Mr. JOHN HOPEasked the Undersecretary of State for War if the Army Council contemplates making provision that lads over eighteen years of age serving in the senior division Officers' Training Corps shall get a scale of rations equivalent to that issued to young soldiers' battalions?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: All men below the age of nineteen and entitled to draw rations in kind from Army stocks are permitted to draw the higher scale applicable to young soldiers' battalions. This proviso applies also to senior division Officers' Training Corps who are entitled to Army rations in kind.

    WOMEN'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
    Mr. CURRIEasked (1) the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a woman enlisted in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps wears an Army uniform, draws Army pay, and is subjected to Army orders, discipline, and billeting regulations; if so, why one interpretation is placed by the War Office upon the meaning of the Clause in last year's Finance Act establishing a special military rate of income Tax in a question with a male Income Tax payer and another in a question with a woman to the disadvantage of the latter; (2) the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the military rates of Income Tax prescribed in last year's. Finance Act are confined to men serving overseas with either the Navy or the Army; and whether women enlisted in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps liable to be sent abroad at any time, but still serving in this country, are denied the benefit of the military rate?
    Mr. FORSTER: Some members of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps wear a uniform approved by the War Office: they do not draw Army pay. The question of the application to them of the Finance Act is a legal question, and the War Office has recently been advised that under certain conditions the reduced military rates of tax will apply.

    WESTENHANGER CAMP.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under secretary of State for War how many more weeks he expects it will take him to obtain the information asked for with regard to the squandering of public money in connection with the Westenhanger Camp?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. But I may say that, from what I have been able to ascertain up to date, I am not prepared to admit that the charge of squandering public money is justified.

    ARMY PAY CORPS (WET CANTEEN, DOVER).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused in Dover by the want of a wet canteen for the Army Pay Corps, numbering some 500 men, who to a large extent monopolise the supplies of liquid refreshment available at inns like the "Diamond," with the result that sailors from coal boats and mine-sweepers and others of the general public are unable to obtain what they require; and whether he will take steps to establish a wet canteen at Dover for the Army Pay Corps?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The establishment of a wet canteen for any unit is a matter within the discretion of the commanding officer. In this instance the men are billeted in various parts of the town instead of living in barracks or hutments, and it was considered inexpedient to open a wet canteen. The attention of the commanding officer has been called to the fact that beer which should be available for civilian requirements is being consumed by the military, and steps have already been taken for the establishment of a wet canteen.

    ARMY CHAPLAINS.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Undersecretary of State for War if the pay of Army chaplains is lower than that of the equivalent ranks of chaplains in the Navy; whether an Army chaplain of the third-class ranks as a major but receives under the new scale 3s. a day less than a major; whether chaplains, while holding temporary rank higher than their substantive
    962
    rank, do not receive like other officers the pay of that higher rank; and whether this differentiation indicates that the services of chaplains are not considered worthy of adequate remuneration?
    Mr. FORSTER: The pay of Army and Navy chaplains was recently considered by the War Cabinet, with the result shown in the new scale. The pay of chaplains is determined by their Departmental grading, not by their relative rank. Acting promotion of a chaplain to a higher class carries pay with it.
    Mr. McNEILLasked the Under secretary of State for War whether Army chaplains are the only officers omitted from the scheme by which the pay of officers was recently increased; and for what reason they were so omitted?
    Mr. FORSTER: The chaplains received the benefit of the over-riding minimum for officers of all arms, as well as children's allowances.

    LABOUR BATTALION (DENTAL SURGEON).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of a qualified dental surgeon, medically classed B 3, who has been serving as a private in a labour battalion since December, 1917, and as such has been doing general fatigue work, including emptying spittoons, emptying coal trucks, washing floors, carrying furniture, and carrying sacks of potatoes; and, if so, whether the services of a qualified dental surgeon cannot be used to greater advantage in attending to our soldiers' teeth, thereby increasing their efficiency and reducing preventable sickness, suffering, and loss of man-power?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Nothing is known at the War Office of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. Perhaps he would furnish me with definite particulars of the unit and regimental number to enable me to inquire.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: If these definite particulars are furnished to the hon. Gentleman, may the House be assured that no detriment will result to the men concerned?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that I can give that assurance.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Might I ask if the hon. Gentleman has not received the definite particulars which I sent him, giving the name of the man, his regiment and number, and all the details?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Very likely I have, but, as the House will realise, I receive quantities of letters, and I cannot remember.

    BRITISH SOLDIERS' GRAVES, FRANCE (PHOTOGRAPHS).
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether all the graves in France of British soldiers have been photographed; if so, whether copies are available for the relatives of the soldiers; and is he aware of the delays which have taken place in that Department, sometimes amounting to ten months after a request was lodged, in letting the relatives have such photograph or informing them that such was definitely unprocurable?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Photographs of soldiers' graves in France are only taken on request, and when taken are sent by the War Office direct to the relatives who applied for them. Up to the end of 1917 over 60,000 such requests had been complied with. The length of time taken in supplying a photograph depends upon the accessibility or otherwise for the purpose of photography of the cemetery or grave concerned. It has been found necessary from time to time to suspend temporarily all photography in certain cemeteries, or even certain districts. In cases where such suspension has affected considerable numbers of requests, and it has been possible for military reasons to do so, the fact has been notified to relatives. My hon. Friend will, of course, realise that this photography is a pure "labour of love" on the part of the Army authorities.
    Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the fact that many men were killed by shells, and it was impossible to bury them, will a cross be erected in the cemetery in connection with those cases?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Army authorities pay the greatest care and attention to the matter, but I am afraid that the proposition the hon. Gentleman puts forward is quite impossible.

    ARMY DISCHARGE AND TRANSFER TO HOME SERVICE.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under secretary of State for War if, with a view to discharge from the Army or transfer to Home service, he is willing to consider the case of a soldier who has already served in France and been wounded there and has been under hospital treatment for seven months for dysentery, having regard to the circumstances that the soldier's mother has been for many years an invalid, that the soldier's two brothers were both killed in action in one and the same week, and that the soldier's father has suffered a complete breakdown and will probably never be able to work again as a result of the shock caused by the death of two of his three sons in one week?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; such a case would receive sympathetic consideration.

    GALLIPOLI OPERATIONS
    Colonel YATEasked the Under secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been come to regarding the issue of a medal ribbon for the operations in Gallipoli?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There is no intention to issue a special Imperial medal or riband for the operations in question.
    Brigadier-General McCALMONT: Are we to understand from the use of the word "Imperial" that there is an intention to issue a Colonial decoration?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know what the Australian authorities themselves have done, but the view of the military authorities at home is as I have stated.
    Colonel YATE: If a medal or ribbon is given to Colonial soldiers, will not the same be issued to Imperial soldiers?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that the Imperial soldier will not be lost sight of at the end of the War, but whether or no the Dominion itself has taken or will take such steps is a matter beyond my purview.
    Mr. BILLING: Are the War Office prepared to consider favourably the granting of a star to the original Australian Expeditionary Force?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think that question has come up for consideration yet, but I will consider it.
    Captain ALBERT SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to give a special star to those men of the Army and Navy who took part in the occupation of Gallipoli in 1915, especially when such troops as the 42nd Division, Territorial Force, departed from their contract to serve at home only and who mobilised on 4th August, 1914, and sailed for Egypt in September of that year, landing in Gallipoli on the 5th May, 1915, and are now serving on other fronts?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the negative.

    ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (TRANSFERS).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Welsh theological students who volunteered for the Royal Army Medical Corps, and have been at the front for a long period, are now being compelled to join combatant forces; whether these students are to be given the opportunity of appealing, if they desire, for exemption on conscientious grounds; and whether some arrangement will be made to utilise the services of the men without breaking the pledges given them?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn on this subject on 5th February last. I will send him a copy.

    NURSING INSPECTIONS.
    Major HILLSasked the Undersecretary of State for War with reference to Recommendation 20 in the Report of the Bridge man Committee what assurance there is that the recommendations of the Matron-in-Chief are carried out; has any adverse report ever been received; if so, what action has been taken on it; and does the inspection apply to infirmaries and asylums used as war hospitals as well as to military and Red Cross hospitals?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Nursing inspections are carried out by the Matron-in-Chief, Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service, at infirmaries and asylums used as war hospitals as well as military hospitals. Such action is taken as may be considered necessary to remedy the defects brought to notice. The Matron-in-Chief of the Joint War Com-
    966
    mittee's Nurses is responsible for the inspections of the Red Cross hospitals, which are carried out systematically. Her recommendations are referred to the Local County Director by the Chief County Director, who satisfies himself in each case that his directions are carried out.

    VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS.
    Major HILLSasked the Under- Secretary of State for War what is the effect of the red efficiency stripe recently granted to Voluntary Aid Detachment members who have completed thirteen months' service and obtained the requisite standard of efficiency, does it entitle them to the position and duties of assistant nurse in all cases, or is it still within the power of a matron in charge of the hospital, whatever may be their efficiency, to employ them entirely on housework or similar work?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Nursing members of the Voluntary Aid Detachments in possession of the red efficiency stripe are as far as possible given the duties of junior nurses, but must be prepared at any time to continue the ordinary duties of probationers in military hospitals. Before being eligible for the grade of assistant nurse, a nursing member of a Voluntary Aid Detachment must be in possession of the red efficiency stripe, and must have completed two years' continuous service in a military, Territorial, or war hospital.
    Major HILLSasked the Undersecretary of State for War what are the respective responsibilities of the British Red Cross Society Headquarters, the Voluntary Aid Detachment Headquarters at Devonshire House, and the War Office with regard to the policy and organisation of the Voluntary Aid Detachment; and why the Voluntary Aid Detachment does not form an integral part of the new State Services, such as the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, the Women's Royal Naval Service, and the Women's Air Service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Headquarters of the British Red Cross Society are responsible for those Voluntary Aid Detachments, the organisation of which has been delegated to the society by the Territorial Force County Association. The Voluntary Aid Detachment Headquarters at Devonshire House consist of a sub-committee of the Joint Voluntary Aid Detachment Committee. This sub-

    967
    committee is responsible for the provision of Voluntary Aid Detachments required for service in military hospitals, at home and abroad. Voluntary Aid Detachments on joining military hospitals, etc., for military duty come under the control of the War Office, who then assume responsibility. The scheme for the organisation of voluntary aid has been in operation for many years, and the State Services referred to are recent creations, and were formed for a different purpose.
    Major HILLSasked the Undersecretary of State for War when he expects that the recommendation of the Bridgeman Committee that the Voluntary Aid Detachment members should receive free uniforms will be carried out; and whether, in view of the reasonableness of this request, he will take measures to expedite the consideration of the Central Joint Voluntary Aid Detachment Committee which has been considering this matter for several months?
    Mr. FORSTER: I understand that instructions on this subject were issued a month ago to their county directors by the Joint Committee.

    SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS DE- PENDANTS (MEDICAL TREATMENT).
    Mr. STANTONasked the Prime Minister if the Government will consider the advisability of immediate State provision of medicine, drugs, appliances, and skilled treatment to meet the necessity of soldiers' and sailors' dependants, widows and orphans due to war service?
    Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to take this question. In reply, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Montgomeryshire.

    FOOD SUPPLIES

      ARMY RATIONS.
      Captain SHEEHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether non-commissioned officers and men—as, for example, Army masseurs assisting in hospital work—who are not rationed by their units, and who are compelled to
      968
      ration themselves because of defective health on a special dietary medically prescribed, receive only the usual ration allowance of 1s. 9d. per day; that they cannot draw these specially prescribed rations from Army stores as they are not obtainable there; that the cost is in excess of the 1s. 9d. daily ration allowance; and, seeing that these non-commissioned officers and men continue to serve their country, although suffering from complaints which require special dieting and treatment, will something be done to meet the extra cost to which they are put because of certain disabilities or ill-health contracted on service?
      Mr. FORSTER: When the hon. and gallant Member asked a similar question previously I said I should be glad to look into any particular case. Perhaps he could give me one or two concrete instances of men suffering in the way that he suggests.
      Captain SHEEHAN: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in the question I have given particular instances of men who joined voluntarily early in the War who are now doing hospital work, and who suffer under the conditions stated in the question?
      Mr. FORSTER: We are not able to identify them. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will inform me where they are employed, and I will look into the matter.

      UNCULTIVATED LAND.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the urgent necessity of tapping fresh sources of revenue, and also the importance of increasing the production of foodstuffs, he will consider the advisability in his next Budget of imposing a special tax on cultivable uncultivated land?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion.

      CULTIVATED LAND (TRESPASS).
      Sir HERBERT NIELDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will take steps to apply the Defence of the Realm Act to trespass upon lands producing food in the same manner as it is applied to trespass upon allotments under the Cultivation of Lands Order?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The Board do not think they would have the support of public opinion generally in making mere trespass on any cultivated land a criminal offence under the Defence of the Realm Act, and are not, therefore, prepared to act on the hon. Member's suggestion.

      WHEAT (DAMAGE BY GYPSIES).
      Sir H. NIELDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received any complaints from war agricultural committees or other public bodies or individuals concerning damage done to growing wheat by gipsy encampments having been deliberately placed upon land formerly derelict, but which has been brought under cultivation by such committees to meet the present need for increased food production; if so, whether he has taken any, and what, action; and whether he will ensure that, either by statutory Regulation or other means, this wilful damage to crops shall, as in the case of allotments, be made punishable and gypsies compelled to camp where directed by the local authority or police?
      Sir R. WINFREY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. If the hon. Member would furnish me with information indicating the inadequacy of the existing law and Defence of the Realm Regulations to prevent destruction of crops, it will have my careful consideration.

      POTATOES.
      Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has any representations from agricultural co operative organisations throughout the country to the effect that the bulk of their members have been unable to share in the potato subsidy, owing to their crop not reaching the minimum quantity of four tons; is he aware of the effect this will have on the membership of such organisations and of the importance to the country that these institutions should succeed and increase in their member ship; and will he therefore take any action which will allow these organisations to sell as a single seller the potatoes of all their members?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I have been asked to reply to this question. Representations have been
      970
      received from one or two Scottish agricultural co-operative organisations to the effect that their members have been unable to share in the potato subsidy. I am unable to form any opinion as to the effect that this may have on the membership of such organisations. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative so far as this season is concerned, but next season the bulking of potatoes for sale to the Government will be permitted.
      Mr. WATT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the promise made by the Prime Minister in February, 1917, to the potato growers was that there was no limitation as to the quantity for which they would get the higher price?
      Mr. CLYNES: That condition as to weight was expressed on behalf of the Government on a date prior to and after the date referred to.

      PIGS.
      Captain Sir C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the importance of multiplying rapidly the pig population before next autumn and winter and the present scarcity of gilts and breeding sows, he will issue an Order prohibiting for a time the slaughter of gilts and breeding sows now being fattened for the butcher?
      Sir R. WINFREY: The Advisory Committee on Pig Production have carefully considered this matter, and do not recommend the issue of such an Order as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. The regulations as to price of pigs and pig-meat, and as to control of slaughter, which are already in operation, or about to be brought into operation, will, it is thought, encourage the breeding of as many pigs as can be made fit for slaughter under existing conditions.
      Sir C. BATHURST: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the very fact that a higher price for bacon and pigs that has been fixed constitutes a strong temptation for them to send to the butcher half-fattened sows that are not in pig?
      Sir R. WINFREY: I will convey that to the Pig Committee which has just been established.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps are taken to decide the suitability of corn or other food for human

      971
      consumption, or for pig-feeding, or other purposes; and if he is satisfied that decisions are invariably given in the best national interest?
      Mr. CLYNES: An Order delegating the adjudication of damaged grain to divisional food commissioners and to officers or committees appointed by such commissioners will be issued at an early date.

      UNITED DAIRIES, LIMITED.
      Mr. MOUNTasked the names of the various companies and milk-sellers, wholesale or retail, who are incorporated with or form part of the United Dairies, Limited, and the names of the milk-sellers, wholesale or retail, which have been purchased by the subsidiary companies or by the parent company within the last six months?
      Mr. CLYNES: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am unable at present to give the information for which the hon. Member asks, but I am making inquiries and will inform him of the result.

      ZETLAND (FOOD CULTIVATION).
      Mr. CATHCART WASONasked why the Board of Agriculture, after agreeing with the food committee of Zetland that 30 acres of land on the farm of Ques-dale should be cultivated in addition to 18 acres of rotation grass, withdrew from the agreement and accepted the tenant's proposal for a much less quantity?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer to his previous question on this subject which appeared on the Paper on Monday last. The reason why 30 acres of permanent pasture were not ploughed was that the holding did not include that amount of permanent pasture which was fit for cultivation.
      Mr. WASON: In view of the difficulties that have arisen between the local food committee and the Board of Agriculture, will the right hon. Gentleman use every endeavour to get over the difficulty by making a fresh representation to the Board of Agriculture?
      Mr. MUNRO: I will look into the matter, and do all in my power to compose any difficulties.

      MARGARINE
      Brigadier-General CROFT: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a
      972
      steamer, "Professor Buys," of Amsterdam, which arrived at London from Holland on the 18th February, and which was berthed at Fresh Wharf, London Bridge, carried 750 tons of sugar, every bag being marked German; whether on her return journey, about 26th February, she carried 650 tons of oil for making margarine; and whether this sugar was in payment for oil?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): The steamship "Professor Buys" arrived at London from Rotterdam on the 18th February with 734 tons of unrefined beetroot sugar, declared as bring the produce of Holland. The Customs records do not show how the bags were marked, but I understand that it is quite usual for Dutch sugar to be packed in second-hand German bags. On the return voyage the "Professor Buys" carried, according to the Customs record, about 500 tons of oil (sesame, crude sesame, crude rape, soya bean, and crude cocoanut) for Rotterdam, consigned to the Netherlands Oversea Trust. This oil was sent to Holland under the usual conditions, which require the return to this country of the margarine produced from it. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
      General CROFT: Is the. hon. Gentleman satisfied that we receive an adequate amount of margarine for the amount of oil that is sent?
      Mr. WARDLE: It is very difficult to say at this stage.
      General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has given a permit for the export of oils from this country to Holland on condition that a proportionate percentage of margarine comes back; whether, bearing in mind that 400 tons of oil will make, roughly, 2,000 tons of margarine, he considers it in the interests of the country that 400 tons of oil should be exported in return for 450 tons of margarine; and whether this amount is generally reduced to 250 tons?
      Captain Viscount WOLMER(on behalf of the War Trade Department): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I should be much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend if he will tell me how to manufacture 2,000 tons of margarine out of 400 tons of oil. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative
      General CROFT: I beg to give notice that I will raise the whole question of blockade on the Adjournment To-morrow.

      SUGAR BEET.
      General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether compensation has been paid since August, 1914, by the Royal Commission to the losers of German and Austrian business in beetroot sugar, and bearing in mind that the British Government was in no way responsible for the withdrawal of German and Austrian trade, which was inevitable owing to the War, he will explain why this has been done, as, roughly, three-fourths of the number of sugar dealers of the United Kingdom who have become beneficiaries under this scheme were, and always have been, solely dependent on the German and Austrian trade; and whether the compensation being paid to them simply means the transference of the emoluments derivable from the cane-sugar branch of the business with which they had always been in competition?
      Mr. CLYNES: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the other parts, therefore, do not arise.

      SEED POTATOES.
      Mr. RENDALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that many would-be purchasers of seed potatoes from Scotland who ordered in January have as yet got none; that the wholesale firm in question has been obliged to print letters to its customers saying that it cannot get sufficient railway facilities; and that these letters are being dispatched nearly two months after orders have been given; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
      Sir R. WINFREY: The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries have been in communication with the Railway Executive Committee regarding the transport of seed potatoes, and have secured special facilities for this class of traffic. There is no reason to suppose that transport difficulties will prevent supplies reaching the grower in time for planting, where orders have been placed early in the season. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any case where seed potatoes ordered in January have not been sent because of the reason stated, I will have immediate inquiries made.
      Sir W. COWAN: Have instructions, been issued to the railway companies by any authority forbidding the introduction of the seed potatoes from one district into another?
      Sir R. WINFREY: I think not.

      MERCANTILE MARINE MEAT ALLOWANCE.
      General COLVINasked whether in the mercantile marine the allowance of salt and preserved meat is 7½lbs., or an average of over 12 lbs. of fresh meat per man per week; if so, whether this allowance has been found in excess of the men's requirements; and whether, in consideration of the limited supplies of food to all other members of the community, some readjustment can be arrived at?
      Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, the figures being approximate. With regard to the second part, negotiations are taking place and nearing completion for a readjustment as suggested. I may add that I have personally addressed the representatives of the men, and am very pleased with the attitude which they have taken up.

      WHEAT AND MEAT.
      Mr. FABERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will state, taking into account home supplies and imports from abroad, which is the scarcer, wheat or meat?
      Mr. CLYNES: In view of the fact that meat is severely rationed, while bread and flour are at present unrationed, it would be safe to infer that at the present moment meat is scarcer than wheat.

      INVALIDS (RATIONS).
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is now in a position to give any further information with regard to the matter of rations to invalids, other than cases of diabetics and tuberculosists; whether he is aware of the number of per sons suffering from throat affections, some of whom have undergone the operation of tracheotomy, and that these persons require special food; and what steps, if any, the Government propose, to take to enable them to obtain the food that is necessary to meet their requirements?
      Mr. CLYNES: The Ministry of Food, on the advice of its scientific advisers and after consultation with physicians, hospital

      975
      managers, and representatives of the Local Government Board, has drawn up approved scales of hospital dietaries which will shortly be published. With regard to extra meat rations, the Ministry is advised that in addition to tubercle and diabetes, these are only required in cases of pancreatic insufficiency—including cœliac disease. Increased fat rations are limited to the two diseases first named. Where invalids are unable to swallow, and have to be fed by tube with concentrated nourishment, extra sugar may be granted.

      SWEETS (SMALL SHOPKEEPERS).
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can now make a statement with regard to the action of the Government in the case of small shopkeepers who are wholly or nearly dependent upon the sale of sweets?
      Mr. CLYNES: I hope to be able to make a statement on this matter after the Recess. I can assure the hon. Member that it is not the intention of the Ministry to allow these small shopkeepers to lose their livelihood, but there are practical difficulties in the way of framing specific Regulations, and these difficulties we are endeavouring to overcome.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while he is talking these people are losing their livelihood?
      Mr. CLYNES: No; I rather think that they fear that by the threatened Regulations they will lose their livelihood.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a case which I brought to his notice a woman and her children had to go to the workhouse because she was unable to get her living by selling sweets?
      Mr. CLYNES: I know that there are cases involving very great distress, and that is being carefully considered.
      Mr. BILLING: In view of the hon. Gentleman's answer to a question put by myself some five weeks ago, stating that he intended to take steps to supply these small sellers with sugar, can we not reasonably expect a statement before the Adjournment of the House on this simple matter?
      Mr. CLYNES: I should require notice to know what was said on that occasion.
      Sir W. PEARCE: Are any steps being taken in reference to allowing 25 per cent. of sugar for the manufacture of sweets?
      Mr. CLYNES: It is not intended to make any alteration with respect to that aspect of the matter.
      Colonel BURN: Is any action being taken with regard to a suggestion which has been made that sweets should be no longer sold in theatres, cinematograph balls, and music halls?
      Mr. CLYNES: The question is being inquired into, but there is an aspect of it which did not occur to those who considered it in the first instance.

    ROYAL DEFENCE CORPS (PAY).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why an Order has been issued of 28th February to non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Defence Corps stating that the increase of pay set forth in Army Order 1 of 1918 is not applicable to them, and instructions have been issued that when the additional 3d. has been paid steps are to be taken to curtail cash payments in adjustment of such over-payments; whether he is aware that this Order has called forth the greatest resentment of the men in this corps, all of whom are old soldiers, and many of them wounded men returned from the front, and transferred into the Royal Defence Corps through no fault of their own; and can he have this Order cancelled at once, and this branch of the Army given the increase of pay the same as other branches?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 11th instant to my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington. It is hoped that further instructions will be issued within a few days.

    TEMPORARY CIVILIAN EMPLOYES (EASTERN COMMAND).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the temporary civilian employés of the Royal Engineers staff under the Eastern Command have only received one bonus of 4s. per week or less, and that the bonus awarded to Civil servants on 17th December last has not

    977
    been applied to these men; and whether he will favourably consider their claim, in view of the increased cost of living and their present rate of pay?
    Mr. FORSTER: If particulars can be given by my right hon. Friend to enable me to identify the staff in question, I will have inquiries made.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the large towns of Scotland 70 per cent. of the cases in which children are supplied with boots or clothing, or both, by the school boards they are children of men serving with the Colours; and whether there is in contemplation the raising of the allowances in view of the enhanced cost of living?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have seen a statement to that effect relating to Glasgow, and it is receiving consideration.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the amount of milk allowed by the Food Controller exceeds the amount of the separation allowance?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will have that looked into.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether the Treasury has turned down the proposed increases in pensions suggested by the Minister of Pensions; whether all of these have been refused and, if so, which; and whether he proposes to make any statement on the Adjournment Debate as to the intentions of the Government, particularly with reference to the present very inadequate pensions to widows and dependants of men who have saved the country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have adopted precisely the same course in regard to the proposed new Warrant which I took last year. It was first examined by the Treasury, and has now, as was done last year, been submitted to a Committee of Ministers appointed by the Cabinet. They will deal with the subject as quickly as possible, but, as a very large sum of money is involved, it is obvious that it must be carefully examined.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make any statement on this subject on the Adjournment Debate, as I suggest?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No. I can make no statement except that the subject is being most carefully examined. I may say this also, that if there is any idea that because any particular person is Chancellor of the Exchequer he has less sympathy than other hon. Members, it is quite untrue as far as I am concerned.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Motion for Adjournment.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman follow the precedent of Last year and introduce the Royal Warrant in this House in such a manner that it can be discussed before being formally presented in a form which cannot be altered?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider that, but it cannot possibly be ready before the Recess, so that there is plenty of time.

    NAVAL HOSPITAL SHIPS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he has made inquiries and, if so, with what result, as to whether any reduction has been effected in the use of efficient merchant steamers as stationary hospital ships by the Royal Navy since attention was directed to the matter in Parliament?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to answer this question. My hon. and gallant Friend will be glad to know that since he raised this matter there has been a reduction of one in the number of naval hospital ships to which he refers, and under arrangements which are now in hand the services of another such vessel will be dispensed with at an early date.

    STATIONARY HULKS (FAR EAST).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he will ascertain what Department was responsible for the fine large enemy steamers, "Brauenfels" and "Frantz Ferdinand," in the Far East, being used as stationary hulks for thirty months of war while their hulls and machinery were in perfect condition; whether these vessels were used during

    979
    this long period to house inland water transport officers and for similar sedentary purposes; and whether he will warn Government officials that errors of omission to report or commission by reckless waste of a similar character will be followed by summary punishment?
    Mr. HERBERT FISHER: Information is not available in this country regarding the facts alleged. Inquiries will be made from the Government of India, as possibly the vessels in question may have been under the control of the Director, Royal Indian Marine.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Prime Minister whether at an early date after Easter he will give this House an opportunity to decide by vote without debate for or against the continuance of the sale of intoxicating liquors in the precincts of this House during the period of the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no reason to believe that the action proposed in the question would be in accordance with the wishes of the House.
    Mr. ROBINSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether an example set by this House would not largely allay the dissatisfaction in the country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, if there were a general desire on the part of the House that it should be discussed, I should be glad to make arrangements for such a discussion; but, personally, I do not think there is such a desire.

    INTERNATIONAL FINANCE (PROSE- CUTION OF THE WAR).
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government is hampered in any way in its prosecution of the War by the power or influence of international finance?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not understand what my hon. Friend means by this question, and am therefore unable to answer it.
    Sir R. COOPER: Has the War Cabinet at any time, in any course that it has
    980
    desired to take, in any way been hampered by the power or influence of international finance?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by international finance. As far as I am aware, no case of the kind suggested has come to the notice of the Cabinet.
    Mr. BILLING: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fluctuations of Marconi shares occasioned by the trial?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the hon. Member said all that was necessary on that subject last night. The Cabinet, so far as I know, has not been hampered by any dealings in Marconi shares.

    PROPAGANDA ORGANISATIONS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister for what period the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Dublin University acted as Director of Propaganda, and whether during that time he was working under the direction of the Foreign Office; whether, alter the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman, a clerk from the Foreign Office was selected to carry out the duties of conducting British propaganda; if so, whether this clerk acted under the direction and control of the Foreign Office; whether the clerk has been superseded by Lord Northcliffe; and, if so, whether Lord Northcliffe; will act under the direction of the Foreign Office in regard to propaganda
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Dublin University did not act as Director of Propaganda. From September, 1917, to the date of his resignation, he exercised a general supervision over the propaganda organisations on behalf of the War Cabinet. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and the third part does not, therefore, arise. Lord Northcliffe will act under the direction of the Minister of Information, who is working in close co-operation with the Foreign Office.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the other part of the question as to whether in between the-resignation of the right hon. Gentleman

    981
    (Sir E. Carson) and the appointment of Lord Northcliffe the present work was done by a clerk in the Foreign Office?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The question speaks of Lord Northcliffe's work, and not work done before Lord Northcliffe accepted the post. If that is what the hon. Member means, he had better put down a question.

    RECONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister what is the nature of the work undertaken by the Ministry of Reconstruction; whether it is confined to the investigation of commercial and industrial problems or whether it includes the preparation of specific recommendations; whether any recommendations of a definite kind have been made by the Ministry of Reconstruction to the War Cabinet; and whether the work of the Ministry is based upon the continuance of Free Trade as the fiscal policy of the country after the War, or whether it is based upon the Report of the Committee presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh on the commercial and industrial policy to be adopted after the War, or on the recommendations of the Paris Conference?
    The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): I have been asked to answer this question. In reply to the first part, I would refer the hon. Member to the Report of the War Cabinet. The reply to the second and third parts of the question is that specific recommendations are made from time to time to the War Cabinet. In answer to the last part of the question, I am endeavouring, in consultation with persons of wide experience and of different views, to frame schemes for tiding the country over the transition period, and for restarting and developing industry on a peace footing; and I trust that these schemes will be found to be such as will secure the co-operation of all parties when His Majesty's Government arc in a position to announce them.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a specific answer to the last part of the question, which he entirely evaded in his reply?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have given the hon. Member a specific answer and a correct answer.
    Captain SHEEHANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Ireland has no representation on most of the Departmental Committees and Commissions dealing with reconstruction after the War; whether he is aware that no public inquiries have taken place in Ireland on this question of national reconstruction; and, seeing that in industrial, social, and economic matters the case of Ireland is totally different from that of Great Britain, whether he will consider the advisability of it being dealt with separately and independently, and of setting up for this purpose an Irish Reconstruction Council, invested with specially defined powers and appropriate terms of reference?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have been asked to answer this question. I must refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the answers given by me in reply to questions asked by him on the 5th instant, and to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Dublin Harbour on the 18th instant. I fully appreciate the point of view which the hon. and gallant Member presents, and I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I regret, however, that I am not in a position to make any further statement at the moment.
    Captain SHEEHAN: I have made very earnest representations on this subject, and I want a definite answer as to whether, having regard to the special conditions in Ireland, a special Irish Reconstruction Council could not be appointed immediately? There is strong feeling upon it.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am consulting my right hon. Friend upon it.

    COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL POLICY.
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister when the Report of the Committee presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which was presented to the War Cabinet on the 20th December last, will be communicated to the House?
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to publish the Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee; and, if so, when?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that replies have now been received from all the self-governing Dominions except one. As soon as this is received I shall be able to answer these questions.

    INCREASE OF RENT (AMENDMENT) BILL.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number of applications that are being received by Members of Parliament, he can make some statement with regard to the position of the wives of sailors and soldiers who are threatened with eviction by their landlords, on the ground that the houses have been sold?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Montgomeryshire on Monday last.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Might I know what the answer was?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It was that this Bill was introduced in another place, and it would be proceeded with in this House as quickly as we possibly could.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Am I not right in thinking the Bill introduced in another place refers to action taken since 18th March, and the question refers to action taken before that date?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid I cannot answer that detail. Perhaps my hon. Friend will wait until he sees the Bill.
    Sir TUDOR WALTERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these evictions are taking place now week by week to a very serious extent and are causing grave hardship to tenants who cannot find houses elsewhere?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am quite aware of that, and I hoped, if the Bill had passed in the other place yesterday, it would have been possible to deal with it in this House before the Recess. It did not pass, and I am afraid it must stand over.
    Mr. SCANLAN: In view of the urgency of the matter, could not the right hon. Gentleman see his way to deal with the immediate question by Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not myself examined that, but I am sure it is not possible or it would have been considered.

    BANK OF ENGLAND (SCOTTISH INVESTORS).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what day the reforms in Bank of England procedure affecting the interests of investors in Scotland become actually operative?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The prescribed period of not less than thirty days for which the Regulations under Section 37 of the Finance Act, 1917 have to lie has expired as regards this House, but the other House has as yet only sat twenty days since the Regulations were laid.

    PROBATE (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been receiving representations from leading chambers of commerce in favour of the introduction of the Amendment of Probate Bill aimed at the abolition of useless legal expenses; and whether he can now give any indication as to when the Bill is likely to be introduced?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have received various resolutions on this subject, and the matter is at present receiving consideration. I am not yet able to make any statement in regard to the last part of the question, but hope to be able to do so immediately after the Recess
    Mr. WATT:Could not the public in Scotland be put on the same level as the public in England in this respect?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not quite sure that the public in Scotland would be satisfied with that standard.

    GERMAN BANKS (NATURALISED ENEMY ALIENS).
    Mr. G. FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many naturalised Germans and Austrians, and how many enemy aliens, are still employed in the London branches of the Deutsche Bank, the Dresdner Bank, and the Disconto-Gesellschaft?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Eighteen naturalised British subjects, three German, and one Austrian subject.
    Mr. FABER: As I understand no banking is done in the bank, why should there be any Germans at all?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have spoken today to the Controller on the subject, and he informs me that the experience of these men is absolutely necessary in the work that has to be done.
    Mr. FABER: Inasmuch as it is well known, from instances in other countries, that these banks are centres of Boloism and spying, would it not be better to do away with these men altogether?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend knows something about banking, and he must be aware that these banks are kept going, not for the sake of the German shareholders, but for the sake of British and Allied creditors. Any danger of that kind does not exist.

    "ALCOHOL: ITS ACTION ON THE HUMAN ORGANISM."
    Sir F. BANBURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the cost of the book entitled, "Alcohol: Its Action on the Human Organism," published by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), has been defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament; and, if so, whether Treasury sanction was given to the expenditure?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The hon. Baronet doubtless refers to the book entitled "Alcohol: Its Action on the Human Organism" I am informed that the cost of this book, which was issued as a Stationery Office publication in the ordinary course, will be borne on the Vote for stationery and printing, and that specific Treasury authority for the publication was not necessary. Perhaps I may add that there will be no charge on public funds, as the book has already paid the cost of publication.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that my right hon. Friend's mistake is due to the fact that the book has not been distributed to the House, and will he consider whether, as it has been produced out of public funds, it
    986
    might not be distributed to the House, as has been done in the case of the Report on the work of the War Cabinet?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman make it a precedent for any Government Department, except the Cabinet, issuing a book at the expense of the nation? If it is to be in the power of a Department to issue books in future, how many books and how much money will be spent?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which will require notice.

    ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether officers and men are treated on the same footing as regards the supply, repair, and renewal of artificial limbs; if not, will he explain the reason for the difference; and whether steps will now be taken to treat all maimed soldiers, whether officers or men, in the same manner in this respect?
    Mr. PRATT: I have been asked to reply to this question. Loss of limb is treated under existing Regulations differently in the case of officers and men, both as regards compensation and as regards the provision of artificial limbs. There would be difficulty in assimilating this treatment, but the matter shall receive my attention.
    Colonel YATE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the difficulty in giving officers the same, renewal of limbs as the men?
    Mr. PRATT: I cannot say. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put the question on the Order Paper.
    Colonel YATE: Will you do away with the difficulty?

    STUDENTS' RAILWAY FARES (SCOTLAND)
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the increased costs thrown upon university and training college students travelling to Edinburgh and Glasgow from remote places in Scotland; and whether he will consider the practicability of securing for them privileged railway tickets, as many of them are ill able to afford war rates for passenger tickets?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have been in communication with the Board of Trade on this matter. I am informed that the question has already been carefully considered, but that it has not been found practicable in present circumstances to make any concession in favour of students attending educational institutions.

    WOMEN'S BOOTS.
    Sir FRANCIS LOWEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the effect which the Army Council Order of the 4th December, 1917, regulating the manufacture and sale of certain kinds of women's boots has had upon the trade, that it has resulted in wholesale and retail dealers in boots being obliged to hold up large stocks of boots which were completed and ready for sale at the date of the Order and that the quantity of stocks so held up was, approximately, 1,500,000 pairs and the cash value of them about £1,250,000; whether he is aware that the Amending Order recently issued does not in reality remedy this grievance, as it only allows the sale if these goods in June and July, when the demand is far less than it is in the spring; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on this subject on 13th March to the hon. Member for Nottingham East. The Department has since arranged for a census of stocks of civilian boots to be taken on 31st March and for a special return to be made of boots of the types referred to.
    Sir F. LOWE: Am I to understand that they will be allowed to sell those already in stock?
    Mr. FORSTER: We want rather more information before we can make any change in the decision already taken.
    Sir F. LOWE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that women must have boots, either high or low, to wear, and that to continue the prohibition or the sale of these boots will be no conservation of the stock of leather in the country?
    Mr. FORSTER: They are anxious that no more high boots shall be made.
    Sir F. LOWE: Will those in stock be allowed to be sold?

    AMBER SIZE AND CHEMICAL COMPANY.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case of Kurt Ludwig Wilhelm Bruckmann. who owned half the shares in the Amber Size and Chemical Company, which, in consequence of pressure, he transferred to F. W. Chambers, who is a director in W. H. Muller and Company, Limited; whether he is satisfied that the transfer was a bonâ fide one; and why the company is not wound up?
    Mr. WARDLE: The case of the Amber Size and Chemical Company, Limited, has been considered by the Advisory Committee, who came to the conclusion that the business is not one to which Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, applies. Mr. Bruckmann's ancestors were Hanoverians, some of whom had served in the British Army. He left Germany at the age of seventeen, and has lived in England for twenty-one years, and the Committee stated in their Report that as the result of inquiries made by them, they did not recommend the vesting of Bruckmann's shares. I am informed that he has transferred his shares to Mr. F. W. Chambers, who is a director in W. H. Muller and Company (London), Limited.
    General CROFT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the firm W. H. Muller is the same as that which is controlled by Mr. A. G. Krœller, an avowed enemy of this country, in Holland?
    Mr. WARDLE: I was not aware of that.

    TRAMWAYS (PARCELS TRAFFIC).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the crowded state of the railways of the country as regards goods traffic at the present time, his Department has considered whether the tramway services of the country can be used for the conveyance of small parcel traffic in their various districts; and, if not, will he have the matter considered, and, if necessary, consult the tramway undertakings about it?
    Mr. WARDLE: Tramway undertakings have power, generally speaking, to carry parcels traffic, and do in fact carry parcels where circumstances admit. The attention

    989
    of tramway authorities has already been called to the point raised in the hon. Gentleman's question, and I am inviting the Tramways (Board of Trade) Committee to consider it.

    VULCAN MOTOR WORKS, SOUTHPORT.
    Mr. ANDERSON(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Munitions whether he has received protests from engineering workers in Sheffield and elsewhere in regard to the alleged victimisation of Mr. J T. Murphy, of Sheffield, a skilled engineer and a well-known trade unionist, by the Vulcan Motor Works, Southport; whether he is aware that this workman was dismissed without previous warning or complaint of any kind, and that all his workmates believe he has been victimised because of his activities as a shop steward in Sheffield prior to going to Southport; whether he knows that the representative of the Ministry of Munitions, after investigating the facts, agreed it was a case of victimisation, and recommended the unconditional reinstatement of the workman; whether he is further aware that the refusal of the firm to do this has already led to a stoppage of work in Southport, and that meetings of engineering workers are now being held in practically every munition centre to discuss what action should be taken in view of the alleged victimisation; and seeing that a critical situation may arise, what action the Ministry of Munitions has taken or intends to take in this matter?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am informed that the workers at Southport resumed work this morning, and that thereafter the matter was discussed between a representative of the Ministry, the firm, and the trade union officials concerned, with the result that a settlement has been reached. In regard to the attitude adopted by the Ministry's local representative, my information does not agree with that of my hon. Friend.

    LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. I desire to ask, having regard to the fact that it is considered improper or out of order for an hon. Member of this House to put a question on the Paper in reference to one of His Majesty's judges, and having regard to the fact that Lord Reading is
    990
    occupying the position of Ambassador in America, is it in order for a Member to put a question on the Paper in which reference is made to Lord Reading in his capacity as Ambassador, or whether the fact that he is Lord Chief Justice renders him immune from all criticism, no matter how reprehensible his action may be?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question which the hon. Member submitted to me was one that reflected on the Lord Chief Justice in his capacity as Lord Chief Justice. I pointed out to him that those questions were not permitted, and that there is a special form by which the action of any of His Majesty's judges can be called in question in the House. I invited the hon. Member to take that action, if the hon. Member desired to persevere.
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. May I say that the substance of my question was as to whether the Government would consider the appointment of a successor to Lord Reading in America, having regard to the recent disclosures?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have nothing to add to the answer which I have given.

  Sheriff Clerks, Scotland (Salaries).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any provision has been made or is in contemplation to raise the wages of the staffs of the sheriff clerks' offices in Scotland; is he aware that two commissions recommended increases in these salaries and also the raising of commissary fees to meet such advances; and will he say whether it is proposed to adopt both these recommendations at an early date?
  Mr. MUNRO: Provision has been made for extending to the employés in sheriff clerks' offices the war-bonus awards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board for Government Employés. As regards permanent rates of remuneration, I am aware of the Commissions referred to and of their recommendations. A memorial submitted to me by the Association of Sheriff Clerks Depute, in which proposals are put forward for increasing the remuneration of these officials and for raising commissary fees, is at present receiving my consideration, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate.
  Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a saving might be effected in the higher paid officers of the administration of justice in Scotland and given to the lower?

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to restrict the meaning of the expression landlord in Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915." [Increase of Rent, etc., (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
  INCREASE OF RENT, ETC. (AMEND- MENT) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

BILLS PRESENTED.
DEFENCE OF THE REALM (FOOD PROFITS) BILL,—"to provide for the forfeiture to His Majesty of double the amount received from the sale of goods at prices in excess of those allowed by the Food Controller," presented by Mr. CLYNES, supported by the Solicitor-General and Mr. Parker; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 11.]
LAND DRAINAGE BILL,—"to amend the Land Drainage Act, 1861, and to make further provision for the drainage of agricultural land," presented by Mr. PROTHERO; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]
HORSE BREEDING BILL,—"to regulate the use of stallions for stud purposes," presented by Mr. PROTHERO; supported by Mr. Munro and Mr. Duke; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.— [SIXTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1918–1919.
    [PROGRESS.]
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    The CHAIRMAN: The Committee will recollect that Vote 8 is divided into three separate parts. I understand that the third part is that which hon. Members desire to discuss to-day, and I think it will be a convenient procedure if I depart from the ordinary course, leaving open to a future occasion the first two parts, and put the Question on the third part.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Are we to understand that a more or less general discussion will, therefore, be prevented, on the point of Order to-day?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think it is the other way round. What I was afraid of was that if I put the first two of these Votes, it might be that some discussion would arise upon them, and there would not be time for the discussion of the third part.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £l,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919."

    STATEMENT BY FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Eric Geddes): I would like to say, at the outset, how much I regret that it was not possible for me to be present at the recent Debates on shipbuilding in this House. I feel sure that when I say that I was entirely engrossed with the deliberations and meetings of a very important Inter-Allied Naval Conference, over which I presided, and which was attended by our Allies from great distances, the House will excuse my absence; otherwise, I would have been in my place. I have, of course, read the Debates, and had the advantage of discussing the matter with my right hon. Friend the Financial
    1016
    Secretary, who heard the whole of the Debates, and who most ably took part in them on my behalf.

    TONNAGE LOSSES.
    It is a source of great satisfaction to me that I have this opportunity of addressing the House to-day, because now, for the first time, I am at liberty to give the actual figures of merchant ship losses for the world and for the United Kingdom, and also the figures of construction. I may say, in passing, that it is proposed to give the figures of output regularly in future, and so far as the United Kingdom output is concerned, as nearly up-to-date as possible. As regards sinkings, while it is proposed to publish returns of tonnage sunk, it is not considered to be in the national interest to give these absolutely up-to-date, and although I would ask to be allowed not to commit myself definitely on the subject to-day, my view at present is that it will be necessary to issue these returns quarterly in arrear. As to sinkings and output, they will be given regularly. I have been very much impressed, in reading the Debates, with the natural and, if I may say so, welcome anxiety and interest with which the House has dealt with this all-important national problem, and also with the constructive suggestions which have been made by many hon. Members. I cannot but feel that, to a great extent, the present excessive uneasiness about shipbuilding and the dissatisfaction—because one must admit there is anxiety about the present position—is largely the outcome of incomplete knowledge of the facts which the Government alone has hitherto possessed, but which I am now able very largely to supply; and it is with satisfaction that I realise that the complicated arithmetical calculations of my previous statements will no longer be called for. The world's tonnage, from the commencement of the War until the 31st December, 1917, exclusive of enemy-owned tonnage, has fallen by a net figure of, roughly, 2,500,000 tons. This is out of 33,000,000 estimated Allied and neutral ocean-going tonnage, which is arrived at after deducting small craft, river and estuary craft, and a considerable amount of lake tonnage, tugs, etc. So that with a net loss of 2,500,000 tons, on an estimated ocean-going tonnage of 33,000,000 tons, we have suffered, the Allies and neutral world, about an 8 per cent. reduction in ocean-going tonnage of the

    1017
    world, excluding enemy countries. The total world's tonnage, exclusive of enemy tonnage, is 42,000,000, and the deduction is made after the most careful consideration and investigation.
    I will not burden this statement with masses of figures, but details are being given on all these points in a White Paper which will be presented to the House forthwith. The percentage of net loss in British tonnage alone—I have given 8 per cent. for the world, Allied and neutral tonnage—is higher than this, and it reaches 20 per cent. net.
    Colonel Sir F. HALL: To the end of the year?
    Sir E. GEDDES: To the end of the year, from the beginning of the War; the more favourable Allied and neutral tonnage percentage being, of course, due largely to a credit brought in by the United States of interned German ships. The reason for the greater reduction in British tonnage is, of course, obvious, and known to hon. Members, but for the information of the country I will explain it. Firstly, the main submarine attack is upon us. It was to starve these Islands that the enemy instituted this form of warfare. In 1915 and 1916 the output of new tonnage was very low, and lowest in 1916; in fact, before the intense submarine warfare commenced, we had built over 1,300,000 tons less than our losses from all causes since the beginning of the War. I would like to make it clear that the figures I have given are in connection with marine risks or anything else, and they represent the total deductions from any causes. Then, in addition to that, our shipping has been in the War zone to a far greater extent, and perhaps far longer, than has that of some of our Allies, and our navigational risks and losses are greater owing to the absence of lights in the waters round our coast. These are also included in the figures, which explains the reason why the percentage of the losses of British tonnage is higher than the percentage of the losses of the Allies and the neutral world. I would like here to refer to a point which I have mentioned before. I have never been able to give the House the exact figures as to the measure of exaggeration which has been introduced by Germany into their figures of tonnage sunk.
    Mr. PETO: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that question, is there any
    1018
    reason why we should not be told the actual tonnage represented by the 20 per cent.?
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir E. GEDDES: That will all be given in the White Paper, but roughly, comparing the 33,000,000 and the 2,500,000, the figure is 18,000,000 and 3,500,000, and that will work out at 20 per cent. I was mentioning the fact of the exaggeration introduced by Germany into their claim of tonnage sunk in submarine warfare. For the twelve months of unrestricted submarine warfare, from the 1st of February, 1917, to the 31st January, 1918, the enemy has proclaimed that he has sunk over 9,500,000 tons of shipping, British, Allied, and neutral. The actual figures of vessels sunk by submarine action, including those damaged and ultimately abandoned, amounts to roughly 6,000,000 tons; so we have an exaggeration of 3,500,000 tons in twelve months, or something over 58 per cent. In January the exaggeration was 133 per cent. It is rather amusing that since I publicly showed up this grossly false declaration of results the usual return of submarine sinkings for February has not been issued by Berlin, and is now overdue. If proof of the failure of the campaign were needed, these exaggerations and Berlin's reticence now they are exposed appear to me to supply it.

    INDUSTRIAL SITUATION.
    Having given the House a general picture of the effect of the submarine campaign on the tonnage position of the United Kingdom and the world, I would like, before dealing with the question of output of tonnage in United Kingdom yards, to ask the House to consider and try to envisage the task of the Controller's Department and the results, which have already been obtained. When the Controller took over there were over fifty large merchant vessels in various stages of construction definitely stopped for lack of sufficient material or labour to complete them. These vessels had already absorbed over 50,000 tons of steel, and many of them had been occupying valuable slips for long periods, some ever since the beginning of the War. It was necessary not only to clear the slips of those vessels, but also to absorb the material, which was in many cases congesting the whole shipyard. In one instance, which I have heard in various

    1019
    forms frequently quoted against the Department, there was a very large passenger vessel which could not be completed even as a cargo vessel under about two years, and it was decided to remove the material from the berths to make way for standard ships which could be of use within a reasonable period. I may add that one such vessel has already been launched from the slip, and another is nearly ready to launch. That instance, as I have said, in one form or another, has been frequently quoted against us, but I think the answer which I have given is entirely satisfactory, and I do not doubt that in other specific cases there would be equally satisfactory answers. For the first two years of war or more the shipyards of the country had lost their men and the work had become dislocated; hulls had been on the slips for very long periods and there was no material to finish them. Some yards had been filled with unsuitable work, and other vessels were lying in the water awaiting engines, but the engines had never been built, because in the early days of the War, and right up to 1917 the Admiralty had made use of the capacity of the engine shops for naval work of various kinds. Men who would row have been invaluable had enlisted in the Army or the Navy or had gone to munition works, and it is a fact—I do not think it will be denied—that there was great confusion in the shipbuilding industry, not due to the fault of the industry, but really due, not really due to anyone's fault, but owing to the circumstances existing from the conditions of war.
    Output had been checked owing to urgent work to which firms were unaccustomed being placed with the same firm by different Departments, It is true that the urgency for naval vessels had, in the early days of the War, and, indeed, as late as 1917, made it necessary to place various types of these in practically every shipyard in the country. With the introduction of the Controller's Department it was immediately realised that this policy was bad for output as a whole. It was accordingly arranged to allocate yards, or to separate sections of yards, to one class of tonnage only. The result is that at the present day forty-seven large shipyards containing 209 berths are wholly engaged on ocean-going merchant vessels. Apart from the large private warship building establishments, which
    1020
    are obviously most suited for naval work, there are, in addition, eleven other shipyards suitable for large merchant tonnage which have at the present time some naval craft on the stocks. Wherever the accommodation is suitable, for ocean going merchant ships it is being cleared off gradually. When it is remembered that in the more poorly equipped shipyards such vessels are frequently fifteen months or longer under order before they are launched, it will be realised that much progress has been made in the way of simplifying the work of individual shipyards, and that the progress can only be gradual.

    TONNAGE OUTPUT.
    Having given that description as to the yards which the Controller took over, I would now like to give some figures as to the output of the yards. In the fourth quarter of 1914 the merchant tonnage produced in the United Kingdom was 420,000 tons. This steadily fell, and it must be noted it was concurrent with the commencement of our great munition effort, until the fourth quarter of 1915, when it had fallen to 92,000 tons. It then began to rise, and the rise is as follows:

    Quarterly, 1916—

    1st quarter

    95,000 tons

    2nd quarter

    106,000 tons

    3rd quarter

    125,000 tons

    4th quarter

    218,000 tons

    and in 1917 —

    1st quarter

    246,000 tons

    2nd quarter

    249,000 tons

    3rd quarter

    248,000 tons

    and

    426,000 tons

    in the last quarter of 1917.
    These figures refer to output in the British Isles alone.
    In the fourth quarter in 1917, foreign construction was 512,000 tons, giving a total output for the world, excluding enemy countries, for the last quarter of last year, of 932,000 tons (Allied and enemy world). Now against that we have the losses due to enemy action and maritime risks, because it docs not matter which way we lose the tonnage, for the last quarter of last year of 1,200,000 tons, which was by far the lowest quarter of sinkings since the intensive submarine warfare was begun, far the lowest, and it looks as if this quarter was going to be lower still. So we have the fact that by an increase in output and by a decrease in sinkings, we reached in the last quarter

    1021
    of last year, on the average per month, the position that the Allies were within 100,000 tons a month of making good the world's losses due to enemy action and marine risk. Considering British losses and output alone, the proportionate deficiency was somewhat higher. We lost on the average 261,000 tons per month during the last quarter of 1917, that is British alone, and built 140,000 tons per month—a deficiency of 121,000 tons. We must all regret that the British position has suffered most among the Allies, but we have contributed the greatest naval effort of the Allies, and have sustained the greatest attack; and both these have made enormous demands on our shipyards—how enormous will be shown by this statement; and I do not think we will as a nation bemoan our scars or our naval efforts in this great War. I therefore repeat the crucial figures of this part of the statement. Hon. Members will find them in much more detail in the White Paper which is to be issued. I repeat that the net result of maritime risk and enemy action, whether by surface, air, or submarine craft, from the commencement of the War until the end of last year, is a net reduction of 2,500,000 tons of shipping, and that for the last quarter of last year, the Allied and neutrals are replacing 75 per cent. of the lost tonnage, or only 100,000 tons a month below losses from all causes. It is well within the capacity of the Allied yards—yes, even of our yards before very long—with the proper supply of material and of manpower, to entirely make good the world losses on present-day figures. I think on the whole that these figures will be more reassuring than the country expected, and indeed much more reassuring than the enemy people had been led to expect. The House will recollect that I have previously insisted that the shipbuilding and ship-preparing effort, both naval and mercantile, should be considered as a whole. The labour, material and plant are to a very large extent interchangeable. It is not sufficient to look at the output of tonnage only.

    REPAIR AND SALVAGE WORK.
    Repairs during the last half of the year have received the very closest attention with the result that we have secured an enormous increase in the output of repaired tonnage. I cannot give a comparison with pre-war efforts because until the Admiralty Controller's Department
    1022
    was established no comprehensive figures existed. In any event the comparison would be useless, as the extensive damage by torpedo and mine necessitates repairs in no way comparable to peace-time repairs generally.
    It is common knowledge that at the end of the first half of last year the repair yards were full of work, and numbers of damaged ships were beached and a waiting repairs. A central organisation was created in the summer of 1917, and the increase in the average weekly output of repaired merchant tonnage in February, 1918, as compared with August, 1917, is 80 per cent.—an increased repair output of sixty-nine merchant ships, representing no less than 237,000 tons per week in the later month. This repair figure cannot be too clearly grasped and understood. In February we completed repairs to merchant craft at an average of 166 ships per week, representing more than 500,000 tons. One factor, to which I have already drawn the attention of the House, has contributed largely to the increase in the repairs of merchant tonnage, that is the development of the convoy system. Owing to the operation of this system, a large proportion of vessels damaged by torpedo managed to reach port, that is, an increase on the demand upon our resources which we should welcome. If a number of these vessels had been torpedoed further out to sea they would undoubtedly have been totally lost.
    Incidentally, to show how complex the question is, we had to decide whether we should sacrifice other shipbuilding in order to build tugs to meet the demand thus created for increased salvage, and decided to do so. Having regard to the value of the ships and lives at stake, no one will deny our decision to do so was right. It all tells against our mercantile output, nevertheless. The more we repair the greater the drain upon our shipbuilding resources. The 80 per cent. increase in merchant ship repairs, however, by no means exhausts the effort which has been made in repair work. We have now had three and a half years of war, and only those who have knowledge of the work of the Fleet can form some idea as to the demand on repair facilities which is made to keep the Fleet in full efficiency. There are thousands of craft, from battleships to trawlers, employed on naval service, and on figures taken out over a quarter—October, November, December, 1917—we docked last

    1023
    year ten times the naval craft for repairs and refits which were docked in peace time. Over 3,000 of these vessels were docked, repaired and refitted in the last quarter of last year, all at the rate of 12,000 per annum on naval service. These refits are more extensive than in peace time, as the guns and appliances have to be continually improved and various offensive and defensive appliances have to be added. As indicating the extent of the repairing effort, I am advised by experts that the additional men we have put onrepairs—that is, both merchant and warship repairs—could have produced 500,000 tons of new merchant tonnage per annum if they had been so employed.

    THREE INDIVISIBLE FACTORS.
    But in dealing with the tonnage situation we have not only got to take output and repairs, and repairs includes salvage, but there is another factor. There are three factors. I would like to go into that a little with the House. I am sure the House will understand that we cannot make out a balance sheet, and say in place of that 500,000 tons you have had so many tons in other ways, but it is a fact that we owe the drop—and it is a steady drop—in the curve of merchant tonnage losses very largely—I might, indeed, say mainly—to the efficiency of our patrol of anti-submarine craft and to the invaluable convoy work done by destroyers, sloops, patrol boats and other craft. In fact, to consider correctly and adequately the tonnage situation one must consider together three main factors:

    (1)Patrol and other craft to destroy submarines and safeguard ships at sea.

    (2)Salvage and repair of damaged ships.

    (3)Building of new merchant ships.

    Those three factors make one whole and indivisible problem. If we throw all our energies into No. 3, namely, new merchant ships, then Nos. 1 and 2, that is, anti-submarine patrol and escort work and salvage and repair work are allowed to suffer immediately, and we are simply providing sheep for the butcher's knife. If we were to throw all our energies into No. 1, that is, patrol and anti-submarine work, to the exclusion of 2 and 3, salvage and repairs and new construction, our land Armies in France and elsewhere might well be starved of
    1024
    men and munitions before we had completely won the War at sea. It is, believe me, no easy task to decide just what proportion of the available effort—and it is not unlimited—is to be devoted to each of these three factors. I can assure the House that the responsibility is no light one.
    The House should not, forget that this great effort in naval mercantile construction and repair has been made concurrently with the enormous, and I would point out, increasing effort in the output of munitions of all kinds, and at a time when the man-power of the country available for civil work has been reduced to a lower point than at any previous time in the history of the War. I do not think I am divulging information which should not be made public when I say that the output of tonnage and ammunition of all calibres in 1917 is not far short of twice the output of 1916. I need not remind the House of the special effort being made in the output of aeroplanes. These, I understand, are nearly two and a half times the output of 1916, and arrangements for labour and material to secure a still greater output this year were in progress during the later months of 1917. The output of other munitions, which I cannot detail, is so much larger in 1917 than it was in 1916 as to make comparison entirely futile. All these munitions make great demands on the same classes of material and men as do ships, yet, in spite of the big developments in all these we have been able to accomplish what, I think, must be admitted as an enormous development in the shipbuilding industry.
    We have, as the House knows, reached in 1917 a total warship and merchant tonnage output practically equal to the biggest shipbuilding year this country has ever known. We have multiplied by ten times the number of naval craft repaired and refitted, and in six months we have increased the merchant ship repair tonnage by 80 per cent., or an increase of 237,000 tons per week. I would ask the House to take note of this fact, that, notwithstanding all these great expansions of work in many directions, and notwithstanding the growing demand upon the man-power of the country, as regards new merchant tonnage output, we ended the year 1917 with an output of 420,000 tons for the last quarter, as against 213,000 tons for the last quarter

    1025
    of 1916. This was done, moreover—I ask the Committee to note and give us credit for this point—with a dislocated industry, with yards only gradually being cleared of unfinished work, and with large numbers of unskilled personnel in the yards. I have no hesitation in submitting our record to the judgment of the House.

    CENTRAL CONTROL.
    I would like now to deal very briefly with the necessity for a centralised control in shipbuilding, and show how impracticable the suggestion is that we should leave shipbuilders in the country to run their business themselves or work on the basis—as one hon. Member put it in Debate in this House—of "bringing pressure to bear upon the shipbuilders to complete their contracts." That honest inquiry, honestly put, was, I confess, a revelation to me, and is my excuse, if excuse is needed, for reviewing so fully the work of the Admiralty Controller's Department. I claim some little personal qualifications to speak on this point of central Government control—qualifications I make bold to say possessed by few, if by anyone else. With every instinct and ail my training against Government control, I have spent during the War, roughly, one year each in the Ministry of Munitions, War Office and Admiralty—mainly in supply of war material. I therefore submit that I have peculiar qualifications to give an opinion on this point. I have no hesitation in saying that at the present time there is no question of a shipbuilder left to himself being able to build any ships at all, and there is no question of bringing pressure to bear upon him to fulfil his contract. Under the present conditions of the labour and material market and of the possibilities of output, no manufacturer could possibly obtain any output at all without a Government Department looking after his raw materials, machines, and labour supply for him and in detail.
    It was, I submit, because of the absence of such a Department that the Shipbuilders Advisory Committee, under Sir Joseph Maclay, felt their powerlessness to increase tonnage, and it was in order to provide such a Department that the Controller was appointed. It was in order to secure for merchant tonnage all needful supplies, free from competition with Admiralty war shipbuilding, that one authority was appointed.

    IMPROVED ORGANISATION.
    The whole of the material for shipbuilding and the particular specifications required are rolled and allotted in accordance with the fluctuating demands of shipbuilding, of the various other War industries and of our Allies, and the actual sections and plates required either for manufacture or repair jobs, either in this country or abroad, have to be ordered for the yards by a central department when required, but not long in advance, otherwise stocks accumulate. There must be a central control. There is not enough to go round, and all this has to be co-ordinated. Without this the shipbuilding community would be entirely powerless. The same thing applies to practically all raw materials, machine tools, and machinery, and I am sure hon. Members who have had experience of existing conditions will know that it is totally out of the question to leave any industry to run by itself today. The chronological demands of our yards have to be synchronised with output and import, with the demands of our other War Departments, and with the demands of our Allies' yards abroad for materials, spares, and machines—for marine engines and auxiliary machinery—and such central control, though irritating and vexing, is absolutely unavoidable. A shipbuilder expecting and promised a bit of plant or ship's auxiliary machinery fails to get it, and immediately assumes incompetence and maladministration, and he says so very plainly. But the truth is that a counterpart has possibly been sunk en route to, say, Malta, and a battleship is awaiting completion of refit, so the transfer is made. The Department which is accused of incompetence cannot even give its reasons, because, if it did, the enemy would know that a certain battleship was out of commission. I give this as an instance to show the House the sort of difficulties to be met and the ramifications of the control which is absolutely essential.
    So far for the figures: though I think and hope they are better than was expected, they are not sufficient to meet the concern of the country at the present time; and although up to the end of last year I claim that the state of affairs justified my confidence that matters were going well, the disappointing results—and I would lay stress upon the fact that I have deliberately explained those disappointing results to the House before—the disappointing results in January and

    1027
    February give justifiable cause for anxiety and inquiry. I fully realise, however, that when extra efforts are called for from employers and employés, the organisation at the top should command the confidence of this House and the country, and without that confidence the best results cannot be obtained. It is my endeavour, as I shall show later, to obtain that confidence, even if I cannot admit that the lack of confidence was justifiable.
    I would ask the House to allow me to go a little into the history of this matter. At the beginning of last year, when the intense submarine warfare began, and the shipping position was obviously becoming one of great and increasing importance, the production of shipping was placed in the hands of an Advisory Committee of Shipbuilders attached to the Department of the Shipping Controller. It was found, however, at every stage that there was a competition with Admiralty interests. The Admiralty were represented in almost all the shipyards; the Admiralty had a very large staff and control over ship-plates and angles, and over material, including engines and auxiliary machinery. The Government therefore decided not to duplicate staff and create competing Departments, but to bring the two together and make one authority responsible for the production of warships, including auxiliary craft and merchant ships. That was done in order to give merchant ships a fair chance with warships, so that the two Departments should not compete. In order to safeguard merchant shipping, however, competing programmes had to be adjudicated by the War Cabinet, and the Controller of Shipping and Admiralty Controller had the right of direct access to the Cabinet on matters connected with output of merchant ships.
    There is a suggestion that the Navy and Board of Admiralty is an ungenerous stepmother to merchant shipbuilding. That is really entirely unjust. I wish I could give the figures and facts without giving information to the enemy, but I can only assert most emphatically that the Naval Service, since I have been at the Admiralty, now nine months, has consistently given great interest and assistance to merchant shipbuilding, and has voluntarily on occasions subordinated its own naval interests to the merchant shipping problem. I would like still further to impress upon the House the deep and
    1028
    active interest the Board of Admiralty takes in merchant shipbuilding by reciting recent events. As the House knows, the high-water mark of output of November was not reached in December last year, the drop being from 158,000 to 112,000 tons. I would ask the House to observe what happened On the 14th January the Maintenance Committee, which, at its weekly meetings, consider the main features of merchant ship production, steel supply, etc., called the attention of the Board to the drop in output for December, the Controller most strongly urging the necessity for publication of figures. Thereafter the matter was considered by the Board and special Committee meetings on the 17th January, 24th February, 3rd February, 7th February, and 8th February; and after most exhaustive consideration of the whole question, a statement was forwarded to the War Cabinet recommending the publication of the actual figures, and recommending the War Cabinet to approach the Allies forthwith. As the House now know, that was done. It was not, however, until the Supreme War Council meetings in London last week that complete unanimity was arrived at and that I was enabled to-day to give the figures. I hope I may be forgiven for having quoted what has happened in this case. I have done so merely to show that the Admiralty has consistently taken an interest in merchant shipbuilding.

    DESIGN OF MERCHANT VESSELS.
    I would now touch upon the question of design of ships, and the suggestion which has been made, and which I think I shall show is erroneously made, that the Department of the Controller is not strongly staffed on the shipbuilding side, and that amateurs are interfering with design The Controller and the Deputy-Controller responsible for merchant shipbuilding have been accused of having imposed an amateurish standard ship upon shipbuilders. This is an entirely erroneous statement. Several types of standard ships were decided upon and adopted by the Advisory Committee of Shipbuilders and by the Council of Ship-owners, both of which were appointed and advised by Sir Joseph Maclay before the Admiralty had anything to do with it. It is, indeed, ironical that Colonel Lithgow, the official now charged with merchant shipbuilding, is the senior partner in the firm which has most vehemently and

    1029
    almost abusively resisted Sir Joseph Maclay's standard ships, and he is now classed as the amateur who imposed this design on experts.
    It has been said that irritating changes in design have been made in the standard ship. One can quite understand that changes of design are irritating, but I will give you some instances in a moment to show that they are undertaken for valid reasons of war. Whether they were made by the Advisory Committee to the Shipping Controller, or since the Admiralty assumed responsibility, the technical decisions have in all cases been taken by experienced shipbuilders. The names of those in the Department of the Controller who advise him on the Shipbuilding Council have been published in the Tress. The firms who are represented in the Department of the Controller by one of their principals, or one of their experienced staff, produced, in the year 1917, 334,000 tons of merchant ships. The firms represented on the Shipbuilding Council—but not in the Department of the Controller-were responsible in 1917 for 70,000 tons of merchant shipping. A Government Department aided by the services of experienced directors and staff from firms annually turning out 400,000 tons of merchant shipping, or roughly 40 per cent. of the total output, can hardly be described as a Department staffed with amateurs.
    A good deal of criticism has been levelled against changes of design, as if they were in themselves a proof of incompetence and maladministration. Of course, they are both very undesirable and very irritating, and are prejudicial to output; but shipbuilders, like many others who have come more closely in touch with the minor disadvantages of warlike operations and the difficulties they cause, must learn that the enemy, and warfare generally, does not work exactly to programme. If I may be forgiven a reminiscence, I would remind the House that I would be one of the last to forget the dislocation of programmes, after the experience I had of the dislocation caused to the output of ammunition from the filling factories, both before and during the Somme offensive, when our programmes and designs were upset almost daily, either to meet the fluctuating conditions of warfare or the special needs of the artillerists concerned. It was only
    1030
    with the greatest possible difficulty that we kept output up at all. In many ways the same things apply to shipbuilding.
    It will, perhaps, interest the House if I give a few typical and, I am told, principal reasons for changes in design of ships: Increased speed, to evade submarine attack on certain routes; hinged masts or abolition of a mast, to prevent enemy submarines from ascertaining the course of a ship; alteration in the position of the mast and funnel, for the same reason; alteration in the shape of the bridge, eliminating straight lines and angles, for the same reason; alteration to provide for additional gun mountings and for heavy gun mountings, and accommodation for guns' crews, owing to increase of submarine warfare; conversion to oilers, owing to disproportionate loss of tank tonnage. That is a very general cause of change. There is no doubt that for a long time the enemy set himself to sink our tankers, and met with considerable success. Apart from these and similar reasons, I am told there are two other principal reasons of alteration: firstly, to provide additional space for the crews and better conditions for them—and I am sure no one would grudge those men adequate and as comfortable accommodation as is possible in the circumstances; and last, but by no means least, simplification of designs, to meet views put forward by the builders themselves.
    I do not contend that there may not be isolated cases where designs have been changed at a time or in a way which might have been better chosen but, on the whole, I am confident that if the general complaints which are made were brought as specific complaints to the Controller, ample and reasonable justification would be found in the vast majority of cases. As regards new designs developed since those adopted by Sir Joseph Maclay and his two Advisory Committees of Builders and Owners, I could, I feel sure, satisfy hon. Members and the House on that point, did time permit; but I think that in the interests of brevity I must refrain from doing so.

    "FABRICATED" SHIPS.
    But there is one particular type of standard ship which was designed by the Admiralty in the Department of the Director of Naval Construction in close consultation with the Department of the Controller, and I would certainly like to tell the House something about it. It is

    1031
    known as "N" design, and is technically called the "Fabricated" ship; it is manufactured in parts by repetition throughout the country and assembled at the yard. One of our most successful shipbuilders, after examining it in detail, came to the conclusion that it was so satisfactory and could be built so much quicker that it was in the national interests to cancel certain repeat orders for other standard ships which he was about to lay down, in order to substitute this new "N" type of ship for them. Comparing this type with the type "A," we get 2,470 tons additional D.W. capacity for an extra 11½ feet in length. Each ton of net steel in the new type will yield 4.06 D.W. tons against 3.53 D.W. tons for each ton of net steel in the original type—an increase in carrying capacity of 15 per cent. for each ton of steel. Not, I think, a bad result for these experts branded as "amateurs"! I would like, in passing, to point out that the "N" type of "fabricated" ship is the one which is going to be built in the national shipyards, as well as elsewhere.

    LABOUR SUPPLY.
    I will not refer, except incidentally, to the recent manifesto of employers and employés on the subject of the organisation for dealing with labour matters. I have read again several times the words I used in this House, and I cannot see that they were unjustifiable. Immediately after I made the statement it was announced in the Press that a meeting was to be held, and that it would publish a manifesto in reply to this so-called unjust charge which has been made by me. I do not wish to enter into a controversy, or to indulge in recrimination—or, indeed, to make detailed charges or distribute blame. But if it were necessary or profitable, I could fully justify any criticism I have made.
    I would turn now for a moment to the question of labour supply. During the summer months of 1917 the yards undoubtedly suffered from a shortage of material, but the arrangements which were being made by the Ministry of Munitions to augment the output of plates had not fully matured. To-day, as I have already stated, the material position is satisfactory, and steel is not holding up output. Taking areas as a whole, the stocks in the yards are more
    1032
    satisfactory than they have been for years. The need to-day is "skilled labour"; in a few weeks I hope there will be no such complaint. We have increased the labour of the shipbuilding and marine engineering industries materially during the last few months, although not to the extent we had hoped. I should say—although the fact that labour in certain works is interchangeable with work not connected with shipbuilding makes it a little difficult to give exact figures—that during the last seven months the net addition to labour has been round 18,000—mainly unskilled. I am speaking of private yards—not of the national shipyards, nor of royal dockyards. This additional labour has not, of course, gone entirely into new construction. In fact, at one time, I should say it went largely to strengthen repair personnel. It is difficult to record fairly the fluctuating division between men in yards doing repair work, and those employed on new construction. Obviously the return must be compiled on a specific day, and there may on that day be an abnormally largo or abnormally small number, say, on repairs. The returns for February are not yet all in, but sufficiently so to enable one to make a reliable statement as to the labour employed on the new construction of merchant ships.
    Compared with the month of January, there was in February a net increase on new construction, hulls and machinery, of over 2,500, which is as much as the merchant yards could digest in the time with the skilled men available. I am hoping that this rate of increment will steadily increase as the skilled men ordered by the War Cabinet to be released from the Army, become available. But it must be remembered that the withdrawal of skilled men from the Army is in itself a slow and difficult process. The vast majority of the men who possess skill in one or other of the shipyard trades now serving in the Army are engaged as artificers.
    Mr. ASQUITH: At the front?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Yes; and in order to prevent their withdrawal occasioning a sudden drop in the efficiency of, say, the Artillery, it is necessary to effect their withdrawal slowly, and as they are withdrawn, to replace them by efficient substitutes.
    We are, however, gradually getting back from the Forces all men who are

    1033
    skilled or semi-skilled in the shipyard trades, and who, before enlistment, were employed in shipyards, unless they are now employed in exceptional positions where their skill is essential. This process has been in force for some weeks, and up to the 18th of March, 1,811 men have been returned to the shipyards and engine shops—and 785 are waiting at the depot for the completion of their demobilisation. The addition of skilled men will facilitate the absorption of more unskilled labour; but it must at all times be a matter of adjustment as to the number of unskilled men which the shipyards can absorb at any one time.
    The Ministry of National Service has arranged with the Admiralty, War Office, and Air Ministry to secure as rapid a flow of skilled men back to the shipyards as is possible. Even, however, if we had obtained back from the forces all the skilled shipyard workers who can in any way be spared, there would still remain a considerable deficiency in our requirements for skilled men in the shipyard trades. This deficiency can only be met by up-grading, dilution, and the education of men within the shipbuilding industry.
    As what I have already said clearly demonstrates—we are, in fact, already achieving a total shipyard effort infinitely greater than anything that has been attained even in peace time, and we are aiming at something very much higher. As regards training men as riveters, five schools for pneumatic riveting are approaching completion; the unions and employers must now work vigorously together to make full use of the schools in training up men at present unskilled. We rely on these newly-trained men to supplement the skilled shipyard workers who are to be set free from positions in the Army and Navy in which their skill is not essential

    OUTPUT (JANUARY AND FEBRUARY).
    I wish now to deal quite briefly with the low output of January and February, which I brought most prominently before the House in my recent statement. In January and February, 1917, which was shortly after the present Government came in, the output was 127,000 tons in the two months, and in 1918 it is 158,000 tons—not a very satisfactory increase, although the January figure in peace-time is always low. It is true that these are winter months—usually the worst of
    1034
    the year for outdoor work. This year the conditions, after the first week of January, were quite abnormally bad, and it must be remembered that this is very largely outdoor work. It is also true that the necessity brought about by war conditions of converting several standard cargo steamers, which were under construction and due for delivery during these months, into oil carriers to make up abnormal submarine sinkings, deferred delivery of a considerable amount of tonnage which would otherwise have fallen into these months. It is true that repairs undertaken have steadily increased and reached the remarkable increase I have mentioned in that month, namely, 500,000 tons per week repair.
    These reasons alone, however—potent and important though they be—do not account for the drop in output from the average of 140,000 tons per month for the last quarter of last year to 58,000 tons in January and 100,000 tons in February. There was a sufficient and an increasing quantity of steel, and increasing numbers of men, and I do not think that any reasonable critic can maintain that a Department which gave the satisfactory results of the last quarter of last year in both building and repairing of all kinds could, in these circumstances, be held responsible for a sudden drop of this kind. If I was wrong in saying—and I do not think I was—that even now some masters and men have not realised the position, I am wrong in supposing that it will help us at all to publish the facts, and, if so, I err in very good company. My right hon. Friend opposite, and hon. Members in all parts of the House, the Press and the public, urged us to publish the facts. Why? Because publication was needed to dispel ignorance and to quicken imagination, so that the country—including the masters and men—should thoroughly realise the position. If my statement brings about that result, and I think it will, I shall be quite content.

    CONTROLLER'S DEPARTMENT (RECORD WORK).
    5.0 P.M.
    I have endeavoured to give some measure of the work done in the Department of the Controller, and I venture to think that its magnitude and ramification is largely news to most of my hearers. Incidentally I think much less than justice has been done them. Were the time not so portentous and the subject less vital and urgent. I would have

    1035
    treated it in a more contentious way. To so treat it now would be disgraceful, and I feel sure that I shall not be misunderstood in so leaving the matter. The Controller's Department is gradually overcoming the difficulties of the situation. The steel difficulty has been overcome. The men are beginning to flow into the yards in increasing numbers, and the yards are getting cleared out and allotted to work most suited to them. Not only in shipbuilding, but in ship repairing and in preparing the way for a. much greater output, the Controller's Department has done work of inestimable value. I believe that the problem is in a fair way to be solved. I believe that the organisation of the Controller is to-day solving it.

    LORD PIRRIE'S APPOINTMENT.
    But I agree with the criticism—and I should add that the Controller and his principal officers have urged this view upon me—that in a technical Department of such vital concern to the country at the present time the greatest shipbuilder of the day might, with great advantage to the country and in order to give confidence to the country, be employed. We have decided to obtain the most experienced and the most highly qualified advice and assistance that we can obtain. The Government, therefore, have asked Lord Pirrie to take, and he has accepted, the position of Controller-General of Merchant Shipbuilding, directly under the First Lord, and not on the Board of Admiralty. Lord Pirrie is the greatest and most successful shipbuilder probably in the world, and his record in this vital matter of production of tonnage in this country at the present time is unrivalled.
    Sir E. CARSON: Might I ask my right hon. Friend whether Lord Pirrie will be under the Admiralty—whether it is proposed to retain the mercantile shipbuilding and the naval shipbuilding still under the Admiralty?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The intention, as I have said, is to keep the merchant shipbuilding under the First Lord. Lord Pirrie will come directly under the First Lord, but will not be on the Board of Admiralty.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: What will be his relation to the Controller?
    Sir E. GEDDES: He will be above the Controller in all merchant shipbuilding matters.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Not in naval shipbuilding?
    Sir E. GEDDES: Nothing to do with naval shipbuilding. I would like to tell the Committee some of the results of his work. As is well known, his Belfast Yard was not a tramp-building yard before, and it required a good deal of adjustment of machinery, labour, and yard conditions before it could be used for this purpose of building standard ships, and his results there are far better than in any other yard in the Kingdom. Lord Pirrie, therefore, has an undoubted right to express opinions on this question of standard ships, of design, and the Departs mental organisation charged with the production of ships on behalf of the Government, and his advice has been of great value in regard to the national shipyards. Lord Pirrie has built standard ships and oilers in far shorter time than anyone else has turned out identical craft. This applies not only at Belfast, but as regards oilers on the Clyde too. He has beaten all records all over the country. I think I am right in saying that more than half the standard ships completed have come from his yards, and he hopes to launch one every fortnight before long. As a matter of fact, he is already completing these ships in five and a half months from the date the keel is laid, and he hopes to complete ships in under four and a half months in future in the design I have explained. These are absolutely unrivalled results.
    I do not propose to go at length into the question of national shipyards, but it will, I feel sure, be of great interest to the House—and, I think, possibly a relief to certain hon. Members—to know that Lord Pirrie is—and I have his permission to state this—enthusiastic about the value to the country of the national shipyards, and of the outlook for rapid production in them of the new "N" type of "fabricated" ship, which I have before mentioned.
    Incidentally, and in passing. I would like to mention that Lord Pirrie has told me that he would have been unable to give the results he has given, or to expect the great reduction of time in building standard ships which I have mentioned, had it not been for the great help, co-

    1037
    operation, and common-sense treatment he has received from the Department of the Controller. Lord Pirrie will assume responsibility for the output of merchant tonnage for the State. As Controller-General, he will be invited to attend meetings of the Board of Admiralty and of the Maintenance Committee of the Board when matters of mercantile shipbuilding are discussed. While the Controller-General will be directly responsible to the First Lord, I have asked the Prime Minister to make it one of the terms of his appointment that upon all questions in which he feels that the interests of merchant shipbuilding are concerned he shall have direct access to the Prime Minister and to the War Cabinet, just as I have, and this has been arranged.
    In thus making public announcement of his appointment, it should be stated that owing to Harland and Wolff being a private limited company, it is not possible for Lord Pirrie formally to retire, but he will, of course, take no active part in the direction of Harland and Wolff, or its subsidiary companies, so long as he is devoting his time to the mercantile shipbuilding programme. I feel that this appointment will give great confidence to the country. It is welcomed by the Admiralty and the Controller's Department, and I feel that we shall gain great benefit from Lord Pirrie's unequalled knowledge and experience.
    I am confident that with the publicity which now, for the first time, we are able to give and which we have been urged on all sides is necessary in order to let the country understand the full situation. Admiralty officials, masters and men will throw their hearts more than ever into the production of that additional 100,000 tons of shipping per month which is necessary to overtake the present rate of net world loss; and I am confident that the men in the shipyards will feel that their duty is every bit as much to overtake the rate of sinkings as the duty of the Allied navies is to bring sinkings down below the rate of production.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am sure that the whole House will congratulate my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty on having succeeded in raising the veil of secrecy which has shrouded the facts from the knowledge of the public. We can congratulate him, I am sure, on that, because we feel that one of the essential conditions to secure fresh efforts
    1038
    on the part of both masters and workmen is that they should be kept thoroughly acquainted with all that is happening. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a good many interesting figures, but I cannot say I found them particularly reassuring figures. They seem to me very grave and serious. We find that, while the rest of the world made a net loss of 8 per cent. of its shipping, the loss of the shipping of the British Empire was 20 per cent., and I am afraid it appeared from the figures given by the First Lord we had not made up our losses quite as effectively as the neutrals had made up theirs. The First Lord said that we had a loss of 20 per cent. of our shipping since the beginning of the War. To appreciate what that loss means, you must take off the figure of the mercantile marine which is absorbed in war services. I do not think that figure has ever been given. The First Lord did not give it to-day, but we all know it is a very substantial figure, so that a reduction of 20 per cent. of our total mercantile marine is very much more than a reduction of 20 per cent. on that part of our mercantile marine which can be used for the purposes of the civilian population, such as food-carrying, the transport of raw materials, and all the hundred and one purposes which are necessary for the life of the nation.
    The right hon. Gentleman, I think, was under a misapprehension on one point. He said that it was the Shipping Controller who had first tried to separate naval and mercantile construction. He is entirely mistaken on that point. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the late Government (Mr. Runciman)—whose absence through illness I very much regret, because he naturally knows more about the facts of the past than any of his colleagues—initiated the policy of separating the Navy from the mercantile marine, and before he left office, as he has informed me, he had arranged with the First Lord of the Admiralty at that time—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour)—to devote thirteen private yards purely to the construction of mercantile ships. So that the right hon. Gentleman was not justified in claiming credit for that view for the Shipping Controller. My right hon. Friend also put steel for ship-construction first on the priority list. I would ask the First Lord if it still remains there. When you come to the reassuring calculation

    1039
    made by the First Lord, I think it requires a little examination. The First Lord told us that we were building within 100,000 tons a month of our losses. Although that was not satisfactory—he did not pretend it was anything like satisfactory—still it was reassuring. But how did he arrive at the figure? He took the quarter of our greatest construction—the last quarter of 1917–420,000 tons, and he took the quarter which in last year was the smallest quarter of sinkings.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The same quarter.
    Mr. WOOD: Yes, but that is not the point. I sincerely hope he is justified in taking the lowest quarter for sinkings, but if he had taken the sinkings and the construction for the whole year he would have presented a figure to the House which he certainly could not have described as reassuring. He selected his months.
    Sir E. GEDDES: No, I took the last quarter.
    Mr. WOOD: There is another point. That last quarter was a much more favourable quarter than any other quarter of last year, and, what is more important, it was much more favourable than the quarter in which we are now living. That quarter showed a production of tonnage of 420,000, but the month of January only showed a production of 55,000 tons, and the month of February only 100,000 tons; that is, 155,000 tons for the two months. That is a great falling off from 420,000 tons for the quarter, and I think we want some reassurance about the prospects of construction before we can take that reassuring estimate quite literally. The right hon. Gentleman appreciated, evidently, that no subject, I think, since the beginning of the War has caused so much anxiety as this question of the failure to build merchant ships in adequate numbers, because we appreciate that upon success in that matter depends our being able to continue our part in this War. Not only that, but upon it depends the power of France and Italy to continue taking their share. Upon it also depends the great consideration whether we shall be able to bring from America troops and supplies to assist us in the great struggle which lies before us in the immediate future. I appreciate that it is an extremely diffi-
    1040
    cult task for any Government to balance the claims of essential services, but, never-the less, it is the task for which a Government exists. It is the supreme task by which the Government should be judged. A point I feel bound to make is that in the past shipping construction has not had its proper share in the national effort. Much time has been lost, and it is our duty to see that no more time is lost. At the end of the year 1916 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman), who was then President of the Board of Trade, made an estimate of what we should be able to construct during 1917, and he said that he had arranged for the supply of steel for the purpose of constructing over 1,000,000 tons. That estimate was realised with remarkable exactitude, but in April came the unrestricted submarine warfare. Up to that time it had been a question of doubt as to whether Germany would risk bringing the United States into the quarrel by developing this type of warfare, and thus risking quarrels with neutral countries.
    In April we knew what Germany intended to do. The figures of our losses enormously increased, both of British and neutral ships—in fact, they were more than doubled. What has been the result? In January, 1917, our output was 48,000 tons, and in February 79,000 tons, making a total of 127,000 tons in two months. In January, 1918, the total was 55,000 tons, whilst in February it was 100,000 tons. In the two months, in the face of ten months of unrestricted warfare, with all the warnings the Government have had, we have only increased our output by 28,000 tons—that is, only an increase of 168,000 tons a year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) informed the House, in a frank speech, that we had only built about half our estimate. It is our business to consider the mistakes of the past in order that we may avoid them in the future. This is a matter that lends itself to no delay.
    Let us look at the labour situation. How does the question of releasing skilled men for the shipyards from the Army stand? On the 14th February the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty informed us that the War Cabinet had decided to release 20,000 skilled men from the Army to work in the shipyards, and that they would come in from the middle of February at the rate of 1,000 a week. On the 12th March, four weeks later, the right hon. Gentleman informed us that they had already

    1041
    obtained 1,098 of these men and sent them to the shipyards. At that rate it would be the end of 1919 before we got the 20,000 men into the shipyards. My point is, Why, when we knew that Germany had determined upon an unrestricted submarine warfare, we did not in April, 1917, release those 20,000 men? That was the time to do it, and that is a responsibility which I think weighs upon the Government, and it is upon that point I think we are entitled to a very definite answer. I do not pretend to be an expert in shipbuilding, but I do know the spirit of the men on the Clyde. For eighteen years I have worked with those men. I have addressed many meetings there, and I have been heckled by them, and I can say they are the shrewdest hecklers in the world. I have talked to them in agreement and in argument. They have been members of my political association and I know them pretty well, and what I should like to say to the First Lord is that these men on the Clyde are, above all things, reasoning beings. It is no use hurling reproaches at them. If you taunt them, your taunts and reproaches are mere weapons in the hands of the disaffected minority, and they create ill-blood in the shipyards. The right way to deal with them is not to make statements which are unduly optimistic, and which only tend to cause depression and disappointment in the end. These men will listen to the stern logic of facts and nothing else. There is no audience in this country to which you can address a stiffer argument than the engineers and skilled artisans on the Clyde. I remember a man telling me at a meeting, "If you make a slip in your speech there will be a man in the audience who will be able to point it out." I think the Leader of the House would agree with me in my estimate of those hard-headed Scotsmen.
    My advice to the First Lord is to continue on the path he has started upon to-day. Tell these people the facts; treat them as men of the highest intelligence, as they are, reason with them, and then you will get on with them, but you will never drive or coerce them. If you try to treat them like children, they will play like children; but if you treat them like men, they will work like men. Now you are asking people to make special effort sand sacrifices. After all, it is our nation that is in peril, and we are entitled to know everything. I hope we shall not be given optimistic estimates. Let us have
    1042
    the hard facts and form our own judgment. I do not form so favourable a judgment upon the facts which have been given to us as the First Lord would have us accept. The First Lord did not say very much about that very important manifesto issued by the Shipbuilders and Employers' Federation and the trade unions. I hold no brief for the shipbuilders and I do not represent trade unions, but I think they absolutely prove up to the hilt that the, charge which has been made against them as showing indifference is not justified. They point out that they met the Prime Minister in the month of November and made proposals to him, and they made criticisms of the work of the Shipping Controller, which, I think, shows that they were taking a very serious view of the situation, and, at any rate, it proves that they were interested in the question. These men complained of interference from too many quarters, and when we consider how many Departments can interfere you will not be surprised at them and blame them. There is the Minister of National Service combing for the War Office dealing with them in one direction, and I wonder if he has combed any men out of the shipping yards at this moment. Perhaps we may have some information on that subject. Then there is the Munitions Department. When I was Secretary for Scotland I used to watch the operations of that Department in connection with labour in Glasgow. Then you have the Shipping Controller and the Admiralty, and last, but apparently least, you have the Minister of Labour, who seems to have least of all to do with this question, although the shipbuilders and the men think he ought to have a good deal to do with it. I suggest to the Government a little concentration of these various Departments dealing with labour. Then the shipbuilders complain of the change in controllers, of the varying policies, of excessive interference, and of unnecessary alterations. Shipping in the course of the last one and a half years has been under a good many different departments. First of all, shipping had to do with the Board of Trade. After that they had to do with Sir Joseph Maclay, the Shipping Controller, and then with the Shipping Controller under the Board of Admiralty, and after that there was another Shipping Controller under the Admiralty. We had an interesting letter in the "Times" the other day from a gentleman, Sir W. Rowan Thomson,

    1043
    whom I do not know, but who was an official, and he points out how much confusion of control there was and how much excessive delegation there has been. As for Sir Joseph Maclay, I think things might have gone fairly well under him if he had been backed up, but he did not get those 20,000 men from the Army. The First Lord assures us that the Admiralty has a most maternal care over shipbuilding. There is no class in this country for whom I have a more sincere respect than for the naval officer. He is a man with trained brains, gives the most remarkable exhibitions of courage, and as a class they are among the finest men in the whole country. Of course, they have the defects of their class, like any other human being, and it is not reasonable to expect if you put the Admiralty in control of merchant shipping that the claims of merchant shipping will have any prior claim. The probability is that a third-rate naval claim is likely to have more consideration than a first-class mercantile shipping claim. We were told the other day by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs that in regard to materials and labour used in shipbuilding 70 per cent. were used for naval purposes and only 30 per cent. for merchant shipping.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is not correct.
    Mr. WOOD: Then perhaps we shall be given the correct figures to-day, and we only want the information. The First Lord gave us a great many reasons for the frequent alterations in the designs of standard ships, and he told us that there have been an extraordinary number of alterations in those designs. I would like to ask what has it to do with the War that you should have to alter the accommodation for the crews. Could it not have been perceived that you want a certain adequate accommodation for the crews. One would have thought that that was one of the elementary things any shipping designer would have provided for. When you are engaged in building construction that is not the time to alter your plans. A wise man tries to fix his plans, talk them over with his builder as well as his architect, and if he wishes the ships to be built within the specified time he makes no alteration in the plans. There is nothing more costly than these constant alterations in the plans, and I was
    1044
    appalled at the list of alterations which the First Lord of the Admiralty mentioned. There is the question of inspection. There was in the "Times" yesterday a very weighty letter from a man of very large experience, Sir Thomas Sutherland, pointing out that there was an enormous amount of quite unnecessary inspection. He said that the ordinary ship-owner found Lloyd's inspection, which the whole world admits to be thoroughly competent, quite sufficient. There were some ship-owners who employed their own inspectors, but they hardly interfered at all. He thought that there was an immense waste on inspection. It caused a large waste of time, took the heart out of the works managers and foremen, and did not tend to celerity in building. When I was at the Treasury I found that the Admiralty, even in those easier days, were very fond of building without estimates on a sort of cost and percentage basis, which is probably the worst basis in the public interest. I know it may be said that you have certain difficulties at the present time, but I really think that a number of those difficulties could be surmounted so as to avoid this extremely costly way of building. It is not only enormously costly in money, but it is also extremely costly in time, because neither the employers nor the employed have the slightest interest in accelerating the work. You entirely remove the stimulus of personal interest in the matter. I hope that some means will be found of giving both the shipbuilder and the workmen an interest in getting the work done with expedition, and, if I may mention such a matter, at a reasonable cost to the public purse.
    I do not propose to deal with the 12½ per cent. Bonus which several Labour leaders have told us is one of the most serious causes of the unrest. It seems to have been like a stone thrown into the middle of a pond, sending out a number of concentric waves which have not yet subsided. I hear that the women are now claiming the 12½ per cent. I do not think that I could add to the criticism of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) and others on that subject. I should like to ask if there has not been too much bureaucratic interference in this business, as in some other businesses? You can easily over-inspect and thus destroy the temper and efficiency of works managers, foremen, and people. The fact is that at the present time the Government are regulating and con-

    1045
    trolling a good many businesses out of existence. We cannot afford to let the shipbuilders go out of business, but they are suffering. I am not an expert, and I do not like to dogmatise on the subject, but I wonder if it was altogether wise to say peremptorily to the shipbuilders who had been in the habit of building a particular type of ship at a particular yard that they would not be allowed to build them at all! There were obvious advantages in allowing them to do so. They had the drawings and the patterns, and they could start work at once—in fact, this was so well recognised that you could place a second ship at a lower price than the first, other things being equal. They were peremptorily stopped. Would it not have been wiser for the Shipping Controller to have waited until he had had his standard ship in a state of completeness, until he had known what accommodation he wanted for the crews, and what shape the bridge was to be, and to have allowed these ships to be built in the meantime? These alterations have been an enormous source of waste. We are all agreed that we have received more information than has been given before, but I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty did not mean to say that he was only going to give us the sinkings once a quarter. I presume that he is going to give us the existing weekly figures, and the precise figures of tonnage sunk once a quarter. I do not think the House would be very much gratified if they found, in place of the very partial and unsatisfactory figures, that we are only to get a return once a quarter.
    Sir E. GEDDES: The weekly return of ships has proved to be an unsatisfactory return, and it is because it has been proved unsatisfactory and does not give the correct position that we have altered it. I doubt very much really whether the House wants to go on getting a return that has proved itself to be an unsatisfactory return, and, in fact, a misleading return, though not intentionally misleading. I would ask the House not to press me as to the exact return to be given. I hope to give the best information possible, but I do not want to give the actual tonnage figures in detail more than once a quarter, and it may be that we shall have to give them a little in arrear. I would ask the House to give me time to think over it.
    Mr. WOOD: I can assure the First Lord of the Admiralty that it will not satisfy the House if he is only going to give us the
    1046
    figures once a quarter, and if we are going to be kept in absolute ignorance for three months about these events which are threatening our actual existence.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Why does the right hon. Gentleman speak for the whole House? I am sure, if the First Lord of the Admiralty were to give information which might be useful to the enemy, that the House would not be satisfied.
    Mr. WOOD: I did not say anything of the sort. I said that the House would not be satisfied if they were kept waiting three months for the information. The hon. Member may not agree with me, but I am expressing an opinion, and I do not believe that the public outside would be satisfied. I am bound to say, summing the whole thing up, that while we have been gratified to receive the extra information we have not received much comfort for the future. At the present time we see the figures of shipbuilding, 55,000 tons in January and 100,000 tons in February—a mere fraction of the sinkings. We have had a defence of the past, but we have had no very satisfactory promise for the future, and we want to make sure that the Government are really determined that a proper consideration shall be given to the question of mercantile shipbuilding. We have had no assurance on that point. I am sure that we all respect the exceptional ability of Lord Pirrie, but it is the usual device of the Government when in a difficulty to appoint a new Controller, and we want to know whether the great ability of Lord Pirrie will be backed by adequate power. We have seen other men appointed to other posts, and they have been able to do very little, because they were not backed by the Government. It is perfectly evident, whoever was responsible for merchant shipbuilding last year, that he was not properly backed by the Government. He was not allowed to get the men essential for the industry. We have only begun to get them now, and we are getting them very slowly. The thing is still to be under the Admiralty. It is quite true that Lord Pirrie is to have access to the War Cabinet. Nominally, everybody has access to the War Cabinet, but I really think that we are entitled to ask for a very much more satisfactory promise as to the future before we can declare ourselves satisfied with the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    Mr. FRANCE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

    1047
    I can assure the House that I approach this subject without any party or historic bias. I simply desire, as a private Member, to express my views with regard to the statement that we have heard this afternoon. Frankly, I am disappointed with that statement. It seemed to me to have the same characteristics as the statements that we have had previously from the right hon. Gentleman. It divided itself into three parts. First of all, he gave the figures of losses and of building. He then turned to the record of the Department over which he presides with so much energy and ability, and he could not conceal from us the fact that he thought they had not done badly; in fact, that they had really done, very well. With regard to the future, some changes were announced which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think were not very necessary, but which would be of comfort to the public. I think the House would prefer to know what the view of the Government, as a Government, really is with regard to the position which merchant shipbuilding should hold at the present time, and whether the Government regard merchant shipbuilding as the basis and foundation of all success or failure in the War. We have had from the right hon. Gentleman a Departmental statement—a statement from the point of view of the Admiralty. We want the wider view, the view of the Government, and a clear statement as to how they regard this matter of merchant shipbuilding. The right hon. Gentleman asked the House not to think that the Admiralty was an ungenerous stepmother to merchant shipbuilding. Why should merchant shipbuilding be put off with a stepmother? Why cannot merchant shipbuilding have a real mother? That is what we are asking for. We are asking that it should not be a forlorn foundling, or something which the Admiralty takes under her wing, but that merchant shipbuilding should take a real place, with a real Department with real push and pull to get the men necessary to build the ships.
    The right hon. Gentleman has resisted the proposal that this work should be entrusted to a new Department. I can imagine in 1915 the Minister for War, if he had been in this House, making a speech of a similar character in defence of his position, pointing out that he should retain control over the supply of
    1048
    munitions, and resisting the taking of them away from the War Office, which had really done very well, and which was prepared to do better, in order to put them under a new Department. We did take them away from the War Office and put them under a new Department, and on the whole the country is satisfied with the change that has been made. The argument which the right hon. Gentleman used for retaining merchant shipbuilding under the Admiralty was that there was better co-ordination. It is a blessed word, but I do not quite understand what it means in this connection. I have here the interesting Report of me War Cabinet, which only came into our hands yesterday, and I turn with great interest to the considered and very recent opinion of those who are responsible for giving the record of the War Cabinet. I confess, for one, that I think it is a very admirable and, on the whole, a very fairly compiled Report, considering it consists very largely, as it naturally must, of a certain sort of self-praise. I do not mean that offensively at all; it is a natural thing that it should be so. They deal with this very question of the division of work as between shipbuilding yards particularly engaged in merchant work and those engaged in naval work. They point out that gradually a division has been made. They say:
    "The first decision taken by the Controller of the Navy was to separate, as far as possible, naval from mercantile work. The two classes of shipbuilding are not harmonious"
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is what we want.
    Mr. FRANCE: Yes that is what we want; but the argument was put forward to-day, and by the Leader of the House the other night, that just because work of both kinds was going on in the same yard that was a reason why a separate Department could not be established for ship building. That argument is absolutely—
    Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: Childish!
    Mr. FRANCE: I was going to use a more moderate metaphor. I will say it has been absolutely blown sky-high. It will not hold water for a moment, in view of the fact that the policy of the Government has been to separate the work and to make the yards as far as possible distinct. They go on to say—I am paraphrasing the words—that not only has the work proceeded in that direction, but that gradually the evil

    1049
    which still exists of the work going on in the same yard will be corrected, and more will be done in the same direction. The argument that because there is work of two characters going on in the country is not at all an argument the House can accept as one which would convince them that a separate Department for shipbuilding would not work harmoniously if the great majority of the yards are being worked on merchant shipping alone. I wish to speak for a moment about figures. I do not wish to follow the line taken by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, except to say that he pointed out, what must be remembered, that these percentages are very dangerous, and that the 8 per cent. of the whole of the world's tonnage is particularly dangerous. The whole world's tonnage includes the whole of the Dutch tonnage, which has been out of action, and which has been safe for some time. That may or may not come into the War zone, but it has not been in the War zone; therefore, to that extent the 8 per cent. is not a fair percentage. There is other neutral tonnage which has not been taking the same risks, therefore to that extent the 8 per cent. is not a fair percentage. It must always be remembered that the losses of merchant tonnage fall upon that part of tonnage which is required for what I may describe as the civilian needs of this country. One cannot for a moment believe that the Government will take out of the tonnage employed by the Navy or for the Army what is necessary for the carrying on of the War in those directions. Almost inevitably the whole burden of loss falls upon that part of the tonnage which is used for the ordinary needs of the country. Therefore, the percentage figure is a very dangerous one, and the House and the country should not attach too much comfort to it.
    I do not want to advocate for a moment a spirit of pessimism. I do not look at these figures in a spirit of pessimism, but we must consider, value, and estimate the facts as they are. Some people are inclined to say, "Oh! the American shipbuilding will solve the difficulty." In my humble opinion any assistance that can be given from America in merchant shipbuilding would be more than neutralised by the needs of America for war services, and we cannot rely in the direction of which I have spoken on any direct help from America this year in that respect. To what are we to look for improvement?
    1050
    First, to the sinking of submarines. That, we are glad to know, is proceeding well and rapidly. We should hear much of its success by weekly returns, and it is suggested to us—I do not want to emphasise the point—that we shall be deprived of our weekly returns.
    Sir E. CARSON: No !
    Mr. FRANCE: I am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the Committee when the statement was made just now.
    Sir E. CARSON: I was.
    6.0 P.M
    Mr. FRANCE: We have been told that we may not have these weekly returns. I do not intend to press the First Lord, because, obviously, the matter has not been very carefully considered, and he is not prepared, therefore, to say exactly what will be done. But I do point out, if we are to know the facts and the country is to be encouraged or warned, as the case may be, of the actual position, that to deprive the country of all knowledge, not only for three months, but then only to give them information in arrears, will not put the country in that state of knowledge which is required for a full consideration of the case. The first consideration is the destruction of submarines, and the second is the building of merchant ships. What is the Government outlook with regard to that? The War Cabinet Report, which has afforded me very interesting study, is a very interesting commentary upon their intentions in this respect. As it has been published recently I suppose it contains their most recent intentions They say:
    "At the end of 1918—"
    I would ask the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the output of merchant tonnage whether or not this is to be taken seriously—
    "the rate of output of all ships, war and merchant, ought to be double that of any previous year in British history."
    Will it be? [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Then why publish this book with this statement in it? That will make the output of merchant and naval shipbuilding approach 4,500,000 tons. I leave the House to judge whether that is likely to be fulfilled. I take the spring of 1917, when, as the right hon. Gentleman said just now this matter should have been taken very seriously into consideration in view of the unlimited submarine warfare It is now common knowledge that at that time an estimate was presented to the War Cabinet of what

    1051
    might be done in the output of merchant shipping under certain conditions. Figures were placed before them, as I am informed—and it is a matter of common knowledge in the shipbuilding world—as to the number of men and the amount of steel which were put forward in that estimate as the conditions of the output. If 1,800,000 tons were to be secured, it assumed that so many men must be brought back and added to the shipyards, and if 3,000,000 tons were to be secured then a seriously considered statement was presented to the Cabinet stating that 80,000 men must be brought back and added to the shipyards. In May, 1917, the control of shipbuilding was taken away from the Shipping Controller and put under the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord, who was then Controller of the Navy and who had the special mission given to him, in view of his great business capacity, to secure that output and to get something like those 3,000,000 tons, no doubt in consequence of the estimate which was given. What has been the result under the auspices and the control of the Admiralty? The steady progress—as was said the other night, steady though slow—of 1916 and up to the summer of 1917 did not continue in the same steady direction. It began to vary. It began to go up and down. It is true that the variations took a favourable course in November and December, but they have taken an unfavourable course in January and February, and the line, instead of being one of steady progress, has now continued its erratic course, and one of the causes of this Debate, one of the causes of the admission of failure, and one of the causes of the changes is the very serious and sad drop in January and February of this year. We were promised men. Remember that men were always a condition of output. We have had all sorts of estimates and answers given as to how many men have come back. I confess I am absolutely mystified as to what the number is. So far as I can gather, something under 2,000 men have been brought back from the Army for shipbuilding, although in April, 1917, it was clearly stated you could not have the output unless you had the men. The Committee is entitled to ask the Government, in view of all that, what is their view as to the need and the position which merchant shipbuilding should take in this country? I wish we could have been dealt with more fairly and frankly in
    1052
    this matter of men. In the Debate last week, on the 14th instant, I asked the Leader of the House if men were being brought back from the Army to the shipyards. This is what he said:
    "As regards the Army more men are being brought back from the front."
    He went on to say how difficult it was, that men did not like to be brought back from their fellows in the trenches, and he added:
    "The fact remains that it will not be for want of men if shipbuilding does not improve." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1918, col. 617.]
    The fact did not remain very long, because on the very next day one read in the newspapers that the War Office had officially announced that
    "The Instruction published in all regimental and unit orders relates to units at home only."
    I question very much whether, when you divide the question between home and foreign service, very many men have actually been brought back from the front to help in the shipyards. I quite agree that the output of ships should not be interfered with through lack of men. If the Government were to take the view we ask them to take, I do not think for a moment we should have to complain of the output. It really is a question of whether or not the Government will make the War Office give way, if, in their opinion, it is a matter of a struggle between the War Office and merchant shipbuilding in this country. I would also ask for more frankness and consistency about this decrease of output in January and February. Many reasons have been given for it. The First Lord spoke of "masters and men" and "the weather." The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty added "holidays." The Leader of the House—I do not know whether under a misapprehension or not—last week said it was owing to lack of material. That was the latest reason given. Some of these reasons are consistent, but the first reason, that the men had not worked, and the last that there is not sufficient material for them, are not consistent, but contradictory. If the Leader of the House is right, then the complaint against the men was not well-founded. I would remind the First Lord that this is not the first occasion when there has been a complaint about output, and when there was a dispute with regard to production. If I had the gifts of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Admiral Sir H. Meux) in

    1053
    quoting from sacred and allegorical history I would remind the First Lord that another First Lord once complained of output, and he said this to some men who were working for him:
    "Wherefore have ye not fulfilled your task in making brick both yesterday and to-day, as heretofore?"
    Then the officers of the children of Israel came and cried unto their First Lord, whose name was Pharaoh,
    "saying, 'Wherefore dealest thou thus with thy servants? There is no straw given unto thy servants, and they say to us, Make brick; and, behold, thy servants are beaten; but the fault is in thine own people."
    In those days labour was rather inclined to turn round and say, "Is there not something wrong with the Government Departments Will the First Lord kindly follow the next sentence which I take from the same excellent record and authority, which is not incompatible with what he said to the workmen?
    "And Pharaoh answered and said, 'Ye are idle, ye are idle; go therefore now and work.'"
    The result was not satisfactory, and not long afterwards the brickyards were empty, the workers had gone, and the First Lord of that day was drowned in his effort to get them back. I make bold to try to substantiate, not in any spirit of animosity against the Government or against any party or any man, the charge, which I think is held to a large extent in the country and to a considerable extent in this House, that the Admiralty has failed in this matter. I have no pleasure in saying this. Far from it. I hold an honorary commission in one branch of the senior Service, but I make a very great distinction in that matter between the Navy and the Admiralty. I desire nothing and have no object in this Debate in asking for a change except that the country may see an increased output in this the supreme hour of our need. The right hon. Gentleman has to a certain extent admitted failure, although he admitted it with an air of remarkable complacency, as to the past. The plans laid for 1916 and 1917, although no doubt there are many reasons for slowness of output, were eventually being carried out in 1917, but all the improvements which were introduced in the spring of 1917 ought by this time to have been bearing fruit, instead of which very nearly a year afterwards he has to admit very serious failures in output in the first quarter of
    1054
    this year. And although I do not know how this first quarter is going to turn out, because we do not know exactly what March is like, the result is so serious that everyone in every part of the House must regard it with very grave concern.
    Despite the failure, which I have tried, I hope without offence, to bring home to the Admiralty, the control of this work is not to leave the Admiralty. The only relieving feature is that Lord Pirrie's name is introduced, because everyone who knows anything about Lord Pirrie must treat his name with great respect and regard him as a great figure, a man of great energy and great achievement. But what is going to happen to the standard ships in his yards when he is working at the Admiralty under the First Lord? If he is not to have any practical concern with his own yard, is the supply of standard ships to stop when he goes to the Admiralty? We are told that it was owing to his drive, to his foresight, energy, and power that a wonderful output was achieved. We ought to know a little more clearly whether the First Lord is quite sure—I ask this in a perfectly friendly spirit—that Lord Pirrie, while lie has these great qualities himself, will be able necessarily to imbue every other shipowner with thorn, so as to achieve similar results in their yards? I believe the shipbuilders of this country will work harmoniously and patriotically with any man who is keenly concerned in driving this question into a foremost position, and who will make such arrangements that the output is secured. But there is some doubt as to what Lord Pirrie's position is going to be. What is his actual control going to be? Is he to have in his own person control of the proportions of material and men supplied to the shipyards, or is he, under the First Lord of the Admiralty, to be guided to a certain extent by his views or to put before the War Cabinet a more or less modified view with regard to merchant shipbuilding needs? What about the enlargement of existing yards? We have heard nothing about that. We heard that Lord Pirrie approved in detail of the national shipyards. It is a very important question to know. How about the apportionment of material and men as between the existing yards and the national yards? If the national yards are to go on, if they are to be under the control of the energetic, and, I have no doubt, the very able military gentleman who has made a special study of them, and whose speciality they

    1055
    are, who is going to hold the balance fairly as between those yards and the private yards? These are all questions which I think are of importance, and which very much affect Lord Pirrie's position, as well as those who are keenly anxious to increase the output.
    I should like to ask what Lord Pirrie's position is going to be with regard to labour in the yards 1 What is this Department going to do with regard to the multiplication of the authorities which are dealing with labour? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wood) gave a list, but I am not sure whether it was a complete list. I lost count. But there is no doubt there are at present five, or, as I suggested in a supplementary question, six, which are touching the question of labour, and, as they say, unrest in the yards. There is the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Munitions, the Department of Labour of the Admiralty, which lives at Horrex's Hotel, and has a population of 500. There is a Ministry of National Service and there is also, I believe, a promising child in the Department of Auxiliary Shipping, although as yet it is a tender plant, not vigorous enough for transplanting to an hotel. I know from my own personal knowledge, and not from hearsay, that the War Office is sending down officers to inquire into labour unrest on the Tyne. In addition to all these there are the normal and natural inspections of the Board of Trade under Lloyd's inspectors. They have their natural functions, which go on in peace and in war. The Leader of the House the other night said, in answer to a question, that there were many more men working in the: yards in January and February than heretofore. That is quite true, but I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman's informant has mistaken this horde of officials for skilled or unskilled workers, because they are literally tumbling over each other, and of course it might be, in view of their energy, that they were mistaken for workmen.
    In this new Department over which Lord Pirrie has supervision there are going to be some new men. But is there going to be a change in respect of the khaki influence in that office? Is the military tradition, which is flourishing under the aegis of the Navy, to be encouraged or are we to get back to something like the ordinary commercial spirit in that office? Without that kind of control in that office, without a change
    1056
    with regard to labour in the yards of the country, I make certain that there will not be success either with the men or with the masters. The growth of officials I think I might compare with the growth of weeds. They grow in any soil and flourish, whereas the production of ships is a tender plant which requires encouragement, science, and knowledge. I believe the men, although there are exceptions, if they are told the facts frankly and are treated fairly, will do the work. A distinguished general said to me in France only a week or two ago, "I sometimes say to my officers, 'Loyalty is not tested when you agree with my orders. Loyalty means being on my side with the men when you do not agree with my orders.'" I think the same may be said about patriotism. It is a poor thing in these days if patriotism does not mean sacrifice. The men realise that, and if they are appealed to in the right way they will practice it. It means sacrifice to them on the sea and on all the battlefields. It must mean it at home in every branch of life, and I believe if the men in the shipyards are told the facts and treated fairly, and if the Government appeals in that spirit, they will not be disappointed.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: At the beginning of his speech my hon. Friend moved a reduction of the Vote. It has not been put from the Chair.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir D. Maclean): If that had been the hon. Gentleman's intention at the beginning of his speech it is quite open to him to change his mind at the end. He did not conclude by moving it. Does the hon. Member move it?
    Mr. FRANCE: Yes; I move it technically.
    Sir E. CARSON: I think I am bound to offer a few observations, as I was myself in charge of the Admiralty up to the end of June last year. I can assure the Committee that this subject never was, and never could be, absent from the mind of anyone who had to go through the ordeal I had to go through when the intensive sinkings by submarine first commenced. The worst months were, I think, March, April and May, and really one felt at the time that the problem was almost hopeless. I am not in favour of constant changes to and fro with reference to the method in which shipbuilding is to be carried out, and I should welcome a good

    1057
    deal more information than we have had as regards the exact functions which Lord Pirrie is to perform. He is probably the greatest shipbuilder of the present day, but we should like to be certain that this change is not just being made with a view to satisfying some sort of public unrest, without having clearly denned what are to be the exact relations of Lord Pirrie to the Admiralty.
    From my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. France) I gathered that he disapproved of Lord Pirrie being an official of the Admiralty. I take a different view. If it will not weary the House I would like to say that when I first went to the Admiralty, in December, 1916, the very first thing with which we were confronted was an increase in the submarine menace, and I well recollect that my first conversation with the distinguished First Sea Lord, who had just been appointed, the present Lord Jellicoe, was entirely devoted to this question. Exactly as my successor, the First Lord, said to-day, we thought that you cannot look at this problem except as a whole, as one great organisation for meeting the submarine menace. You must keep up the naval shipbuilding, and you must give every priority that is necessary for naval shipbuilding. You must regulate the material and labour for repairs, and you have also to regulate the material and the labour for the construction of the mercantile ships. That really is all one problem, and a very difficult problem, and whatever way you treat it, it seems to me it is very easy to criticise, but you have to make such men and material as you have go round.
    When I started at the Admiralty—at that time the Admiralty had no control over mercantile shipbuilding at all—the first thing we had to do was to make an estimate of the slips in the United Kingdom, and an estimate of what they could turn out. We proceeded to set up a Joint Committee with the Board of Trade, which dealt at that time with the mercantile marine, with a view to seeing that every yard in the Kingdom was utilised to the fullest extent. We had hardly set our scheme in motion when we were told that the mercantile shipbuilding was to be entirely divorced from the Admiralty or the Board of Trade, and it was to be handed over to the Shipping Controller, who had just been appointed. Really from that time forward until the time when my right hon. Friend
    1058
    (Sir E. Geddes) came as Controller to the Admiralty, under circumstances which I shall mention, we had nothing to do at the Admiralty with the building of the mercantile marine. The House will see at once the complications that arose under these circumstances, because it was our duty—and it certainly was one of the first acts I had to do—to examine into the naval programme which had been passed for the year and see whether it was sufficient, having regard to the submarine menace, to cope with the losses which would occur, and also with the necessary patrol work which had, of course, arisen in an intensified form at that particular time. When we looked into this question we had greatly to increase the building of naval ships, particularly the smaller type of ships, from destroyers down to sloops and trawlers, and the other kind of ships that were necessary for patrol. We had to take that programme before the War Cabinet, having served notice upon the defendant who was the Controller of Shipping, to come and state his case of what he wanted, and we had to fight it out before the War Cabinet as to what we were to get and what the mercantile marine were to get. I do not think that was an altogether satisfactory arrangement. However, we did it as best we could.
    The House must be aware that there are very many varied opinions as to what is the best way to meet the difficulty. I remember a very eminent shipbuilder coming up both to myself and to the Cabinet and assuring me that it would be far better to build fewer merchant ships and to build more naval ships. The argument was—and there is a good deal in it—"Set yourselves to save and protect, what you already have rather than build ships which, if you are not able to protect them, will be immediately sunk." I am only putting that forward as showing the great complexity of the question. The Shipping Controller, who has rendered very great service to the country since he became the Shipping Controller, got around him an Advisory Committee of Shipbuilders, who proceeded to regulate the standard ships and to sec to them being built. I am not sure that that was a good system. I am not at all sure that it was well that the persons who were really to supervise should be the men engaged to build ships. I think it would have been far better, and at the time I

    1059
    made the point, in setting up that Committee, to have had it as a mixed Committee, and certainly with representatives of labour upon it, because I am bound to say that I came to this conclusion—I am not now going into the question as to whose fault it was—that it is disastrous to this country the relations that exist between some of the shipbuilding employers and their employès. Why it has been so aggravated I am sure I do not know, but my experience was that, as regards certain of these yards, there were worse relations between the employers and the employès than in any other business with which I had to deal when I was First Lord.
    This system went on up till the month of May, and then a great change was made. The old office of Controller at the Admiralty, which dealt with naval shipbuilding had been abolished, and it was thought that it would be an excellent thing to revive it, and to put a really great business man with push and go into the office of Controller, and my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Geddes) became, under these circumstances, Controller. When he came as Controller it was determined that the whole matter should be taken back from Sir Joseph Maclay, the Shipping Controller, and put into the hands of the Admiralty Controller. I think that that was right. I think that it really is impossible to have different Departments running, as it were, each for themselves, where, as a matter of fact you have to deal with most delicate questions of priority in relation to the three matters I have already stated, which take an immense time to get determined unless you have the whole thing in one hand, which has a grip over the question, and which can see the relative needs of each of the particular matters coming before it. I, certainly, as First Lord, welcomed the change. My right hon. Friend immediately set about to examine into the whole question of the possible production of the yards. He was doing, while I was there, great work with great energy, with the energy which has distinguished him in everything he has taken up. I hope he will not think that it is due to any jealousy because he succeeded me that I say this, but I really believe that that was a work to which he was entirely devoted, in which he showed great enthusiasm, but he was only left at it for about two months, when he was made First Lord. The very things for
    1060
    which the office of Controller was revived had hardly passed into his hands, he being the man most suited for it, when he was put into an entirely different position, and somebody else—I believe a very eminent gentleman, Sir Alan Anderson—was put in his place.
    What are we told now? The right hon. Gentleman gave us an account to-day of the action of the Controller's Department, which appeared to him to be entirely satisfactory; in fact, I think he said that if it were not that we were now at war and he could not deal with it as he would in time of peace, he was so satisfied with it that he would have approached it in a contentious form. Then why on earth are you going to make changes I Look what you are going to do. You set up first a Controller of Shipping and give him the building of ships. Well, the Controller of Shipping knows something about ships, but you find out that arrangement does not work. You give it then to the Admiralty and you raise a new Controller who has to take charge of the whole thing. That goes on in a perfectly satisfactory way, according to the First Lord, for a few months, and then you are not satisfied with that, and you set up a super-Controller. I am really a little anxious as to what will happen in these circumstances.
    I do not know what the relations of these Controllers are to be to each other, but I know that Lord Pirrie is a very masterful man. That is one of the reasons of his success. Lord Pirrie's duty will be to see that he fights for everything for the mercantile marine, and I think he will hold his own. He will fight. But that may not be the best way to meet the danger at all. You have to consider the naval necessities above all others; and do not forget that the longer this War goes on the more your Fleet requires looking after, and the more it is likely, in the tremendous work it has to do, to be worn out. You cannot afford to allow your Fleet, whether it be battleships or whether it be destroyers or minesweepers, in any wise to be worn out. Therefore, for my own part, I should have thought that if Lord Pirrie was the best man, that the best way would have been to put him in as Controller of the Navy, and keep on doing the work with somewhat of the similar organisation that it is being done at present. Lord Pirrie is an expert not merely in mercantile

    1061
    ships. Lord Pirrie has built great warships, and built them in a very short time as compared with other firms.
    I really am anxious about this multiplication of controllers. What happens on the occasion of each of these changes is that the new man has his own ideas, and these changes mean reorganisation from top to bottom. New men are brought into contact with the yards, with the employers, and with the labour in the yards. I do not believe that it is for the good of the work, if it can be avoided, to have these continual changes. But the whole basis of the argument which I have to put forward is that, whatever be done, whatever way this be carried out, I hope that there will be one head to the shipbuilding for the Navy and the shipbuilding for the mercantile marine. My right hon. Friend in his statement to-day gave a rapid description of the needs which have to be supplied of various services. There were the naval shipbuilding, the mercantile marine, the aeroplanes, the munitions, the tanks. These are all competing matters at the present moment. And I always notice that whenever there is an air-raid scare, or if certain people get "rattled" over air raids, everybody is told that you ought to turn on the whole of the shops in the country to making engines for aeroplanes. When there are submarine losses, you are told that you ought to turn on the whole of the shops to making engines for destroyers, and so on. That is the kind of thing that requires great steadiness on the part of the Government, and for the operation of which you want someone who will really take a wide survey and come to wise conclusions as to how far you can make a distribution when you cannot do everything. Therefore, I end as I commenced by saying that I hope this change has been well thought out, and that it is not being made merely to satisfy some public expectations—that, whatever way it is done, we shall have such a co-ordination that there will be no friction between Lord Pirrie as Controller of the mercantile marine and the Gentleman who acts as Controller of the Navy.
    Mr. WILKIE: I want to say a word in reference to the position of the workers in the shipyards, as I believe I am the only person in this Assembly who has been a shipyard worker. I desire to refer to the statement of the First Lord in reference to the action of the workers. I have received hundreds of letters expressing the greatest indignation as to the assertions
    1062
    which have been made, and I want, in my own rough and rugged way, to place our case before the Committee, and I hope that the Committee will bear with me in doing so. I admit the difficulties of the First Lord. I know them, as I have been connected with shipbuilding all my life, but I regret that in his speech to-day he did not attempt to give the slightest additional proof of those statements which have caused so much unnecessary friction. I regret the First Lord's statement for this reason, that it is going to cause greater. friction where you want smoother working. Where there is friction the machinery will not run smoothly, and you will have a lessened output. I want to do away with friction wherever possible, and to get a greater output.
    Now we must go back to the beginning of the War, to show what the shipyard workers have done. The last speaker was the previous First Lord, and we have had the right hon. Gentleman the other Member for Dundee as First Lord. I have dealt with a considerable number of First Lords, and have some experience of their administration. I want first to show what the workmen have done, and why they do not deserve the condemnation which has been passed upon them.
    In August, 1914, when the War commenced, the representatives of the workers met the representatives of the shipbuilders, and agreed to do everything possible to expedite the output of shipping. The great demand then was for warships, and our organisation sent from 3,000 to 4,000 men from our private yards, in conjunction with our employers, to help the Admiralty in getting these warships finished, and for this work our organisation received commendation from the Admiralty and from the Government.
    The Secretary to the Admiralty himself visited the different districts, especially the yards on the Tyne and the Clyde, and he personally thanked the men for the work they had done in connection with output. Then the workmen agreed to do everything possible to keep the peace, and as you know, when we come to the famous Treasury agreement in 1915, when the workers were represented, they agreed that the customs and regulations which had taken years and years to build up, and cost us hundreds of thousands of pounds to secure, should be modified. The outcome of that Treasury agreement was that a National Advisory Committee was

    1063
    appointed, of which the Member for Barnard Castle was the chairman, and we sat for more than two years, and did an enormous amount of work in. arranging the labour troubles in the munition and shipbuilding areas, work for which we never got credit. Then in all the munition and shipbuilding areas local committees were appointed, who did an immense amount of work in expediting output. The cry then was, "Shells, more shells, and machine guns." It was not a question of ships then.
    Then we had the Munitions Act. Possibly some members of this Committee will remember that I fought certain Clauses of that very strongly for a long time. Our objection was as to the framing of the leaving certificates. Those regulating of the leaving certificates. Those leaving certificates have been the cause of 95 per cent. of all the dissatisfaction that has taken place, which could have been avoided if we had got what we understood was promised then from the Front Bench. That was that if a workman could not leave his employer without having to go to a certain committee, then, as we said, the employer should not have the right to discharge the workman with out going to the same committee. I maintain that that was an equitable proposition, and if it had been accepted a whole lot of friction which has led to terrible unrest would not have occurred.
    Then another cause of tremendous unrest is the question of diluting, because, whatever they may be doing now, a great many firms did not then use the fully skilled men to their highest capacity, and still wanted to dilute them. Wherever the workers in the shipyards were consulted according to the Treasury agreement and the Clause in the Munitions Act, I do not know of a single case in which the workers failed to agree with the suggestion made and to carry out the proposals in connection with the work. It was also known that there were certain firms which kept men in their employment who would have been far better employed in other yards for the moment, and by a proper method of exchange, with the sanction of the workers themselves, the difficulties would have been overcome.
    Another cause of unrest were the tribunals set up to try questions of loss of time. Certain firms were continually pro-
    1064
    secuting men, with the result that they had to send their manager, foreman, time keepers and even other workers as witnesses to those Courts. The result was that far more time was lost trying to prove that men had lost time than would have been lost if some other method had been adopted. Then the effect of winter on the output of shipyards must be borne in mind. Every winter, without exception, in our work we lose a terrible amount of time. I have letters in my pocket proving that hundreds of men, through no fault of their own, have not made half time during the winter. I am speaking from my own personal experience as a man. It is perfectly true that in many severe winters we could not make half a week's wages. That has never been taken into account in this assertion which has been made.
    All along we have had from all the Governments during the War undertakings that shipyard workers should not be called up. What is the fact? Hardly a day passes but I have telegrams at our office stating that men are being called up by the authorities. Some of the cases in which this occurs are beyond my under standing. It is incomprehensible. They take shipwrights or skilled men in the various departments of our trade, and it has been terribly difficult to get that stopped. At the present moment even, the military authorities are calling up men for medical examination, and they are putting a tax upon the energies of the workers. In one instance the men from Cowes have to go to Winchester, 25 miles distant, and the man called up had to lose a day to get there. His day's work was worth something, and when that occurs in numerous instances a great amount of time is lost. Why could not these men be left to be dealt with later on? All these delays to which I have referred make up a considerable total of time lost, and consequent reduced output.
    There is another matter which should be borne in mind. Requests to the men to give up customs in their trade have been favourably answered and we have modified most of our trade customs. But what has been the attitude of some firms? Many of them still adhere to their pre-war methods. If a man is five minutes late in the morning getting to the yard he loses a quarter day, in many cases a whole day. Surely, seeing that the men have given up so many-customs, these firms in the special circumstances of the time should at least stop that rule, among others, and their doing

    1065
    so would not be productive of any harm. During the air raids no less than 50 men in a North-East Coast town, being in the cellars with their wives and children, did not present themselves until breakfast-time the next morning, but were ordered home for the whole day. These are the things which are causing loss of time, loss of output, and irritation among the men.
    We have had a reference this afternoon to the Ministry of Shipping under Sir Joseph Maclay, who, according to some people, was one of the successes of the Government in organising the distribution of shipping. I understand that he had a Committee of shipbuilders appointed to deal with the output of merchant shipbuilding, and we have been told this afternoon that that is so. I suppose, however, it has been changed, or swallowed up by some other Department. We are also informed that some of the employers and men were asked to go on the Merchant Shipping Committee, the idea being that they should give advice on shipping matters. Two representatives of the workers, Mr. Hill, general secretary, Boilermakers' Society, and myself, were appointed on that Committee, but the result, so far as labour matters are concerned, was that we were never called upon to advise at all. That is a part of the matter which, I believe, has disappeared, but I must say that Sir Joseph Maclay has carried out very important and valuable work, for which he deserves every consideration. In a discussion on this matter in the House, I asked the First Lord why we, as representing the workers, had not been consulted as to the new control. I saw in the "Times," of the 24th of November of last year, that no less than fifteen shipbuilding employers had been appointed on some other Committee to deal with shipbuilding, and will the Committee believe it, that not a single representative of the men is on that Advisory Committee. Is not that likely to provoke distrust among the workers? Why not trust the men? We have done a great deal for our country, and surely our workers are entitled to some consideration. I dislike changes after changes. An hon. Member remarked how well adapted were the whole of these gentlemen to the work for which they have been appointed, if so, why all these changes taking place from time to time?
    The right hon. Member for Blackfriars, before the First Lord made his statement, referred to the return of output in
    1066
    January and February not being up to the estimate. It all depends upon the estimate which had been made, before you can arrive at the question of what has been the actual loss of output. I remember on one occasion when we were negotiating with the employers for an increase of wages we were met with the answer (which we have become used to by experience), that the firm was losing money. It so happened, however, that we got hold of the firm's balance sheet, and we found that they had made a substantial profit. We inquired what was the explanation of their statement that they were losing money, and the explanation they gave was this: When they had given an estimate for building a ship, the profit they estimated to obtain was 10 per cent., but the work only yielded 5 per cent., and it was because they had not made 10 per cent. the firm held that they had incurred a loss of 5 per cent. That may be a new method of meeting a demand for more wages, but, at all events, we succeeded in getting that increase. That illustration applies to the question of output. It all depends upon what the estimate was, and whether or not it could be secured.
    There has been loss of output owing to the way in which the building of standardised ships has been dealt with, and I defy the Front Bench to prove that this has not been so. Standardised ships were being turned out by some firms at the rate of no less than 26 ships a year. Why were these firms not allowed to continue turning out these vessels, and why were not other yards selected for the carrying out of new ideas? The firms that were building these standardised ships had the men and the machinery all on hand, yet these very yards have had to change their machinery at great cost and do a lot of other things to try and meet the demands made upon them. The changes which are made call for the introduction of new machinery. That new machinery could not be got, and the firms had to use what they had, with the result that it took far longer to deal with plates than, it would have done if they had been allowed to go on as they did before, and they would have given the country the benefit of a greater output.
    I have no doubt that the employers have plenty of representatives to put their case before the House, but I would point out that these alterations which are constantly being made are just as irritating to the

    1067
    men as to the employers. It is the belief of those whom I represent that, but for these changes and causes of irritation to both employers and workmen, many of the difficulties which have been experienced would have been avoided, and the country would have been the gainer by having a larger number of ships than it has got now.
    As to the policy of the Government, it is the view of those I represent that the Government should give more consideration as to what are likely to be the results of any particular course of action which they contemplate before entering upon it. All these alterations are very costly to the nation. I could give the Committee a number of instances of delay. We have been told by the First Lord that standard ships had to be altered into oil ships. Some of these ships have been on the stocks since 1914, and have only recently been launched.
    7.0 P.M.
    There was the case of a large ship commenced before the War, and launched, I think, in 1917. It was a first-class passenger ship, and was altered first to a troopship and then into a cargo ship. Surely that shows some laxity or want of thought somewhere! I am not blaming the Admiralty in the very difficult task they have to discharge, or blaming the Prime Minister, especially in the terrible job he has undertaken. It is through no lack of sympathy with them that I am making these remarks, but rather with the view that they may see that before alterations are made that they will pan out as they are planned out. I hope that the new alterations announced to-day will turn out as they expect. I do not want to express any doubts about them at the moment. The results will tell. I hope that we shall have some well thought out policy, so that whatever the Government Department is, it will join up both employers and employed by consultation together, to work together to get out the ships, in their own interests and in the interests of the country.
    At the end of 1916 and beginning of 1917 we had the Shipyards Labour Department instituted, which undoubtedly has done good work. That Department assisted in getting labour, in arranging disputes, and settling differences between workmen and employers. I suggest that so far as labour is concerned that the Shipyard Labour Department should have
    1068
    full power to deal with labour matters, and in that way I believe you would secure good results. We must have the different authorities dealing with labour consolidated, in the interests both of the workers and of the country. We have heard about the release of men for the shipyards, and I have on a previous occasion stated the number of men who volunteered. What we are doing now in this respect should have been done long ago, and I suggested that it should be done in the time of a previous Government, so that there is more than one Government to blame. I do hope that every effort, will be made to get these highly skilled men back into the shipyards. At the same time, we must sympathise with the commanding officers in France who have got certain men trained to do certain work and difficult to replace. We have got to have some consideration for our boys in the trenches. Those who are not in the front line could be sent back to the shipyards.
    We are told that so many men have been released, but, so far as my craft is concerned, very few have been released. One of those highly skilled men is worth a great many of the dilutees. Our men tell me that they are sending a lot of men to the shipyards who are of no advantage, and who are more or lest, in the way of the men who really do the work.
    Let me turn to another subject. The Secretary to the Admiralty has had a large number of deputations from the workmen, and they have put before him a very serious position and a number of complaints. They have not yet had any answer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will speed up the machinery, so that these men may get an answer soon, as it is most unwise to have any unrest come down South, as there is plenty of it in the North. I should like to ask the Admiralty if they have given all the encouragement they could to scientific invention to spot the submarine under the water? That is the one thing wanted. If we could only get a machine like Marconi's Wireless, or something of that nature, by which we could spot the submarine in the water, then we would be able to get over the menace. We are building flying boats and machines of many descriptions, but I would urge that they should give every assistance, so as to secure that we may be able to spot the submarine under the water. In conclusion, let me say, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. McKinnon Wood), given due consulta-

    1069
    tion and preparation, the Admiralty will find that the shipyard workmen are with them. I know that the workers are not angels any more than any other class in the community, but I do claim that we have done our share, and I say that, with due consideration and fair play, the Admiralty may rest assured that they will have those men with them and with the nation in the present moment of its peril.
    Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: At this time of great national crisis, because in my view the position of shipbuilding is very grave, I would be the last person to rise in this House in a critical spirit. The Government and the Admiralty have been criticised from many points of view, and one point of view was as to the starting of new shipyards and for encouraging various firms to put down new slipways, the total authorised being, I believe, about forty-four. In my view, it is important that the Admiralty and the Government should take long views on this matter. There has been too much of a tendency ever since the commencement of the War only to look forward three or six months at most with the fond hope that the War would be over by the end of that particular period. I, for one, am very pleased that in this matter of shipbuilding the Admiralty have taken the longer view and have not hesitated to start new slipways and new shipyards, so that even if those yards do not, as they may not, in the current year add appreciably to the tonnage put into the water they will, I feel certain within a reasonable time, add to our shipbuilding facilities in this country. As a shipowner, and as one who spent some years on both the greatest shipbuilding rivers, in the world, the Clyde and the Tyne, when I naturally was brought into close contact with the actual conditions on those great rivers, I feel that a good deal more might be done by the Government to help forward shipbuilding if, instead of simply announcing as the First Lord informed us to-day that he was going to publish the loss of tonnage once every three months in addition to that, and much more important than that, he would start from to-morrow and publish and allow to be published in every paper in the country every ship that was launched, and allow the papers to publish full particulars of the ship and as to who built it and the shipyard it was built in, and not only that, but as to how long it was since the keel was laid. It may seem to gentlemen resident in London a matter of absolutely no in-
    1070
    terest, but I assure you that on the Clyde or the Tyne or the Wear it is of the very greatest interest to hundreds of thousands of people to tell them the full particulars which they were accustomed to get in peace time. Therefore, I suggest to let the papers publish full particulars of steamers exactly as they did in peace time. If the right hon. Gentleman could tell us any reason why that should not be done that would appeal to the House it would be a different matter, but up to the present I, for one, have heard no reason, and there is this great advantage, if we get this information—
    Sir E. GEDDES: I have said, that so far as output is concerned, we will give the fullest details as early as possible for each district and for each yard if it will do any good, and for every ship if it will do any good.
    Sir O. PHILIPPS: Thank you. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said with very great pleasure. The fact of publishing the district will do a great deal of good. What you want to do is to drive the matter home and to get the men interested in it. I have discussed this question with shipowners and with practically all the shipbuilders of the country. What we want is the actual particulars of the ship published, so that they know exactly that a ship of a certain size and dimensions was built in one yard, to compare with other yards where a ship, perhaps a little bigger, may take a little longer time. The workmen know exactly whether it is on the Tyne, Clyde, or Wear, or in Liverpool. They know exactly how their work compares with the other yards, and I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for promising to publish these particulars, and I hope we shall see them published from this day forward. I welcome his statement that in forty-seven yards the naval work had been separated from mercantile work, as I believe that the secret of quick construction is getting definite yards working either entirely on naval work or entirely on mercantile work. When he told us that these forty-seven yards only had 209 slips, I fear that the yards showing only an average of four slips, or slightly over, are the smaller yards in the country, and I hope, under the new arrangement, we may see more of the large yards given over entirely to mercantile work.
    There is another matter that I believe has been at the root of much of the difficulties at the present time. I would appeal

    1071
    to the right hon. Gentleman to settle, if he has not already done so, what percentage of material and what percentage of labour in shipbuilding for the six or twelve months he is going to devote to naval work, and what percentage to mercantile work. I believe that prior to the War the percentage, roughly, was something about 70 per cent. of the whole shipbuilding facilities of the country for commercial work and the remainder for naval work. If, as the right hon. Gentleman states, the output last year was practically the same as the year 1913, and we only built under 1,200,000 tons of mercantile shipping, it is quite clear that not half the facilities in the country are at present given to mercantile building. I fully realise—and I think every shipowner in this country realises—the absolute necessity of hurrying forward especially the small craft for naval purposes for dealing with the submarines, because I regret that the conundrum of the submarine has not yet been solved. On that subject, I hope the First Lord may yet see his way favourably to consider a proposal that I put before him shortly after he entered his present office, and that was to offer a large prize to anybody in the world, whether in America or this country, who succeeds in tracing a submarine below the sea when the submarine is at rest. I believe if that problem can be solved, it will go further than anything else to settle the submarine difficulty.
    I welcome the announcement of the First Lord that he has succeeded in getting Lord Pirrie to accept the position of Controller-General of Mercantile Shipbuilding, as I feel certain that this will help to harmonise relations with the workmen. I listened with some regret to the tone of the remarks of the First Lord when he was dealing with labour. I am convinced personally that the workmen in the shipbuilding yards, with very few exceptions, are as loyal as any men in the country, but they may be difficult men to handle. Many men are difficult to handle. But I welcome the fact that he has chosen a gentleman as Controller-General who has obtained the confidence of workmen, especially in dealing with large bodies of men. Therefore, I look forward to his appointment as bound to do good. There is only one other point I wanted to bring forward, and that was to stop any possible competition in taking men from yards that are doing mercantile work and yards
    1072
    doing naval work. It may be necessary, perhaps, for the Admiralty and the Government to take some steps to prevent that, so as to secure the greatest output possible, for I feel confident that this country can, even during this War, get sufficient men in the shipbuilding yards enormously to increase our output of new ships.
    Mr. J. MASON: My excuse for intervening in this Debate is that, as Chairman of the Expenditure Sub-Committee of the Admiralty, a good many facts and circumstances have come before my notice which bear upon this subject, and which, I think, will be useful to the House. The statement of the First Lord to which we have listened this afternoon, I think, will be a great relief to all of us, because it will tend, so far as it goes, to open the eyes of the public to the real danger in which we stand. The position is, of course, is a serious one, and one which has got to be faced by this country, and it is one which we have to face immediately without loss of time. But in regarding it, I think it is essential that we should take a very broad view. This is not a state of things which is going to be remedied by replacing one man by another. We have got to take a view broad enough to cover not only the whole plan of administration but the whole administration of the Government. I think there are few people who know the facts at all who will doubt that the ill-advised action of the Minister of Munitions some little time ago with regard to the 12½per cent. has been reverberating right through the industries of this country ever since. We know the connection between that action and the strikes which took place afterwards on the Clyde. We know it is having a serious effect on the engineering shops of the railways at this moment, and causing a considerable reduction of their output. If that is the case, it merely illustrates the serious effect which the actions of one Department or one Minister may have on other Departments conducted by other Ministers. If actions of this kind, which are due sometimes to thoughtlessness or selfishness of particular Departments, and sometimes to jealousy, have such serious effects on other Departments, may we not also expect to find that in the case of Sub-Departments in the same Ministry you will have the same type of jealousy and thoughtlessness going on between these various Sub-Controllers? In the Admiralty the shipbuilding has been under

    1073
    the direction of a Controller, but that Controller has, I think, five Sub-Controllers, and among them one responsible for naval construction and another responsible for auxiliary or mercantile construction. It is not unreasonable to expect to find between those two Sub-Controllers some sort of attempt, each to get for his own Department as much as he can of what is available of the shipbuilding capacity, and I think there is no doubt whatever that, to some extent, that has been going on, and that there has not been some sufficiently tight control in the allocation of the work of these two Departments of labour.
    As regards the simple facts of the case, we have heard some facts which are comparatively satisfactory. We have heard a great deal about the output of February and January of this year. We have been told that it is better than the February and January of last year. We are also told that the output in the second half of last year was better than that in the first half of last year, and we also know that the total output of 1917 was about the same as the total output of 1913, before the War, and that, in addition to that, very large numbers of men have been employed on repair work and so forth, showing a greater capacity. If you compare the years 1913 and 1917 you find that the proportion of naval construction as against mercantile construction is, of course, very different, and very much Against the output of mercantile shipping. There is another fact, and that is that we find at the present moment the supply of material is not what is holding up the construction of shipping. There apparently is a very large amount of steel waiting to be put into the ships. I believe a great deal of it is held back in the works, and that at a time when other industries are in many cases getting less than their allotted quantity of steel. I merely mention that because I think it shows that the working of the Priority Committee does not seem to be as satisfactory as it might be.
    If these are the facts, what are the remedies that we may look for in endeavouring to get an increased output of mercantile shipping? It is quite clear that one way of doing so would be to reduce the proportion of naval construction. It is impossible for me, of course, to give any opinion as to whether that is possible or not; but I imagine that, owing to the international position, and even if the
    1074
    Russian Navy does come into the War and is seized by the enemy and tells against us, in view of the naval strategy of the Allies it will not be necessary for us to embark on the continued output of the largest type of warships. It is impossible for a layman to form any opinion as to the number of small craft which are necessary to deal with the submarine menace, but, at any rate, that aspect of the case has to be taken seriously into consideration before naval construction can be cut down and more capacity left for the increase of mercantile construction. The other method—and, of course, the more satisfactory method—is to see in what way the total output of shipping of both kinds can be increased. The National shipyards, and, I imagine, to a considerable extent the additional slips being added to the private shipyards, cannot be depended upon to give immediate relief. There is no immediate relief, at any rate, to be got from the National shipyards. They are, no doubt, a wise provision for a little later on; but, taking the existing possibilities, there is no doubt that up till now we have suffered considerably from what has been referred to by the First Lord—change of design—and if anything can be done to restrict those changes after a ship has been commenced a great deal of saving would take place, not only in the construction of the ships, but by avoiding the demoralising effect which is produced when the men are told that a particular ship is a matter of life and death, and then, when they have nearly completed it, they find it is being turned into something totally different, showing that that particular ship was not vital.
    Another cause of disturbance which I think might very well be dealt with is that where employers are trying to get each other's men by offering what seem to mo in some cases almost fraudulent terms of employment. There are cases where the employer, in order to attract men away from his rivals, gives guarantees that the men shall work on Sunday for double pay although they stay away a day a week. That type of rivalry seems to me most undesirable, and one which should be dealt with. Then I am afraid that the system on which contracts are given with 10 per cent. profit, or a fixed profit, on outgoings is a principle which is not conducive to getting quick or good results out of the contractors. They have no interest in saving public money. The contractor is

    1075
    sure of his profits, and he will not exert himself to save money or to increase the rate of output. If some system could be devised by which the profit of the employer and some equivalent bonus for the men could depend on quick output, I think a good deal might be done to improve the state of things. I think one other step should be taken. I am perfectly sure that very large numbers of men are not doing their best. They are giving way to the temptation of frivolous strikes over small questions, such as whether one part of the men should be given a particular job or not, all causing loss of output, because they do not understand and realise the seriousness of the position and the danger in which the country stands. I cannot help thinking that if some drastic steps were taken to provide an efficient propaganda among the men, to bring home to them the seriousness of the position, a great deal of the friction which now exists would be removed. I have referred to the rivalry between employers to get labour from each other. I think that shows a bad spirit, to a certain extent, among the employers. I think equally there is want of co-ordination among men and employers. I think if more working together can be got among employers themselves, and among the men themselves, and both with the Government, a great deal of saving might be effected both in time and output.
    As regards the administration, I suppose the questions of proportion of the various kinds of construction, and the proportion of material allowed to various Departments, are matters which are settled by the Priority Committee. It does not seem to me that that work or that selection is very successful. I am inclined to agree with what has been said with regard to the impossibility of separating the mercantile construction from the Admiralty. I think it is essential that the two forms of construction should remain both under the Admiralty, but I am not quite satisfied yet as to the position in which the Controller will stand. What seems to me to be necessary is that the Controller responsible for naval construction and the Controller responsible for mercantile construction must both of them meet at a point sufficiently high up the ladder to give strong control over the actions of both, and I welcome the suggestion that these two Controllers are not to meet until they arrive at the First Lord himself. What I
    1076
    understand the position to be is that, instead of meeting under the Controller, who so far appears not to have been able to exercise sufficient strength in judging between them, the two Controllers are only to meet with the First Lord himself, and he will make himself responsible for keeping the proportions adequate between them. So far, I think, that arrangement seems to be satisfactory, but what is essential is that the "Pull devil, pull baker" principle should be put a stop to between the two classes of construction.
    It seems to me that in all these matters there is a very considerable number of facts, and a very considerable amount of information which it is essential that this House should know, if it is to form a judgment on a subject of this kind. Of course, we hope that the steps which will immediately be taken by the Government will be effective, and will produce the improvement we are all looking for. But, if this matter comes before the House again, which it may do if the improvement is not forthcoming, it seems to me essential that the House should be in possession of a considerable number of facts which it is not in possession of now. I venture to suggest that it would be desirable that the Government should consent to the appointment of some form of committee which should be entitled to collect these facts, and get all the details together, in order to put them before this House, so that if this improvement is not forthcoming the whole question can be brought again here, and the House be in a position to understand really what the position is and to suggest improvements. I would ask the Government to allow some form of investigation to be undertaken, in order to ascertain these facts.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I do not know that I have very much to add to what was so well said by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty at the commencement of this discussion. If I may say so, I think the discussion has been in the main very helpful. The speech delivered by the hon. Member who has just sat down was full of very interesting suggestions, which I promise him will be taken into consideration very carefully. I hope we shall be able to adopt some of them, but, as to others, I should like more time for reflection and for consultation with my right hon. Friend and the Department concerned. But there has

    1077
    been a very pleasant absence of anything in the nature of controversy, with the possible exception of the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend (Mr. McKinnon Wood), who is essentially controversial, I think, and I should have been very surprised to hear a speech of a different character from him. He seemed to suggest that in the days when he was in the Government the submarine menace was somewhat conjectural, but that it became a certainty from the moment we were in power. As a matter of fact, he could not possibly have looked at the figures. The losses, as my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty Very well pointed out, have not been submarine losses only, but marine losses, and you have to take both into account in making comparisons. The figures given by the First Lord to-day included both, and for 1915 the losses were 1,100,000 tons of British shipping; in 1916, 1,500,000 tons. The shipbuilding, on the other hand, for those years was 650,000 tons for 1915, and in 1916 it went down to 551,000 tons, so that there was a very serious deficiency. My right hon. Friend is absolutely wrong in assuming that this supreme need only arose in 1917. There was a very serious deficiency in those two years, and the actual output of shipping went down in 1916 as compared with 1915. That is the only comment of a controversial character, except perhaps that of my lion. Friend (Mr. France), whose speech I enjoyed very much indeed. That speech would have been more to the point had it been delivered two or three years ago.
    Mr. FRANCE: May I just say that I delivered a speech full of the same suggestions more than a year ago?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; when the present Government was in power. I heard that speech. I am referring to the period when there was a serious deficiency in shipbuilding in 1915 and 1916, and had these valuable suggestions been enforced then, with all the wit and power my hon. Friend evidently has at his command, he might have been successful in introducing the amendments which we are trying at present to bring into operation. That is all the controversy I am going to bring into the Debate. But I must make reference to one or two other things. The criticisms have been of a mutually contradictory character. First of all, my hon. Friend suggests nothing could be satisfactory except the complete severance of the organisation of marine shipbuilding from
    1078
    shipbuilding for naval purposes. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson) takes an entirely different view. His theory is that the proposal made by the First Lord to-day will have the effect of separating to a much greater extent than it ought to do the tasks of naval and marine shipbuilding. There are two or three questions which have been put in the course of the discussion which I will attempt to answer. My right hon. Friend was anxious to know whether there were any extensions of shipbuilding yards in this country at the present moment. He was afraid that the whole development in shipbuilding had been confined to the National shipyards. That is not so. There are 138 extensions of marine shipyards projected, and of these 107 are already in hand. I think that is an answer to the question put by my right hon. Friend. The other questions bear upon the relations of the new Controller to the Admiralty and to the Shipping Controller. Those are equally important. With regard to the relations to the Admiralty, my right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear, in his statement, that the new Controller is absolutely independent of Naval construction, subject, of course, to the First Lord, and that is an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University. He very rightly, I think, enforced the importance of there being some co-ordinating power between Naval and purely Commercial work. The First Lord will be in the position of being in control of both, and, therefore, when there are any questions to be adjusted between the two branches—and there must necessarily be a good many—if they cannot be adjusted by discussion between them, he will come in as the supreme authority as far as the Admiralty is concerned, and, if they cannot be settled there, then they must be settled by the War Cabinet in the way all these questions are being settled at the present moment.
    There is also the important question of the relations of the new Controller to the Shipping Controller, because it is of first-class importance to co-operate with Sir Joseph Maclay. I quite agree with all that has been said about the admirable work which the Shipping Controller had done. I have often borne testimony to the services he has rendered to the country during the fifteen months he has held office. It is quite impossible for anyone

    1079
    who is in control of either building or repairing to discharge the important functions of his office without being in constant touch with the Shipping Office. To that my right hon. Friend and the Government attach the very greatest importance. It is only by complete cooperation between the Shipping Controller, the Controller of Naval Construction, and the new Controller of Commercial Construction that it will be possible to achieve the great aim we have in view.
    I am trying to deal with the questions which have been raised one by one. Another point which has been raised is the question of the supply of steel. I think that has been organised so satisfactorily that the shipbuilders at the present moment have nearly as much steel as they require, and there is no yard at the present time where any work is being stopped for lack of steel. That is due very largely to the organisation of the Ministry of Munitions, as well as to the Department of the Admiralty—to co-operation between the two. On the contrary, I have heard of shipbuilders who have been begging that we should not send any more plates there because of the difficulty of storage at the present moment. Therefore, there is no shortage of steel plates interfering in the least with the progress of building of either Naval or Mercantile ships. That is where the illustration of Pharaoh used by my hon. Friend rather breaks down. There is plenty of straw here. Pharaoh is supplying all the straw that is necessary; they are clamouring not for more straw but less straw.
    Mr. FRANCE: I was only quoting the Loader of the House, who said there was none.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): In the Report I noticed myself the next morning it was there said that there was a great scarcity of steel. My whole argument, however, was that there was no scarcity of steel or labour, and I at once took steps to correct the statement.
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend certainly never intended to say that, and as a rule such a disclaimer is accepted by the House. As a matter of fact my right hon. Friend, I am certain, could not have said so, because he was on the Committee discussing this matter the other day, and he knew perfectly well that the supply of steel had been adequately
    1080
    met by the organisation set up. The difficulty has been very largely with regard to labour.
    I have heard not merely in this Debate, but I have road criticisms outside which suggests that we ought forcibly to take 20,000 men out of the Army. That is undoubtedly the figure to which we try to work up. As far as the Home forces are concerned every man we can discover who was a skilled man in the shipbuilding yard we are pulling out. But when you come to deal with men actually engaged at this moment in operations in the field, men whose skill is essential to the manning of batteries, it is a serious responsibility for us by a mere order to say we should practically immobilise batteries by taking out two or three essential men who may be a sort of lynch-pin of the whole organisation. That has got to be done with very great care, and I do not think anyone here would challenge that proposition. Twenty thousand is the figure we want; it is a figure up to which we shall work. But if the men are not available we cannot take the risk of destroying the efficiency of the Army in the field at a very critical and perilous moment by withdrawing men who are doing work where their skill is essential to the conduct of the particular operation, however important shipbuilding may be for the moment. The Army have guaranteed to us that where they find they can put in a substitute they will do so, but we must leave a certain amount of discretion to those who are in charge of these great operations in the field, to see that the efficiency of the Army shall not be impaired at this very perilous moment by the withdrawing of a large number of essential men from their units.
    Those who criticise are rather apt to forget that we are now in the fourth year of the War. After millions of men have been withdrawn from industry, the demands are increasing, while the supply is getting more limited—the demand for labour, the demand for men in the Army, the demand for men in shipbuilding, the demand for men in the fighting forces of the Navy, the demand for men on the land, the demand for men in munition works. My right hon. Friend the Minister for National Service is overwhelmed with demands for men in every Department. Take the increase in cultivation. That means more men, and it means more metal workers in getting machinery. The demand for tanks, for aeroplanes, and for

    1081
    more guns, all these demands have constantly to be considered, and when you have all the demands before you, you have to co-ordinate them. There are men who seem to think that all you have got to do is to determine that you will build ships, and that you can do so. But you cannot do it, not with all these demands upon you.
    Sir T. WALTERS: You must do it.
    8.0 P.M.
    The PRIME MINISTER: What is the good of saying, "You must do it"? You must do it to the limit of your power, and that is all that any nation can do. We have increased the shipbuilding from 550,000 tons in 1916 to nearly 1,200,000 in 1917. That does not exhaust the matter. Before 1917 the organisation for repairs did not exist practically, certainly not to the some extent as it has developed since. There has been an organisation to a very considerable extent of the repair of ships which were never counted before in the losses. I have a letter from my hon. Friend written, I think, to the "Morning Post" or the "Times," and he wants to know whether amongst the losses we reckoned the ships that were damaged. Those ships we made special provision for repairing, and that special provision was made for the first time in 1917. There was an accumulation of damaged ships up to 1917. We had to wipe out arrears and to deal with ships that were damaged from time to time, and I am glad to be able to inform him that the way in which we have repaired the ships that were damaged is very cheering. Those who are concerned in shipbuilding, know to what extent we have succeeded. The other point to which I should like to allude is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, who dealt with the importance of propaganda. I quite agree with it. When my right hon. Friend appealed to masters and men to put forth greater exertions, that is not by way of attack on either masters or men; it is really an appeal to them to realise the National danger and to put forth special efforts. That is why it is of the very greatest importance and why my right lion. Friend actually invited the criticism which has created this Debate. This criticism, which has gone on for days, is not due to any facts which have been elicited by the cross-examination of the Government, but to a statement made by my right hon. Friend voluntarily to the
    1082
    House on the 5th of March of the lamentable falling off in shipbuilding in January and February.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Questions, were put in the House.
    The PRIME MINISTER: He did it deliberately in order to invite the attention of the country to the facts, and in order to appeal to masters and men and all those concerned to put forth special exertions in order to assist the country. Here we have a deficiency of 120,000 tons to make up. We believe that by special exertions that chasm can be bridged, and I think that the suggestion of my hon. Friend is an admirable one, that there is a good deal to be said for bringing the facts home to the masters and men, the managers and foremen, and all those upon whose special exertions we depend, and to show how much is dependent upon them. That is not a question of recrimination, as my right hon. Friend said, between any section or class and the Government. It is a question of our all putting our strength into it, in order to make it impossible for an enemy who cannot defeat us in the field to defeat us by this process of destroying our shipping.
    As far as the work of the Navy is concerned the results are gratifying. There has been a gradual diminution in the losses which have been inflicted by submarines. If that work continues, and if, on the other hand, these yards were able to increase the output by 120,000 tons per month, or even less—I am dealing with British shipping; as far as the world's tonnage is concerned, there is only 100,000—if we were able to wipe that out, I believe it would do far more to shorten the War than almost any individual efforts which this country could put forth, because it is not merely inflicting a defeat on the enemy, it is affecting him with the knowledge that however long he may go on with the War, he will never be able to defeat this country.
    Mr. ASQUITH: In the peculiar conditions under which we are sitting tonight, this Debate comes to an end in another seven minutes, so that it is quite impossible for me in the time at my disposal to make anything like a general survey of the discussion. My right hon. Friend who has just sat down seemed to? think that a controversial note was imparted into the discussion by my right hon. Friend who sits beside me (Mr. McKinnon Wood) in regard to the comparative losses

    1083
    and comparative construction in the different periods of time. I do not think that is a matter which ought to be a subject of controversy. As a matter of fact—and it is well the figures should be known—the figures are these: In the year 1915—I am speaking of United Kingdom shipping alone—the total losses from all causes were 1,100,000 tons roughly. In the year 1916 they rose to 1,500,000, of which by far the largest item in the list is in the last quarter, when they rose from 284,000 in the preceding quarter to no less than 617,000. The total of the year was 1,500,000. For the year just concluded the corresponding figure is 3,000,000—exactly double what it was in 1916.
    But it is a complete mistake to suppose—and I am sure my right hon. Friend did not wish to encourage the idea—that the Government of that day were not alive to the existence of this menace, and were not taking measures to meet it. He has referred to the fact that the total new construction in 1916 was 550,000 tons, and that it rose during last year to 1,100,000. That is quite true; those figures are perfectly accurate. The reason why the construction in 1916 was not greater than it was, was not because we were in any way insensible to this danger. On the contrary, the Government passed an Act—it was quite early in that year, in February—to include shipbuilding among munition work, thereby to give the Board of Trade control of it. My right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade allocated—the First Lord of the Admiralty does not seem to know that—thirteen shipyards to the exclusive purpose of private shipbuilding, and the real reason why there was not a larger construction of mercantile shipbuilding during that year was entirely because of the requirements of the Navy, which were so exacting that to that extent private shipbuilding was contracted. But to show the gravity with which we viewed the situation, let me remind the House that in the autumn of 1916 Lord Jellicoe—who up to that time from the beginning of the War had been in command of the Grand Fleet and had rendered conspicuous service to the country in that capacity—was with his own consent removed to the position of First Sea Lord, with the express object of dealing in all its aspects with the new and growing menace of the submarines. That is the history of what actually took place.
    1084
    If there be disquietude, and there is disquietude, in the country with regard to this matter, I think it is largely due to two causes winch perhaps have not been sufficiently entered into. In the first place, it is due to the misleading estimates which from time to time have been put forward as to merchant shipbuilding. As a matter of fact, the only person who made an estimate which was even approximately near the truth as to the capacity of this country for turning out merchant shipbuilding was my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman). In the autumn of 1916 he estimated that the yards would be able to turn out in the year 1917 1,100,000 tons, and that is exactly what they have done. We know very well that we have had estimates of a very much more sanguine and optimistic kind put forward since on high authority—figures of 1,800,000, and even higher. These estimates have been made, but have never been realised, and never could be realised during that time.
    That is one cause. There is another cause of the disquietude which I am glad to think, after what we have heard to-night, will not exist in the future, and that is the non-disclosure of the tonnage facts and figures in regard to both losses and construction. I am not putting this forward as a matter of reproach to His Majesty's Government. I believe that they were anxious to disclose these figures some time ago, but other considerations came, into which I need not go, which for the time being made that impossible, and which now no longer exist. I am perfectly certain that the publication in the fullest possible form, and I trust at much shorter intervals than three months, of these figures, both of losses and of construction, so far from disquieting the public, and so far from giving information to the enemy which he would not otherwise obtain, would have the greatest effect in regularising the position here, and enabling us to face, as surely after three and a half years of war we can face, the facts without panic, or suspicion, or disheartenment. These, to my mind, have been the causes which led to this disquietude, and I believe this Debate has done a great deal to dispel, at any rate, some of it. Let me say in conclusion what, to my mind, is the essence of the matter. In the first place, you must establish and lay down for yourselves—and this can be done only by the Cabinet—it cannot be done

    1085
    by any Department: the Government must do it—how you are going to allocate your resources of men and material as between naval and mercantile shipbuilding. To have that done you must have it clearly demarcated, and then give it as a rule of action to the Departments concerned.
    In the next place, you must exert every possible effort to draw more skilled labour into the shipyards. I know the difficulties perfectly well. We were at this task, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd George) knows—this task of trying to get men from the Army—and I know the difficulties and the objections the military authorities raise, in perfectly good faith. It is nothing but the strong and direct exercise of Cabinet authority that can really bring from the front the men who are needed for this purpose, but that they can be brought is proved by the fact that they are being brought, though not in the numbers or at the rate we should desire. But anybody who is acquainted with the facts knows quite well that there is an unexhausted reservoir of resource which it is not only necessary but absolutely essential for the country to obtain. I hope, I will not say I very confidently expect, that the new Controller who is to be added to the numerous Controllers under whose sway we at present carry on our life—I hope the new Controller, a man of the highest possible qualifications, as everyone will admit, for this particular purpose, will have more success than those who have preceded him, and that this vital, primary, fundamental necessity of the nation, the construction of merchant shipping, will be more and more quickly and effectively overtaken.
    It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    BRENTFORD GAS BILL.—(By ORDER.)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

  LIGHTING, HEATING, AND TRAVEL- LING RESTRICTIONS.

    GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): Perhaps at the outset I should indicate the Government view, not only with respect to this particular Bill, but also the other Gas Bills which are before the House which seek for some modification with respect to their charging power. Perhaps it is also desirable that I should deal with other similar and analogous statutory undertakings, such as the electric supply companies, and also it might, perhaps, be an advantage if I indicated at this time the restrictions which the Government find it necessary to place immediately upon the consumption of both gas and electricity. It is now several months since the Board of Trade were approached by a deputation representing both gas and electric undertakings in which they sought for the assistance of that Department with respect to alleged financial hardships arising out of the War, so that the Board of Trade have had for some time now a general knowledge of the whole position. It is probably within the knowledge of all hon. Members that there are a large number, quite a considerable number, of gas undertakings which are subject to what is known as the sliding scale. Under that sliding scale an increase in the price of gas produces a corresponding decrease in the dividends, and a decrease in the selling price of gas may make an increase in the dividends. Obviously an arrangement of that kind has many advantages, and certainly it is a great advantage to the consumers, and I have no doubt it has proved an advantage to those who have invested their money in these undertakings.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: And to the workers.
    Sir A. STANLEY: Yes, in some instances it has been an advantage to the employès connected with these undertakings. There are a number of other undertakings which operate without a sliding scale, and which sell their power based upon a maximum charge. These provisions relating to price and dividend were in each instance fixed by Parliament, and all of them were embodied either in special Acts or in Orders. It is quite clear, of course, that these pro-

    1087
    visions were fixed in normal times, and that no provision was made for abnormal times, and the War has made it necessary to deal with a situation such as now confronts us to-day. I am not proposing at this time to enter into the merits of the particular proposals put forward by the companies, beyond observing that in so far as the information available to the Board of Trade is concerned, it is clear that there is no case, or certainly there was not at the time these Bills were introduced, for a general and indiscriminate relaxation of statutory requirements, and it was necessary that each case must be examined upon its merits, if it should be decided that any relief under the circumstances is desirable.
    There are two courses only which appeared to us to be practicable. One was the method which has been adopted by some of the companies—that is, the promotion of a Private Bill, which obviously involves considerable expense, and places upon Parliament the burden of considering in detail the circumstances in connection with each case. The other alternative would be for the Board of Trade, or other appropriate Department, to present a general Bill which would place upon a Government Department the responsibility and the duty of considering the merits of each application, and of making Orders if it should be found desirable and necessary. The Board of Trade has been very reluctant to assume the responsibility of bringing in a Bill of this nature without having some indication of the policy of Parliament. It has been the view of this Department, that inasmuch as the sliding scale has always been regarded somewhat in the light of a Parliamentary bargain, no modification whatever of it should be made until the principle involved had been considered by a Parliamentary Committee. This was the position when these Bills were introduced. Since then a very considerable change has taken place, or is about to take place, which must, I think, materially affect to a greater or less degree most, if not all, of the gas and electric undertakings in the country. It will not be possible henceforward for the necessary transport to be secured for supplying all these great public undertakings with the necessary amount of coal. Therefore, the restrictions which we are finding it necessary to introduce, must have considerable effect upon these undertakings, both gas
    1088
    and electricity. I said that the difficulty was one of transport. It is very largely transport, but not entirely, because the withdrawal in the near future of a considerable number of men from the mines must alone have the effect of reducing the-output of coal in the country.
    The problem that confronts us is primarily one of transport. It has been found necessary to withdraw from the coasting service a number of steamers which have been engaged in the transport of coal to the Southern ports of this country, and the withdrawal of these steamers will place on the railways, if all the coal that these steamers transported is to be consumed, a burden which I think will prove to be quite beyond their ability to carry. If the railways cannot take this, additional traffic caused by the withdrawal of these steamers for essential service elsewhere, the only alternative is for us to find means whereby the amount of coal that has been consumed in the country in the-past can be in some way or other reduced. The amount of coal which these steamers have been carrying is in round figures 3,000,000 tons per year. According to the calculations of those responsible for the operations of the railways, it will not be possible for them to carry more than halt that amount. Therefore, we must find ways whereby we can bring down at once the consumption of coal, particularly in the Southern parts of the country, so that this additional 1,500,000 tons need not be transported. It is not necessary for me to say that the railways will do their very best to meet this new situation, but it would be asking too much, or expecting too much, to hope that the railway companies will be able to take more of the burden than I have indicated.
    It may be of some interest to hon. Members if I just briefly give them some indication of the present railway position. The railway companies have not been able since the War began to add any new rolling stock, either locomotives or wagons. On the contrary, a considerable number of locomotives have gone abroad and several thousand wagons have also left the country. The railway companies to-day have less rolling stock than they had at the outbreak of the War. On the other hand, passenger, goods, and mineral traffic have constantly increased. There was a period—unfortunately it proved to be only a short period—when there was a diminution in the number of passengers carried. It will be within the recollection

    1089
    of hon. Members that something more than a year ago we took steps to reduce the passenger traffic on railways. At that time we thought that by adding 50 per cent. to the ordinary fares there would be a substantial falling-off in travelling. There was a falling-off for a time, though not to the extent that we anticipated; but I am sorry to say that the traffic has gradually come back, and to-day the effect of that 50 per cent. increase has practically disappeared. The railway companies, therefore, find themselves to-day not only with a depleted rolling stock and with a considerably reduced staff, but, on the other hand, with an enormously increased traffic with which to deal. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with me that Sir Herbert Walker, the acting Chairman of the Railway Executive, and all of his comrades, and all of the officers of the whole of the staffs of the railways, are entitled to our sincere thanks. Certainly, they have acted with great ability and with complete self-denial during the whole of the War, and, if I were permitted to disclose completely all the work which the railway companies have done during the War, I am sure that hon. Members would fully agree with me that we owe all of them a very deep debt of gratitude.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: May I ask whether the actual amount of civilian traffic has increased?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I should not like to say that the civilian traffic alone has substantially increased during the War, though it has increased. When I say that they are carrying more passengers on the railways to-day than have ever been carried in the history of the companies before, I include those who are riding in uniform, but I exclude the general military traffic. There is another difficulty that presents itself in connection with the provision of coal to those big public undertakings which have heretofore secured their supply either entirely or to a very considerable extent by steamer. Both by reason of the location and the design of these stations, they are not in a position to take the whole of their supply by rail. Therefore, quite aside from the fact that the railways are not able to take this additional traffic, the fact that the stations themselves are not in a position to take the whole of their requirements by rail, makes it imperative that there should be some immediate reduction in the consumption of coal. Since it is impossible for the
    1090
    railways to carry all the coal that we require, as I have said, it is necessary that we should establish restrictions on the consumption of coal. But those restrictions need not be, and it is not intended that we should, make those restrictions uniform right throughout the country. Those districts which are more nearly adjacent to the coalfields need not, at the present time, be placed under quite the same restrictions that will be necessary in those districts more remote from the coalfields. At the same time, I would desire to emphasise how imperative it is that every possible economy should be exercised everywhere, irrespective of whatever part of the country it may be, with respect to anything which has to be carried by railway. As I have said, it is vitally necessary that the railway companies should be released from traffic as much as possible, and anything that anybody can do in that direction will be most helpful.
    Perhaps I might at this time mention to the House that we have come to the conclusion, much to our regret, that it will probably be necessary in the very near future to establish further restrictions with respect' to passenger traffic. It is also proposed in the next few days to cancel a very considerable number of passenger trains. It is necessary that this should be done not only that the coal which these locomotives consume may be saved, but it is also necessary that locomotives should be released for the movement of these additional trains that will be involved in the transport of this coal. As I have said, we have found it necessary to establish at once restrictions with respect to use of gas and electricity. The restrictions we are proposing are those which we feel are vitally necessary at the present time. We have gone into the matter with the greatest possible care, and we have come to the conclusion that these restrictions are the minimum which the circumstances demand at the present time. I should not like to have to suggest that these restrictions may not have to be extended. We must meet the situation as it develops from time to time, but it may be that these restrictions will not produce the desired results, and it may be necessary for us to extend these restrictions a little later on. Therefore, as I have said, while we arc establishing certain fixed limitations, it is very desirable—indeed, highly desirable—that everybody should, if possible, exceed the restrictions that we are suggesting

    1091
    and exercise every possible economy in the use both of gas and of electricity. It is quite clear that it would be impossible for these great public undertakings themselves to ration their consumption of coal. They can only manufacture electricity and gas, and it is beyond their control how those commodities are used. Therefore, it is necessary that we should come to their assistance and establish some system of rationing the consumers.
    We are proposing to issue an Order in the next few days which will have the effect of restricting the consumption of both of these commodities over a very considerable area. It, perhaps, might be of interest to the House if at this time I gave some indication of just what those restrictions will be. We are proposing that, as regards Great Britain, no lights shall be used for the purpose of illuminating shop windows. There, we think, we shall secure a very considerable economy. We also propose that no food shall be cooked or any hot meals served in any of the hotels, clubs, inns, restaurants, public eating, refreshment, or boarding houses between 9.30 o'clock at night and five o'clock the following morning, and that all lights in the dining rooms of those places must be extinguished between ten o'clock at night and five o'clock the next morning.
    We are also proposing that no performances in any theatres, music halls, cinemas, or other public places of amusement, shall be continued after 10.30 at night or reopened before one o'clock on the next day—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not 9.30?"]—and that all lights must be put between those hours, with the exception of those actually required for the use of the employés. It has been asked, Why not 9.30? Certainly nobody was authorised to say that we had determined that 9.30 should be the hour when these places of amusement should be closed. We are naturally very anxious that no restrictions shall be put upon the public if they can be avoided, and our object in placing restrictions upon the hours when these places of amusement may be carried on is twofold: first, we think that there would be a direct saving both in gas and electricity, and the other is that there will be an indirect saving through the earlier hours which this Regulation, we trust, will establish. But, at the same time, there is no desire on our part to deprive the people of the right to amusement by the—
    Mr. FIELD: Will these restrictions extend to Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman said Great Britain.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I was very careful to say they applied to Great Britain. I will deal with Ireland later on. It is proposed to adopt further restrictions in all the counties south of a line drawn across the country from the Wash to the Bristol Channel, the number of counties so affected is twenty-three. Here we propose that all users of gas and electricity shall be restricted to using five-sixths of the amount consumed in the corresponding quarter of last year. This restriction is subject to a minimum allowance below which the consumption need not be reduced. This particular area is affected more than the other parts of the country because it is so remote from the coal fields, and because this is the area, which heretofore has been served very largely by these steamers which have had to be withdrawn, and therefore, as regards consumption of coal in this area, the difficulties are much greater at this time than they are elsewhere. But as regards these restrictions it will be necessary to make certain exceptions, such as munition works, hospitals, nursing homes and places where, by reason of the occupation not being generally similar to that for the comparative period, some modification of the restriction may be necessary. It is also proposed to ration all the large power stations from which power is supplied for tramway and electric railway undertakings. It will be necessary that all the tramway services in this area, all electric railway services, including the Underground in London, shall considerably restrict their services. It is also proposed to extend the scheme of rationing of household coal which has been applied to London during the present winter to the greater part of England; and this rationing of household coal practically throughout England will have to be done during the next winter on a considerably reduced ration as compared with that now in force in London, Those who are familiar with the coal situation in London will agree with me that that scheme of rationing has been extremely well done. It has certainly not been brought to my attention during the whole of the winter that there has been a single instance of a coal queue anywhere in London, or any complaint. I am quite sure here again that hon. Members will

    1093
    agree with me that Mr. Calthrop, the Coal Controller, and his assistants, the merchants of London, the colliery owners and everyone who has taken part in this scheme deserve our very best thanks.
    Mr. BYRNE: Do we understand that no one can be served with a cold meal in London in a restaurant after ten o'clock?
    Sir A. STANLEY: It will not be possible to serve any hot meal in any restaurant after 9.30 o'clock at night. Cold meals can be served and the people who are in the dining rooms can continue to occupy them up to 10 at night, when all the lights must be put out.
    Mr. BYRNE: What about soldiers arriving inland after ten o'clock at night?
    Sir A. STANLEY: It may be necessary to provide exceptions in special circumstances, but in so far as these places are concerned, this is the Order.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: Is the rationing in London next year to be on a lower scale than last winter?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Yes, it will be necessary that the scale of rationing in London next winter shall be considerably less than this winter. As regards Ireland we are not taking steps to reduce the consumption of coal. The scheme has not yet been completed, and it will take a little time before we can announce the details. Ireland, too, I am sorry to say, must suffer some restriction.
    Mr. FIELD: Will you take steps to connect the coal mines in Ireland with the main lines, so that Irish coal may be used in Ireland?
    Sir A. STANLEY: We have for some time been engaged in the construction of an extension railway in Ireland which, I am advised, will tap a very considerable source of coal in that country.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will it be finished within five years?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am told this extension railway will be completed and in operation in May of this year. It is quite unnecessary for me to say how much we regret having to take this step. We quite realise that these restrictions must involve some considerable hardship upon the public. I am quite sure we are safe in assuming that these
    1094
    restrictions will be accepted with the same patriotic spirit with which other necessary restrictions have been accepted in the past. The public may be quite sure that they are only made in the national interest, and that they will be removed as speedily as conditions will permit. I do not know whether it is any particular satisfaction, but certainly with these restrictions we shall be very much better off in this country than they are in the enemy countries to-day. Our latest information in respect to Germany is that they are really in a very bad way indeed in regard to transport. Our information is that in the autumn of last year they had found it necessary to reduce their train services by 55 per cent., and since that time there has been a further considerable reduction. Their tramway services in every instance have been reduced, and in some instances as much as two-thirds of their pre-war service, and all through these countries they have found it necessary to reduce very substantially the consumption both of gas and of electricity.
    It is quite clear that these restrictions must, in themselves, affect not only those undertakings which have Bills before the House but also many other gas and electric undertakings throughout the country, and it would, therefore, seem to me very undesirable that we should proceed with these Bills at the present time. The course which I am proposing to take, and which I trust will have the acceptance of the House, is that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should be appointed to consider whether, in all the circumstances, any temporary modification of the existing statutory requirements with regard to price and dividends, or any other form of relief, should be afforded in the case of those undertakings whose financial circumstances have been or may be injuriously affected by causes arising out of the War. If such a Committee is appointed it will give the House the necessary guidance to enable them to determine whether these Bills should be allowed to proceed or whether some other method should be adopted which would afford relief to any gas or electric undertaking where financial hardship had been shown. I have purposely avoided giving any expression of opinion of my own upon the merits of this question.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Select Committee will be set up, and what special precau-

    1095
    tions will be taken to ensure an early Report from them, because when the Select Committee has reported I presume it will be necessary for these various Bills, twenty-four in number, to be referred to the Private Bill Committee, which also will occupy time during this Session.
    Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be better to allow the right hon. Gentleman to finish his speech.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I purposely avoided in any way indicating my own views in respect to these Bills. In my opinion they can only be determined after a most careful inquiry, and it has occurred to me that the setting up of a Select Committee of this House would offer an opportunity whereby this House could indicate its opinion on these matters. I do not feel that a matter of this kind can be usefully debated across the floor of this House. It occurs to me that if a Select Committee such as I have suggested is set up it will afford the House an opportunity of considering the whole question. If this proposal is accepted by the House, I propose to take the very earliest opportunity of formally moving the appointment of this Select Committee with a request that the Committee should report their conclusions at the earliest possible moment. If this proposal is accepted it will seem to me unnecessary that any of these Bills which are now before the House should be proceeded with at this time, and that the Bills should be held in abeyance until the Select Committee has had an opportunity of reporting to the House. That would afford time for any opinion which might be thought desirable arising out of the Report of the Committee. This seems to me to be the easiest and speediest way of dealing with an exceedingly difficult problem, and I trust it will have the acceptance of the House.
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: I wish to elicit, if I can, from my right hon. Friend some more definite statement as to time. It is quite true that he has assured the House that he will move for the appointment of this Select Committee at the earliest possible moment. I assume that that will be immediately after the House resumes after the Easter Recess, but he has not been able to say what stops the Government will take to accelerate the proceedings of
    1096
    that Committee and its report. Unless such acceleration does occur, it will be impossible for sufficient time to remain during the present Session for the Private Bill Committee to inquire into each of the separate Bills. If my right hon. Friend could give the House an assurance that by some means he can get over this difficulty, well and good; otherwise the various Bills are in jeopardy for this Session. If the Select Committee takes anything like the usual length of time that a Select Committee does, these twenty-four Bills, the subject of considerable expense and some of them the subject of very great urgency in regard to other matters quite distinct from the question of coal consumption and the question of the sliding scale, would be in jeopardy and run the risk of being lost. I am sure that it is the last thing my right hon. Friend would desire that any Bill before the House which, apart from the questions of sliding scale and the other questions of coal consumption, etc., to which he referred in one of the moat lucid statements I have over heard in this House, should be lost. He would not desire that these other points in the Bills should be postponed for a year, as they possibly would be if the Bills were lost in their passage through this House by this delay. I am not objecting in the least degree to the course which my right hon. Friend proposes, but I do emphasise the necessity for acceleration, and I hope he will be able to give the House some assurance upon that point.
    Mr. HUDSON: I do not for a moment wish to oppose the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House, but I would like to ask him one or two questions respecting the terms of reference to the Select Committee. Largely these gas Bills are asking for further financial powers. In the course of the inquiry, will they have the power to inquire questions and also to recommend with regard to the charges for domestic, commercial, and transport supply of gas, and also with regard to electricity if the right hon. Gentleman brings that within the scope of the inquiry? There is another important matter involved in the first Bill, the Brentford Gas Bill. This is a matter not only of taking further finance, but also of taking in a largo tract of land and transferring the gas works from Brentford to Chiswick and seriously interfering with a proposi-

    1097
    tion that was laid down before the War for town planning, and which, but for the War, would undoubtedly have been developed. It is now proposed to bring a tremendous gasworks into the midst of a residential population, and, so the people of the locality think, considerably to injure the amenities of the residential portion of the community. This is also a matter that should be inquired into fully. They were opposed only four years ago on the same project, but now advantage is being taken of the cessation of building operations during the period of the War. This is a matter which should be very carefully examined into and decided upon by the Select Committee if it is set up.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I do not think that anyone who listened to the President of the Board of Trade could have failed to realise that we have had put before us to-night propositions of far greater effect than the mere question of the Bills that are being considered. I listened with the utmost attention to the very lucid statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and appreciate fully what it means to the community at large. We are going to be put on a very drastic system of rationing, and when the right hon. Gentleman told us what was going to happen to places of amusement, tramways, underground railways and tubes, which some of us have to use going home at night, he did not tell us what provision he was going to make for this House to sit earlier, so that we may have an opportunity of catching those tram sand trains before they cease running. While the right hon. Gentleman was making his statement it struck me that, so far as we are locally concerned with the various Bills before the House, we have to see that they are maintained, so that we can discuss them, because many of them contain very contentious Clauses besides those dealing with the sliding scale, and some of us are determined that those new powers shall not go in without a struggle, as in some cases they are an entire alteration of the Statute law with regard to electric supply. If we are to have this Committee, it means that the Government require it for the purpose of seeing what are their responsibilities towards these undertakings, and not the responsibility of the consumer. We in this House have a very great duty to perform. We have handed over from time to time by Statute these various monopolies to the various electric and
    1098
    gas undertakings. We have handed the consumer over to them. Our duty in this House is to protect the consumer, and it is in that interest that many of us have fought these questions from time to time.
    The right hon. Gentleman gave the House a description of the sliding scale. It happens to have been my lot, not to-day, but in years gone by, to have fought the greatest gas company in this country—the Gas Light and Coke Company—over thirty years ago, when I was Member for East Finsbury. They used then to impress on us above everything else the sliding scale. I would like to draw the attention of the House and the public to this question. They have been utilising the sliding scale, as I could show if this was the right time, to increase the price on the consumer. The consumer has borne more than his fair share of the burden caused by the War. Whenever there has been a Bill creating one of these monopolies they were well advised in reference to the sliding scale by their gas engineers, and the gas companies have always seen that their standard price was not fixed too low. We know the reason that they have got these excessive dividends—even 6 per cent. in my own Constituency. It was because the standard price was so well fixed that it has been easy for them with the standard price to start at 5 per cent. and to get up to 6 per cent. by reducing it a little. I echo the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hudson)—What is to be the reference to the Committee that is to be set up? A great deal depends on that. If we are to have a Committee many of us will want it to have very wide powers indeed. We shall want it to go into the question whether there should be any change, and we shall want it to go still further than that. We shall want it to decide, if there is to be some compensation paid to these companies, and the Government requiring the by products for their own purposes, and for their own purposes reducing the supplies, whether that should be a national compensation, and not a compensation to come out of the pockets of the consumer. I understand that these Bills are going to remain, and I hope that when we come to these Bills individually we shall have the opportunity of dealing with them as we should have had if the procedure now suggested had not been adopted.
    Sir HENRY HARRIS: I have been asked by the London County Council to oppose the Second Reading of some of the Bills which raise the same question as the Bill which is now before the House. After the statement by my right hon. Friend I do not propose to enter into the merits of the case for the moment, but I would like to know, will it be possible to have a discussion on the Motion to set up the Select Committee, especially as to the terms of reference which they are to consider? Though it is perfectly true that war conditions have told very hardly upon the producers of gas, I must point out that they have also told very hardly upon the consumers of gas. The present effect of the war conditions has been that six-sevenths of the additional cost has been thrown upon the consumers of gas, and if the proposal before the House is also to throw the one-seventh on the consumers of gas, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in preparing his reference will have due regard to the interests of the consumers. Very strong objection will be taken to interference with the sliding scale, and a strong case will have to be made out if that is to be done. As the right hon. Gentleman and the Government say that the matter should be considered by a Select Committee, I do not think that anybody will desire to oppose that, but I confess that I heard with very great regret the restrictions which the Government feel they may have to put on the service of tramways and underground railways in London, because anyone knowing the conditions as to the congestion of traffic at the present time will feel that a very serious state of affairs will be created, unless the right hon. Gentleman proceeds with great caution in this matter. That is all I have to say, except that I thoroughly appreciate all that has been done in connection with the supply of coal in London.
    Mr. HOLT: I think it is an extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman, or any member of the Government, should have made this very grave statement with regard to public affairs on a Motion relating to private Bills. Outside the House—and, indeed, Members who are not at present in this Chamber—will realise the extraordinary gravity of the situation revealed to us by the President of the Board of Trade. I hold that the more appropriate time for its discussion will be on the Motion for Adjournment to-morrow. It is a matter which certainly ought to be
    1100
    fully discussed, because these restrictions, which are said to be absolutely necessary, cannot be regarded merely as restrictions on the comfort and convenience of individual citizens, for they are restrictions on the working power of the people of the country, whose work will be reduced as the result of these proposals. The reduction of the working power of the country, for that is what it means, is a very grave thing indeed. With regard to this measure, it seems to me that both the consumers and the owners of gas undertakings have ground, on the consideration of the sliding scale, for saying that they both suffer from the same circumstances. The Government first of all forced up wages, and, secondly, they have artificially curtailed the price of the gas companies' by-products. These two steps taken by the Government have prejudiced both the gas companies and the consumers, and I hope that fact will be borne in mind in any reference to the Select Committee which the Government may bring forward, in order to enable the Committee to go fully into the question whether the progressive forcing up of wages and the restriction of the prices of by-products can either of them be justified.
    Mr. BURNS: So far as it goes, the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in its relation to the twenty-four Gas Bills on the Order Paper is generally satisfactory, but it is impossible for us, not having before us the reference to the Select Committee, to judge finally this evening what shall be the course to be taken by those private Members who take exception to some of the proposals in these private Bills, that have no reference whatsoever to the War, and that are not necessary to be considered at this particular moment. I sincerely trust that the President of the Board of Trade will ignore—and I put this to him quite respectfully—the suggestion that was made to him, whilst he was speaking, to unduly accelerate the sitting of this Committee, and the consideration of this subject in all its aspects, so that the Committee may come to a decision early in this Session, in the interests of the various companies that are promoting some of these Bills. For instance, the House has had very little time to go into the details of some of these twenty-four Bills. Generally speaking, the reason of these Bills being introduced is that, owing to the War, the difficulty of getting coal, the cost of labour,

    1101
    and the cost of transport, the gas companies consider themselves under the necessity of meeting what they allege to be the increased cost of transport, of labour, of raw material, and other things. They consider that they are compelled to come to Parliament to ask for an alteration of the Parliamentary bargain, which laid down the sliding scale, and under which, generally speaking, all the London gas companies work. I have no objection to the Select Committee being confined, broadly, to the sliding scale, and to the financial proposals that may spring from consideration of the sliding scale, but I do object to three of the gas companies, whose Bills are down to-night, using them as the medium for attempting to smuggle through the House of Commons, for war reasons and under war conditions, proposals that have no relation whatsoever to the cost of transport or of labour, or the sliding scale, or anything of a financial character, which all of us, more or less, owing to the pressure of the War, are quite willing that the Board of Trade and the companies themselves should mutually and equitably adjust. Let me give the President of the Board of Trade the kind of instance that I have referred to. In the first Bill on the Paper (the Brentford Gas Bill), to which I am unalterably opposed, here is a simple Clause of four lines:
    "The local opposition to the acquisition by the company of a site at Chiswick for constructing new works is a matter which it is submitted should be dealt with in the ordinary course by a Select Committee, or, if the House prefer it, by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."
    Any simpleton reading that vague and nebulous reference to a proposal to acquire a new site of many acres, in the upper reaches of the Thames, would not at all think what the size and character of the land to be acquired are. I propose to enlighten the President of the Board of Trade, so that when he drafts his reference to this Committee he will do what I believe would meet the universal view not only of London Members, but of Members representing constituencies in the Home Counties—namely, regard a project of this character as fatal to the amenities of the district, disastrous to the residential character of the neighbourhood in which this new suggested works are to be erected upon land to be acquired, when there is no reason in war-time for a proposal of the kind, but which is attempted to be passed by means of any Bill which ought to confine itself to the sliding scale and
    1102
    similar things. Particularly may I say this to the President of the Board of Trade, that an attempt to get this particular site on the River Thames at Chiswick was before the other House only as recently as 1914, at the beginning of the War. Immediately and without ceremony the suggested land and site were summarily disposed of in the preliminary stages of the Bill, and while the War was on. Yet under the guise of a sliding scale proposal, this company, after having made the suggestion in another place, now again suggests that new land should be acquired by them. Everybody almost knows the upper reaches of the Thames, from Putney Bridge upwards. Everybody knows Thornycroft's Engineering Works, close by the Mall at Chiswick, and from Chiswick Mall to the other side of Barnes Railway Bridge, with a very long line of river frontage. In a Bill connected with financial proposals the Brent ford Gas Company proposes to acquire an area or land 125 acres in extent—that is, twenty times, the area of the total Houses of Parliament, terrace included. One hundred and eighty-five acres of land are to be acquired for the new works, while we are in the throes of war, after the Lords had thrown it out only four years ago. Of that 185 acres, with this tremendous river frontage, in a residential district, 124 acres are to be used for the erection of new gasworks.
    A new gasworks may or may not be necessary somewhere in that neighbourhood. The short answer to that is that this same company, who proposed to acquire 185 acres of ground and the erection of whose works would destroy for all time the amenities and appearance of that river district, have got a gasworks and manufactory at Kew Bridge, where anybody who passes can see what the company has done for that particular area, right opposite Kew Gardens. Under war conditions the company propose that 185 acres are to be acquired, 124 of which are to be scheduled for gasworks, and they ask that that should be smuggled through in this vague and nebulous way in four lines of a private Bill. As an ex-President of the Board of Trade, and having listened to the President of the Board, who has been well advised in taking the advice of the Department in referring these Bills to a Select Committee, I appeal to him not to allow a proposal of this, kind to be inserted in a Bill of this character before the local authorities

    1103
    affected have had reasonable time and opportunity to consider their attitude to this particular project, and before the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council and the Barnes District Council have had the opportunity of consulting even amongst themselves as to what attitude they should take to this proposal. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to jettison this particular Clause and not to allow in any of these Bills any consideration being given by the Select Committee to other than those things the War has rendered it necessary for us to consider as practical business men, both in the interests of the gasworks and in the interests of the consuming public.
    My last point is this, that at this moment a number of Sub-committees of the Board of Trade and of the Ministry of Reconstruction have presented Reports to Parliament, amongst them Reports that in the interests of the economic production of power, light and heat, that we have too many electric-light installations with small units of power and of distribution in the London area, in the Home Counties, and in many parts of the United Kingdom. Those Sub-committees report that during the War the Government ought not, and the Government is accepting their advice, to allow new lands to be acquired, new capital to be raised, or money to be wasted upon uneconomical, because disproportionately small and therefore wasteful, installations where electricity is the means of providing power, light, and heat. If that be true, and it is, with regard to electric light, it is equally applicable during the War to the production of power, light, and heat from coal by means of gas manufacture. If there is any ground in that argument in logic, in economy, in consistency, in transport, in saving of money and prevention of waste with regard to electric power, light, and heat, the same principle ought to apply to similar things when suggested by the various gas companies. With regard to the London area we have got a residential argument why this should be done. London has got twenty-two gasworks, of which twelve are on the River Thames, and a good number of them are in the wrong place. I venture to suggest that 185 acres in a residential picturesque part of the upper reaches of the Thames is one of the worst places in which to put an enormous gasworks of this description.
    1104
    As an engineer I respectfully submit that the proper places ideally and theoretically in London for gasworks should be rather east of London Bridge than west of Putney Bridge. Coal would be cheaper and bigger vessels could come up without the intervention of the bridges and without obstructing traffic.
    For all reasons—transport economy, cheapness both to the company and the consumer—there is no reason why this serious project should be considered in a Bill under the guise for considering the sliding scale. I respectfully suggest that the President of the Board of Trade, when he drafts his reference to his Select Committee, which is the right thing to do with regard to this subject generally, he should rigidly confine it to war conditions and to the financial conditions arising out of the alterations to be agreed upon by Parliament to the sliding scale, and that he should rigorously exclude two or three of the other things that have been inserted in the Bills. If he does that he will be pursuing the line of least resistance in this matter, and I should be delighted to render to the Department any help that a Member for a London Constituency can. I give him this warning as to my attitude if there is any attempt made by any of the Departments to depart from the tacit understanding we all arrived at at the beginning of the War as expressed by the Prime Ministers since the War began. We were told that we were not to consider controversial questions, but to confine ourselves, merely to war problems, and that we were to deal, so to speak, with hand-to-mouth pressing problems, such as the sliding scale and other matters. If that rule is departed from and if these twenty-four Bills are used as the medium of carrying through projects that ought to be considered with sufficient time and information to enable the various interests and authorities to be consulted, then I can assure him that I will offer unrelenting opposition to these particular proposals if he does not drop this particular Clause and one or two others, and I can assure him also unless he does so that the House of Commons will do its very best to oppose every one of the twenty-four Bills. What is more, I am satisfied that the overwhelming majority of the promoters of these twenty-four gas Bills do not identify themselves with this and one or two projects, because they see, as I have expressed it, and I am sure the bulk of the

    1105
    London Members agree with me, that it is unfair to Parliament and that it is not playing cricket as far as the localities affected are concerned in the guise of a Bill to amend the sliding scale and financial conditions, that certain things should be sought to be done foreign to the pledge that was given, and opposed to a fair consideration of this problem from every point of view. When the reference is drafted and submitted to the House I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade, after his admirable speech, which I congratulate him upon making, this evening not to vitiate the satisfactory, the quick and equitable consideration of the financial Clauses by attaching to them proposals to which so far as I am concerned in the interests of London and the Home Counties I shall offer the most persistent, and may I suggest, most successful opposition to Clauses that under no circumstances ought to have been introduced into these particular Bills.
    The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I think the House will agree that the points which have just been raised come within my province rather than that of the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns) has been asking for what the President of the Board of Trade has already proposed to the House, namely, that this question of the sliding scale, the statutory price, should be considered by itself, and not mixed up with any of those extraneous questions which some of these Bills have brought in. It is not for me to express an opinion about the wisdom of the promoters in carrying deck cargo. They, no doubt, will consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and, in view of the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, come to a conclusion as to the other parts of the Bills. I have offered to meet the representatives of the companies soon after we resume after the Easter Recess, and then I shall be better informed as to their views on all the questions, but I know that in the case of one of those to which objection has been taken by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands) he has been heartlessly flogging a dead baby. I thought I had informed him that there was no need for his passion in that respect. The Select Committee, which the Presi-
    1106
    dent has announced he will propose to the House after the Easter Recess, will deal solely with this question of the sliding scale maximum as affected by war conditions and restrictions, and, therefore, if any other part of the other Bills remain, they will have to be dealt with by another process. I think this is not the occasion on which to deal further with those matters. I hope the House, under the circumstances, will not have any objection to my moving that the Debate be adjourned. I should propose then to call all these Bills for the 11th April, not that they shall be taken on that day, but to give that interval for the promoters to let me know under the new circumstances what their position is, and then, if the House adopts the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade, I shall postpone all the Bills for a further period in order that the Select Committee may present its views on the matter to the House. If that is the view, I move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    Mr. FIELD: I trust the right hon. Gentleman, who made such a lucid statement, will prepare such a reference as will meet with the approval of the House—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the question of the Adjournment.
    Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to. Debate to be resumed upon Thursday, the 11th April.
    Cannock Gas Bill; Hampton Court Gas Bill; Liverpool Gas Bill; Long-wood and Slaithwaite Gas Bill; Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill; Cardiff Gas Bill; Commercial Gas Bill; Gas Light and Coke Company Bill; Hastings and St. Leonard's Gas Bill; Maidenhead Gas Bill; Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gates head Gas Bill; Plymouth and Stone house Gas Bill; Portsea Island Gas Light Bill; Richmond Gas Bill; Southampton Gas Bill; South Metropolitan Gas Bill; South Shields Gas Bill; South Suburban Gas Bill; Swansea Gas Bill; York Gas Bill; Basingstoke Gas Bill; Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill; Alliance and Dublin Gas Bill.—(All by Order.)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday, the 11th April.

  SUPPLY.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.
    Again considered in Committee.
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed in consideration of Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919."
    Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £900, be granted for the said service."
    Sir T. WALTERS: With very great regret I am compelled to say that the Debate to-day, and, in particular, the speech, of the First Lord of the Admiralty has filled me with grave disquietude of mind. I think I may venture to say, without disrespect to the First Lord, that I think the attitude he assumes is a most unfortunate one. He takes up the position, which would be perfectly justifiable on the part of a chairman or managing director of a railway company who is dealing with his subordinates—men who are his servants and men who are acting entirely under his orders. Now that is not the position in which the great directors of shipbuilding stand to-day. I believe that the matter of supremest importance is that the attitude of the Government, particularly the First Lord of the Admiralty, should be one of conciliation and persuasion, and that, instead of issuing orders as an autocrat, instead of dealing out praise and blame indiscriminately to masters and men, he should rather seek to secure the effective cooperation of all those concerned in the shipbuilding programme. I am very much afraid that until he has altered the attitude to those engaged in this great industry, we shall never secure that effective co-operation which is essential to the production of the ships that we need.
    I pass, however, from the attitude of the First Lord to the policy he suggests. Now what is that policy that is before the House and the country to-day? It is that the Admiralty still remains in supreme command. The Board of Admiralty—or the First Lord of the Admiralty, to be technically correct—is to continue to control both naval shipbuilding and mercantile shipbuilding. I believe that is a policy that is doomed from the very commence-
    1108
    ment to disaster. It means that we shall not get the ships that we need. It falls to my lot, in connection with my work in my Constituency, to know something about the relative position of Admiralty officials and engineers' workshops. I should be the last man to pass any unfair criticism upon Admiralty officials, but it is common knowledge that in any engineers' shop in the country where engineering work is being done, if anybody representing the Admiralty comes in that to which he always first directs his attention is the provision of various articles required for naval shipbuilding. No engineer and no engineers' workshop will attempt for a moment to defend any work that is being carried out for mercantile shipbuilding if an Admiralty official desires that time should be spent and machines occupied in work directly for the Navy, and I contend that the work of mercantile shipbuilding will always necessarily occupy a subordinate place in comparison with the requirements of the Admiralty officials. There is one Department, and one Department only, that is specially interested in and specially qualified to deal with mercantile ship building, and that is the Board of Trade. They have the mercantile Department, the men who have special qualifications, men of very large experience, who under stand this work and who would fight jealously for the interests of mercantile shipbuilding, and I do not believe you will ever succeed in carrying through an adequate programme of mercantile ship building until you withdraw the control altogether from the Admiralty and place it under the Board of Trade. If the Government had come down to the House and suggested that a Controller of Mercantile Shipbuilding was to be appointed, working in the Department of the Board of Trade and with powers which would be at least co-equal with the Admiralty powers I believe then you would have the possibility of carrying out an adequate mercantile programme, but so long as the First Lord of the Admiralty is the con trolling power I am entirely satisfied that we will never get the mercantile ships we need.
    The Prime Minister in his speech, this evening indicated to us many of the difficulties with which we are all familiar of obtaining the necessary men and materials for mercantile shipbuilding, but if the information given to me is correct there is no shortage of men in the shipyards, and there is no shortage of material in the shipyards. What, then, is the matter?

    1109
    The matter is that there is an entire lack of the proper kind of organisation. You have not only steel, but you have all the various equipments of the ship. You have the engineering parts of the ship, the electrical installations of the ship. All that is really the matter is just this, that just at the very moment when the various parts of a ship are required in order to bring the whole together and get a complete ship these particular materials, and these particular men are withdrawn from mercantile shipbuilding and put on Admiralty work, and so you get a hindrance in the completion of the work, and you get a block right in the most important time, and so the ships are not completed. I venture respectfully to suggest to the Committee that when the Prime Minister tells us that it is a case of difficulties in labour and difficulties in material, the Prime Minister has not been correctly advised of the facts of the situation. The real difficulty is that there is no effective organisation, no proper priority of the various engineering and electrical requirements, in order to complete merchant ships, and all the time confusion arises because of the interference of Admiralty experts and officials. So long as that state of things continues you can never get an adequate supply of ships.
    I pass on to another defect of the Prime Minister. He said we could only get as many merchant ships as circumstances allow. I join issue entirely with that statement. We must override circumstances; we must have the ships, and whatever stands in the way must go. I have in my possession a gramophone record of a speech delivered by the present Prime Minister during his land campaign. I have turned it on at various times, and it says we must have these land taxes, we must have these great reforms, and then it drops into a note of pathos which is very touching, and says, "We will have these things, whoever stands in the way." That is exactly my position with regard to mercantile shipbuilding. These merchant ships are so indispensable that we must have them whoever stands in the way. Whoever stands in the way, even a First Lord of the Admiralty, no matter who it is, that person must be removed out of the way and we must have the ships. I could not gather from the speech of the First Lord precisely what was the year in which the crisis arose, but I think it was really the year1917 in which the great crisis arose. I am informed by men of experience
    1110
    who have carefully collated the figures that we lost in 1917 3,500,000 tons of shipping, and that during that year we turned out of our yards 2,500,000 tons—that is to say, 1,000,000 tons against us. It is futile to talk about building 40,000 tons a month when we are losing at that rate. The very least possible programme is 2,000,000 tons a year. If it is indispenable to turn out 2,000,000 tons a year, the thing is to devise a programme in which everything else is subordinated to that, under which improvements and alterations in other directions must be suspended or abandoned, and all the energies of men and materials devoted to that production.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Even at the expense of warship building?
    Sir T. WALTERS: Yes; even at the expense of warship building. I take up that interruption of the hon. Baronet. What is the use of building ships of war to be used twelve months hence if we are to starve in six months? Let us take these things in their proper perspective. It is no use attempting to enlarge the Navy unless we can feed our troops in France and feed our troops in training at home, and keep our civil population alive for the purpose of carrying out the work in the various Departments. I do not think the Government is taking the proper perspective in this matter—collating all the facts of the case and putting them in their proper order. I am satisfied that so long as the Admiralty has supreme control of mercantile shipbuilding, nothing but disaster and misfortune will attend that course. I respectfully suggest to the Committee that the proper thing to do is to hand over the work of mercantile shipbuilding to the Department of the Board of Trade, that understands these matters, and that a Controller of Shipbuilding shall be appointed in a responsible and authoritative position, reporting directly to the Cabinet and taking his orders from them, and that the officials working under him shall have superior priority to the Admiralty for this purpose. By building merchant ships in this way we would meet the first call on our resources, and if the people are brought into effective co-operation we could then solve the problem.
    I finish as I commenced, by saying that it is no use hectoring the people of this country, it is no use lecturing the people of this country, it is no use attempting to order them about as if they were rail-

    1111
    way porters or guards. The people of this country must be conciliated. I remember that the First Lord of the Admiralty on a previous occasion said he was not a politician. If he had said he was not a party politician I should have thought his statement was commendable, but I do not believe that the admission of the lack of political sagacity is a thing for a member of the Government to be proud of. I believe the political aspect of this case—using the word "politics" in its best sense—is of the supremest importance, and those of us who have spent our lives in dealing with the free and independent people of this country have discovered this, that when you cannot drive you can persuade, and when you cannot demand you can reason, and put facts which will elicit the support of the people. I say this in conclusion, that I believe the first thing we must do is to win the confidence of the people, to persuade them the policy we adopt is a wise one, and then by persuasion, by reason, by argument, win their co-operation; and if we have their effective co-operation and use a little common judgment in organisation, we can solve this problem, and can build the ships that are needed, if this Empire is to be saved and this War is to be won.
    Sir WALTER RUNCIMAN: I would rather speak from a hundred platforms than stand up to speak to this audience, not because I fear its criticisms, but because of the necessity for observing forms to which I have not been accustomed elsewhere. First of all, I am against the Government. I am against the appointment that has been announced of Lord Pirrie as Controller of Shipbuilding. I think we are wasting one of the finest brains there is in the United Kingdom by putting him into that position. You could have got men equally qualified, brainy men who have constantly, throughout their long lives, been accustomed to the class of vessel that I have built and owned—nearly all cargo boats. Lord Pirrie ought to be in a higher position, and the Government would have served the country better if they had given him one. It is for that reason I object to his appointment. The Government is responsible for the complete and wholly disastrous breakdown in their shipping policy. There were men on the North-East Coast and on the Clyde who were available and could have filled this position, and they would have saved
    1112
    us from that terrible chaos which has been created by appointing all sorts of people to do work which they do not understand. I could name four men now who would have filled the position admirably. They would have had no trouble with the men, and you would have got the vessels turned out as quickly as they were in pre-war days. It is not too late now for you to reflect on the position in which you find yourselves. You may save the country from great disaster by adopting the plan which I suggest. There is no well-regulated management to stand up against what I would call blustering, chaotic quackery, which is what we have been accustomed to in the different evolutions of the Government during the last eighteen months.
    10.0 P.M.
    The Prime Minister, when he delivered his speech, stated that the First Lord deliberately made his statement on the 5th March with regard to the masters and men not turning out the work they ought to have done. Evidently the right hon. Gentleman wished to give an impression to the House that that is the method by which it is possible to get more work out of the men. I venture to suggest that if you adopt such methods the men will tell you and the masters to go to blazes, or some other place of worship. Let me deal with one or two things to show the chaos into which we have drifted. First of all, there is nothing special in what are called standardised boats. I have been building standardised boats for the last thirty years, and I say you will not got a better boat afloat than the class of vessel which the men who are associated with me have been accustomed to build. The other day there was a standardised ship building on the Tyne. She had to go somewhere else to get her funnel in. There was some genius appointed by the Admiralty to put the funnel into her, and he found it was not perpendicular; he, therefore, decided to take it out. Another funnel was put in, and smoke began to team out of the fiddles. The captain said: "Good God I Where is all that smoke coining from?" The chief officer replied, "The funnel is shipped wrong." A great many other things are shipped wrong, and that is why we are in this dirty mess just now. The vessel proceeded to the Tyne, and is now having another funnel put into her. I have another instance of muddle. There is a firm of engine builders which was given

    1113
    orders to build standardised engines, but all at once the Admiralty, or whoever had the thing under control, realised that that was not the proper policy to carry out, and decided to take to the standardised engines which we build. They, therefore, told the engine builders to dispense with the engines originally ordered. All the patterns were scrapped, and I was told only yesterday that that alone involved a loss of £10,000. Is that the proper kind of control and administration? The fact is there is no organisation—it is the lack of organisation which is to blame for these things. I would like to give still another case. It is a smaller matter, but yet a very important one. It is a side-light. I remember the speech made by the First Lord on the 5th March, advising sailor men to darken their ships. I thought to myself at the time that the right hon. Gentleman really could not realise what he was advocating. Why, you might lose two ships by doing that, whereas only one might be put down by the submarine. Ask any captain you like what he is going to do about his lights. If he is a practical man he will tell you to leave him to do his own job and he will also suggest that you should mind your own business. Talking about lights, scores of galvanised lamps were ordered, but, owing to a sudden inspiration, someone said, "These galvanised lamps won't do, and we must have iron lamps caulked." Then they said, "But the water will get through the caulk and spoil the lamp," and they went back to the galvanised lamps, and all those were scrapped. There is another very important matter, and I want the First Lord to listen to me about this. They are now engaged on a safety device, a watertight sea-connection compartment I think it is, but they are doing it in such an inefficient way that the whole effect would be destroyed. I want to bring that before the Admiralty officials, so that they may know that they may endanger the safety of the vessel by doing that. I only know one that is constructed, and I am connected with that myself. There is another case. The experts proposed derricks in lieu of masts. After they had begun to realise and take their bearings they said, "These derricks will not do," and now they have proposed hinged masts in preference to derricks. All that is scrapped. There is a beautiful record for you. Then they first demanded a patent rudder arrangement, and now they assert that it
    1114
    is superfluous. No one but a faddist would dream of wasting time and money in adopting it.
    Again, they originally proposed accommodation for only two apprentices. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to listen to this, because my hon. Friend has referred to it, and I think there was nothing more important in his speech. They originally proposed accommodation, for only two apprentices, whereas every well-conducted firm who have at the head patriotic men construct accommodation for six apprentices—that is to say, they have constantly in their service the training of six boys in every vessel. That is a very important thing, but here the Government act in this way, although they have been advocating the whole thing through the Board of Trade, to my knowledge, for very many years. I have been training boys for the last thirty years in this way, and when we went into a larger class of vessel I extended the accommodation from four to six berths. These boys live entirely apart from the crew. That is one of the things in which I do think the officials of the Government have been negligent, if not incompetent, in not judging the fitness of things. In the boats you are building in the States and Canada there is not a single berth for a boy; and we are calling out all the time for sailors! The Admiralty have done less than nothing to encourage the training of the men that we are so much in need of for our merchant service. Another case is in connection with the construction, of these vessels out in Canada and America. Just fancy, you have to carry about half a dozen more men in the stokeholds than you would on an up-to-date shipowner's vessel. The reason is that the men have as far as from here to the Front Government Bench there to heave their coals into the furnaces, and that involves the employment of a vast number of men in taking over the vessels that you are building out there. I do think that if the Government can do it they should make arrangements so that these berths can be fitted in these vessels for the purpose of training these lads and making them seamen. You can get any amount of boys. You have no need to advertise for them. The vessels that are being lost now are throwing a lot of young fellows out of employment, and there is no place in which to put them except with the crew. I say that is very wrong, and you can remedy it if you like.

    1115
    I have spoken at some length in a very disconnected way, and I hope I have made one or two impressions upon the House, and one or two points that the Government will think worthy of notice. What you want is ships, but you want organisation first of all to carry out the production of the ships. Get on to that ground, and there will be no lack of ships, so far as the men and the masters are concerned. If anything goes wrong with the production of ships the fault will lie on the part of the Government, and not on the masters or the men.
    Mr. ANDERSON: The real crux of this matter is the labour situation, and that might not be fully gathered from the speech that we have heard from the First Lord this afternoon. Nobody who understands the whole situation at present, however, including the food situation, will question for a moment the gravity of this shipbuilding question. There are not only the U-boat sinkings—probably not far short of a thousand British vessels have been sunk in that way—but there are ships that are damaged and laid up for long periods, and the losses due to the absence of lights, to collision, mines, and so on. It is very important that you should have the right spirit amongst the men in the shipyards, and I am bound to say that a good many of the speeches which are made on behalf of the Government do not seem to me to be the kind of speeches that are going to call the best out of the men. There is too much lecturing of them. They are tired of being lectured; they are tired of being told after four years of hard work that they do not yet realise and are not working as if they realise what is at stake, as the First Lord told them in a speech the other day. In point of fact—and I have many letters from workmen and have had many talks with workmen and their officials—what they do say is this: "We have had far too many high promises about what was going to be done, and when performance falls short of the promise a scapegoat has to be found, and that scapegoat is invariably found in the British workman." When things go well, they say, the Government appropriates all the credit to itself. "We did this and we did that." You would never imagine a workman had anything to do with the work so long as it is going well. You are only reminded of these masses of men when
    1116
    something goes wrong, and the actual production falls, off. We have had very, very extreme statements as to the amount turned out. If I had time I could read extracts from some of the speeches made by the Prime Minister as to what would be done. The Prime Minister said, in August, 1917, that in the next six months of the year:
    "—this will include some ships purchased abroad—the new shipping acquired by this country will be 1,420,000 tons in six months. A little over 1,000,000 tons—nearly 1,100,000 tons—will be built in this country, and 330,000 tons will be acquired abroad, so that this year the tonnage which we shall acquire will be l.900,000 tons. That is a very fine achievement."
    What we want is that these fine achievements shall be retrospective. The same thing is true in regard to the kind of speeches which have been made. Take the question of the submarine itself. We were told by the Prime Minister, as far back as last November, that he had no further fear of the submarine, and the First Lord has told us about the submarines being held. Everybody is protesting now against that kind of speech. On this point, I would like to read an extract from a leading article in the "Times" of 28th February, which says:
    "The February figures, as a whole, are by no means reassuring. They reveal a steady average of losses, and are considerably higher than the January records. These facts must be faced and not put aside or slurred over or covered up by bold prophecies of which we have had more than enough. Let us take the plain truth, and soberly draw the right lessons from it."
    If the people are going to be impressed by the actual facts in regard to food and so on, we must have less of that kind of speeches. Only the other day, the Prime Minister, speaking at the City Temple to the Free Church Council, said:
    "There is no lack of abundant food to sustain the strength of the people. There is, I am glad to be able to tell you, no prospect of such a deficiency. [Loud cheers.]"
    The men who are doing hard work and being upset with food difficulties are amazed when they read speeches of that kind, which are bound to create discontent. If there is no lack of abundant food, as the Prime Minister stated, there are certainly a great many people who are not getting their share, and in many districts there must be a breakdown in regard to distribution. Many of the workers wish to know whether the Government knows its own mind in regard to the shipbuilding business. One experiment is rushed into after another, only

    1117
    to be abandoned. We get, first of all, a Department of Shipping, with a Shipping Controller, in December, 1916, and he brings in certain new ideas involving a certain amount of upset and rearrangement.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It is his statutory duty to look after the building of merchant shipping.
    Mr. ANDERSON: In November this plan is upset again, and an entirely new scheme is brought about with fresh readjustments in the yards, and we are going to have another set of changes, with all the dislocation which will be caused by those changes. You have no sooner planted a flower than you pull it up by the roots just to see how it is getting on, and it is not in that way that this shipbuilding business can be built up. What is it that these much-abused shipbuilding workers have been doing for the last three or four years? If the facts were fully known there is no doubt that they have been working at very high pressure, working long hours of overtime. If you are going to ask what they have done, it is not only a question of mercantile shipbuilding. There is the urgent naval work, there is the heavy programme of repairs, there is the mercantile tonnage, and there is the special munitions work. This has had to be done in spite of the dilution of labour, which must in the very nature of things interfere with the efficiency of the yards. If some men who are skilled are taken out in order that others less skilled may be brought in, it is bound to affect, and does affect, the efficiency of the yards. There has been a shortage of labour, and from time to time, at any rate, there have been difficulties about material. There have been conflicting Departmental orders, and altogether there has been too much unintelligent interference. In view of all that, the work surely is a very fine achievement, but I heard from the First Lord of the Admiralty no word of appreciation of the work that has been done by these men and of the long hours of over time that they have worked. They feel that their work is not appreciated. There was not one word of generous appreciation, but only censure and blame. I believe that blame is attributed to them without proper examination and investigation.
    Where do the Admiralty get their information about these shipyard
    1118
    workers? I know where the Prime Minister, when he was making charges about the slacking and about the drinking of some of them in 1915, got his information. He got it from the secretary of the Employers Federation, and when the facts were investigated it was found that the so-called lose of time took no account at all of the loss of time through bad weather or through sickness. The facts were altogther fallacious. There is no doubt that dilution of labour in many of these yards has been carried to very great lengths. If you take a well-known union like the National Amalgamated Union of Labour, which has 120,000 members, you find that 30,000 of them are with the Colours. They are called semiskilled or unskilled men, but in point of fact they have a real measure of skill in regard to various phases of shipbuilding work. When they are taken out of the yards and other men brought in there is bound to be, and there is, a deterioration of workmanship in quantity and quality. It may be necessary that it should be done, but the real facts ought to be faced and the blame ought not to be placed upon those who are in no way worthy of blame. Many of these workers are getting a little stale after three or four years of work under the present conditions. Some of them are exhausted. Many of them work under very bad housing conditions. In some cases there is overcrowding, and sometimes men have to travel a long distance to and from their work. I know of cases at Barrhead, near Glasgow, where men cannot get to their work at six o'clock in the morning, although they want to do so, owing to the lack of travelling facilities. There are no houses near their work. These men, who do not understand the situation, have been asking the railway companies for the last two months to give them an extra train in order that they may get to their work at six o'clock in the morning. They cannot get there, and they are losing from 6s. to 8s. in wages. If they are losing that in wages, how much is the nation losing in shipbuilding as the result of holding back this small change? The other day I read of a meeting of Portsmouth workers that was held on Sunday, 10th March. There were 116 delegates present, representing 14,000 organised workers. Mr. A. G. Gaurd, the president of the Trades Council, said:

    1119
    "Slacking was due to the Government Departments. They had an instance of this in the Portsmouth yard at present. Orders were given for the construction of a ship, the designs were produced, and the material was obtained, and a ship started shortly after the King's visit. The labour was withdrawn from other work and the partly constructed ship and material were rusting on the only available slip. … The men offered to meet the accredited representative of the Admiralty and arrange to do their work on a piece-work basis, but were informed by the Admiralty, in reply to repeated applications, that their application could not be acceded to. It would be for the public to decide to whom to attach the blame. The men were willing, but were not allowed to give of their best."
    Dr. MACNAMARA: May I say that I saw that report. It is quite incorrect, because we have always been most ready to meet the men in the Royal dockyards. The point is that the Admiralty did not agree to the proposals of the men. The speaker was incorrect in saying that they refused to meet them.
    Mr. ANDERSON: But if the men made an offer to fix up the work on payment by results, surely the Admiralty ought to have made every effort to meet the men and to see that an arrangement was made which would probably have given you the very best results?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If the speaker used the phrase "meet the men" in the sense that we discussed it with them and could not agree to the view they held, that is true, but I read the report as meaning that we refused to see them at all. That is not so. My hon. Friend knows that we are only too ready always to hear the men's views.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I do not gather now whether there was a meeting between the Admiralty and these men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, yes!
    Mr. ANDERSON: There was actually a meeting?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
    Mr. ANDERSON: On this question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
    Mr. ANDERSON: But no agreement was reached?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is it.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Very well. At the same meeting a speech was made by a
    1120
    member of the Director of Works Department of His Majesty's dockyard. The report says,
    "It was simply scandalous the way the men were compelled, against their wish, to idle their time. In some departments it was deemed necessary to keep a surplus of labour over the actual requirements of the department. Ships could be built, and the bulk of the men were anxious to do all they could, but they were hindered by official etiquette."
    The report also says that numerous delegates spoke at the same meeting in the same strain, all giving the same experience. Certainly, in face of that, it does not make them more genial when they read a speech by the First Lord who says that the men were not working as if the life of the country depended upon their exertions, and when that is backed up by the suggestion in one of the Government organs the next day that some of these men ought to be shot. This point has been elaborated, and the point of whether the best use is being made of the men has been brought out even in a leading article in the "Times." This is an article which appeared a week or two ago in the "Times," which says,
    "Is the best use being made of the available men? We have received a letter from a boiler-maker in the Army about the arrangements for utilising men's services in the shipyards, and his experience is not encouraging. He is a Class A man with seventeen years' shipyard experience, and he has been back from France since 22nd December; but instead of being sent into the yards to do his proper work, which is most urgently needed, he is being trained to a new job in field works, which he does not understand. It may be an isolated case, but he says there are others, and that the thing is being mismanaged. In view of the extreme urgency of the shipbuilding problem we draw the attention of the Government to this complaint."
    In regard to this I myself read a letter which was sent the other day by Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth and Company in reply to an application that a man made that he might be taken back. He was a skilled riveter. I want to know whether in such cases employers are encouraging the return of skilled shipyard workers. I quite understand there may sometimes be Army difficulties, but this does not appear to be such a case. In any case an application from an employer would have to go to the Army authorities or the Admiralty in order that this might be arranged. This is the reply, only received on the 19th February, since all the trouble arose:
    "With reference to your letter addressed to Mr. Cummings asking that we should make application for your release from the Colours to enable you to return to your employment as a

    1121
    riveter here, we beg to inform you that as we have no urgent demand for men of your trade it is not possible for us to do as you ask. We have, however, noted your name and regimental particulars for further reference."
    So the matter rests there. That does not give very much encouragement—indeed, when men get to know that that is the situation you cannot persuade them of the urgency of the matter to anything like the degree which would otherwise obtain. I have received letters from trade union officers, some of whom have great knowledge of the condition in the engineering trade, the shipbuilding trade, and so on. They complain, first of all, that the men's time is wasted. They say it is wasted by means of the various Priority Departments. The Admiralty has a method of priority, giving preference to certain work for the supply of labour and material. Considerable bodies of workmen are registered as unemployed, but Exchanges must not transfer their services until assured that all priority claims for labour have been met. The workmen are out of work for many days until all conflicting Departments dealing with labour questions are assured that priority claims have been met. Surely that is the very worst way to deal with priority claims, to keep men actually from doing work. I can easily understand that there is urgent work and men must be transferred, but keeping them idle is the worst way to meet or adjust these claims.
    Then my hon. Friend (Mr. Wilkie) referred to the constant calling up of these skilled men that you have no intention of taking into the Army for purposes of medical examination. There are actually three Departments each able to call up a skilled workman for medical examination. One is the National Service Department, the second is the Munitions Area Department, and the third is the Military Recruiting Department. Workmen get calling-up notices from more than one of these. It means a day's work to get there, and it is not only the man's labour that is lost, but you very often break up the work of his squad as well, because when one man is called out from a squad the whole of the combined labour of the squad suffers. That is constantly happening in the shipyards, and these men are summoned for examination, although there is really no intention of taking them into account. The other night the hon. Member (Mr. Watt) spoke as a strong supporter of the
    1122
    Government, and said he did not want to criticise or blame them, yet this is how he summed up his speech. Speaking of the mood and feelings of the men, he said: "It has taken months, but at last you have worked your industry into such a state of mind that they have no confidence in you." That is really a very striking statement coming from that particular quarter. These charges that are made again and again against the men do infinite harm. We had a case in regard to Woolwich. Some months ago wild charges against the Woolwich workmen were published in the "Times." The charges were investigated, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions stated yesterday that on investigation they had found the charges either wholly untrue or grossly exaggerated. But the official mind was revealed in a further remark which the hon. Member made. He was asked, what about the mischief done by these charges, and he replied, "I do not think that any mischief has been done by the correspondence." That is to say, that no mischief is done by slandering workmen in this way.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I said that no harm was done by this correspondence. As a matter of fact, the "Times" published two very powerful letters in reply, which in my opinion entirely demolished the original charge.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I know that a great deal of harm was done and a great deal of very bad feeling created so far as Woolwich is concerned. I want to read a few suggestions which I have received from the secretary of the Boilermakers and Iron and Steel Shipbuilders, Mr. John Hill, ex-president of the Trade Union Congress. Mr. Hill has knowledge of naval architecture, and holds an advanced Government certificate for this. He spent many years of his life as a practical iron shipbuilder, in the highest practical branches of the work. These are the suggestions which he puts forward for the consideration of the Admiralty. I do not suppose they will get much more. He suggests, first, the appointment of a Minister of Ship Construction and Repairs; and, secondly, that Tonnage Committees should be established, such committees to consist of three employers and three workmen in each district, the three employers to have

    1123
    the confidence of the employers and be elected by them, and the three workmen to be elected by the trade union in each district. He further suggests that the aim should be to turn out 1,000,000 tons in four months, or 3,000,000 tons per annum, that the increase should be progressive; that repairs should be 50 per cent. quicker in four months, and must also be progressive; that the work must be suitable to each yard, and that material and labour must be adequate. In regard to labour disputes he suggests that all yard questions should be settled in the yard within twenty-four hours by a small yard committee of men and employers of that yard, with a chairman alternately appointed by each side. All district questions to be settled in the district within one week by a joint committee of employers and workmen, and a neutral chairman appointed by the Ministry of Labour. There must be no arbitrary alterations of wages or conditions of labour, and no stoppage of work. The workmen to be supplied with comparative figures of output of their own and other works, employers and workmen in yards giving biggest comparative results to have some kind of public acknowledgment.
    These are suggestions from a man who is skilled in the industry. This matter cannot be discussed apart from the hardships and difficulties, strain and exhaustion involved on the part of the men. There ought to be in dealing with them insight, wisdom, understanding, and fair dealing, and if that is done the best results will be obtained.
    Mr. BRADY: I desire to express the feeling of regret which obtains among my colleagues that the Government has all along not chosen to set up a national shipbuilding yard in Ireland. I am not without hope that they have not said their last word even now on the subject, and I am emboldened to renew the request, in view of the fact that Lord Pirrie has been appointed Shipping Controller. Lord Pirrie is an Irish shipbuilder of whom Ireland is very proud, and we have every confidence, now that he is preparing to assume the duties of that responsible office, that this question of a national shipyard in Ireland will be considered. It has been pressed on the Government since the right hon. Gentleman came into office, and certainly before he took office it was pressed on the
    1124
    Government by the late Mr. John Redmond, and I do most urgently press upon the Government the desirability of doing this small measure of justice by establishing an Irish national shipyard.
    But, alternatively, might I make this suggestion. It may not be within the personal knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is known to some of those who are associated with him at the Admiralty, that an effort is being made to establish another private yard in Dublin. In this matter the Committee will be very glad to hear that Ireland is not asking for any money from the Imperial Treasury. There are some gentlemen in Dublin who are prepared to put their own money into the venture, and they have already succeeded in getting a very eligible site from the Dublin Port and Docks Board. All they ask the Government to do is to facilitate this undertaking by providing the necessary machinery. As far back as last October I was privileged to get into communication with the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, and he then emphasised that the great difficulty of a private yard on these lines would be the question of labour. Yesterday the Shipping Controller was good enough to see some of my colleagues and myself, and we were accompanied by the accredited representatives of shipping labour in Ireland, and I think that I may go so far as to suggest that the Shipping Controller was satisfied that a certain nucleus of skilled labour would be forthcoming for this undertaking. If this be so, I press very strongly on the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of enabling us to obtain the necessary moderate supply of machinery to start this yard. We recognise, of course, that we cannot start on very ambitious lines, but, I understand, that there un-ambitious lines on which this business could be begun. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon referred to what are called fabricated ships. I only heard of fabricated ships yesterday. I heard of them from a very authoritative source, and I think it possible that this Dublin enterprise could be begun on the lines of fabricated ships. I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider favourably this matter of the Dublin private yard.
    Mr. HOLT: I must say that I do not think that the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty was at all re-

    1125
    assuring. In the first place, his figures were given in a very peculiar way. Obviously they were given to the Committee in order to make the best possible impression. The First Lord of the Admiralty told us that the British loss up to date was 3,500,000 tons, and that the Allies' and the world's loss, leaving out enemy countries, was 2,500,000 tons. From that the conclusion is that our Allies and the neutrals have increased by 1,000,000 tons. From one point of view that may be very satisfactory, but from the point of view of the position of this country when the War is over it is a very serious matter indeed, and I think that we ought to have something like an analysis of how that 1,000,000 tons is arrived at. I find it difficult to believe that 1,000,000 tons increase has taken place amongst those other nations who have been actively engaged in the War. I think probably the increase, has taken place amongst fleets which are not in the least likely to take any part in the War. I think we ought to press for something more than the figures given. We ought to be told who are the people who have got an increase of 1,000,000 tonnage, how they got it, and how far it is at the disposal of the Allies for the purposes of the War. There is another rather more alarming feature of these figures than anything which the First Lord of the Admiralty has thought fit to tell us. The net British loss is 3,500,000 since the beginning of the War. That is almost exactly the total last year, in round figures 3,700,000 tons, against which there is a set off of rather more than 1,000,000 tons. In 1917 this country lost 2,500,000 out of a total loss of 3,000,000. In other words last year accounts for five-sevenths of the total loss. Everybody knows that must be so, because in the earlier stages of the War we were actually gaining ground. There was no loss during the first year. Therefore, the whole of this loss has taken place during the late stages of the War. That is a very alarming fact, and at the present rate of loss things will be very much worse, if the loss is spread anything like evenly over the three and a-half years of the War. During the same period of time the Allies have lost 1,250,000 tons, and neutrals 1,200,000 tons, and the total loss is 6,000,000 tons. In the previous year they lost 2,250,000 tons. I think those figures might just as well have been given to the Committee as the other figures. I think the Committee will realise that the position is more serious
    1126
    than the Government think fit to represent, and that it will realise how much more serious the loss has become since the present Government came into office. I do not think the First Lord of the Admiralty has dealt in a satisfactory manner with the execution of repairs. I do not know whether or not the Government desire to represent to the country that the repairs are conducted in a satisfactory manner, because the repairs are going on badly. For instance, a vessel in which I am interested has been ready to commence repairs since the end of December and the beginning of the year, and she had not been able to get into dry dock up to the end of last week. That is not a satisfactory position in which to have repairs. A ship lying out of repairs for two and a half months is not satisfactory. The First Lord did convey the impression to the Committee that repairs were going on in a very satisfactory way indeed. They are not going on in a satisfactory way.
    It has also to be noted that, whereas a comparison is made between the number of ships lost and the number of ships built and replaced, not one word was said as to the number of ships disabled and not sunk. It is a most unfair way of trying to convey to the people of this country an accurate impression of this matter that you should suppress all the information as to ships very seriously damaged, which can only mislead, and that you should have ships treated for statistical purposes as if they had never been damaged, whereas you know perfectly well that some of those ships for half a year are out of commission and that a very large amount of repairs have to be carried out on them. That really is a very misleading way of dealing with figures. I do think when we are asking the Government to take the country into their confidence that we are entitled to complain that very material misstatements, which may be described as half-truths, have been given to the House and the country. This shipbuilding position is no very great surprise. There is nothing that has happened with regard to it that sensible people did not foresee long ago. I think I am entitled to take some credit to myself that I gave a warning to the House as to what would happen in February, 1915. If you are going to concern yourselves with a shortage of shipping, the time to think about it is a year or eighteen months before it happens and not when the emergency is upon you. In February, 1915, we

    1127
    were discussing the question, of the way in which merchant ships were being used, and I then said:
    "In this connection may I point out a danger which I think may be threatening the country in the matter of shipping at a somewhat more distant date? Undoubtedly the requirements of the Admiralty, which it has been necessary to comply with, have almost brought to a stoppage the building of merchant vessels for private firms, a development which may raise a very difficult position, for the supply of tonnage in the future is not likely to be anything like as large as it has been in the past. I would like to suggest, if there is going to be any attempt to look into what the Admiralty have done with regard to the use of merchant shipping, that there should also be some sort of inquiry in regard to what the Admiralty have done in reference to the use of shipyards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1915, col. 1216, Vol. 69.]
    I think I may take credit for having made a fairly accurate prophecy of what was going to happen. Anybody could see that was exactly what was going to happen. The reasons that the ships are not there now is that the Admiralty prevented them from being built. It was not that private persons were not building, or prepared to build, but that the Admiralty interfered and stopped them, because they thought that other things were more important. When we are contrasting the responsibilities of various Governments, let it be noted that both the right hon. Gentlemen who were First Lords of the Admiralty at the time during which merchant shipbuilding was stopped are now members of the Government, and that the persons in the late Government, who were specially responsible for preventing the construction of merchant ships, are now in the Government, while the right hon. Gentlemen, who did their best to promote merchant shipbuilding, are sitting on these benches on this side. Let us know who are really responsible. This trouble is all directly due to the attempt to turn this country into a gigantic military Power, and the weakening of your position in respect to sea power, which is your great asset. You are going to pay the penalty for doing so until you make up your mind to retrace your steps. There is no failure to provide ships on the part of the private shipbuilders, and it is due to the misjudgment and to the erroneous policy of the Government.
    The present Government are taking credit to themselves unjustly for shipbuilding during the past year. They have reaped where they have not sown.
    1128
    The ships put into the water last year were ships the construction of which was in the concluding stages, and I think you will find, if the figures are disclosed, that when the year 1917 was started there was a large number of ships on the stocks in a fairly advanced stage. All through this time we have had endless interference. That interference has been dwelt on over and over again during the Debate—interference of every description. First, you had control in the Ministry of Shipping, then in the Admiralty, and now we are told that we are to have another Controller in the Admiralty. Why on earth the Admiralty should have the final say on the question of merchant shipping when we all know perfectly well that the Admiralty are the people who, in the interest of naval shipbuilding, have stopped merchant shipbuilding in the past, I really do not understand! Nobody can suppose that, when we are trying to strike a balance between what it is necessary to do in respect of the building of warships and what ought to be done in respect of the building of merchant ships, the Admiralty is likely to hold the balance fairly. Nor, indeed, if we are going to discuss this failure of merchant shipping and how to cure it, can we discuss that advantageously unless we know what the Admiralty have been doing in respect of warships. I understand the total output of tonnage during the past year is estimated at being approximately equivalent to 2,000,000 tons. That means that the amount of warship construction is approximately equal to the amount of merchant ship construction. During the past year there has been added to the Royal Navy, for naval purposes purely, a tonnage as nearly as can be equal in amount to the tonnage that has been added to the mercantile marine. I think the Committee ought to take some steps, to inform themselves as to what has happened in that respect, for it does seem, from all one knows, that there cannot be any great need for a large number of great and important vessels, and certainly one can hardly believe that the whole of these 1,000,000 tons of naval shipbuilding have been put into the form of torpedo-destroyers, submarines, sloops, and suchlike. The fact is, this Committee really ought to insist upon having a full and complete investigation into what has been going on. Unless we know that, we are not in a position to say what ought to have been

    1129
    done. All we have before us is that there is very grave ground for anxiety, and that nothing that has so far happened will give us any reason to trust the word of the Government. I am afraid I cannot conclude the remarks I hoped to offer the Committee before 11 o'clock, but I understand, or I hope, the Vote is going to be put down again.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is too much to ask that we shall definitely say that the Vote shall be put down again. What I do undertake is that we will not ask for the Vote to be passed now, and if there is any general desire I shall be glad to give an opportunity for discussing it further.
    Mr. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give the Committee what the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. Mason) asked for?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible to give reasons against that without making a speech, but we are not prepared to do that at present.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will give us, if there is a general desire, an opportunity of re-discussing this Vote?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can put that right absolutely. There is no question whatever about any difference of opinion if there is a general desire. If it is asked for by the Whip on the Bench opposite it will at once be given.
    It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  EDUCATION [GRANTS].
  Considered in Committee.
  Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise 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."
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now Adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock

WAR.
  INCOME TAX (ISLE OF MAN).
  INCOME TAX (ISLE OF MAN).
  SPIRITS (IRELAND).
  SPIRITS (IRELAND).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  TEA.
  TEA.
  FEEDING-STUFFS.
  FEEDING-STUFFS.
  MEAT.
  MEAT.
  MAXIMUM PRICES (OVERCHARGES).
  MAXIMUM PRICES (OVERCHARGES).
  PIGS.
  PIGS.
  MAIZE.
  MAIZE.
  MABGARINE.
  MABGARINE.
  TRACTORS (IRELAND).
  TRACTORS (IRELAND).
  BACON.
  BACON.
  ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITAL, YARMOUTH.
  ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITAL, YARMOUTH.
  CULTIVATED LAND (DAMAGE BY GYPSIES).
  CULTIVATED LAND (DAMAGE BY GYPSIES).
  POLICE ACTION, WEST CLARE.
  POLICE ACTION, WEST CLARE.
  IRISH GOAL MINES (RAILWAY CONNECTIONS).
  IRISH GOAL MINES (RAILWAY CONNECTIONS).
  STEAMSHIP SERVICE, SLIGO AND BELMULLET.
  STEAMSHIP SERVICE, SLIGO AND BELMULLET.
  ARMY CHAPLAINS (HONOURS).
  ARMY CHAPLAINS (HONOURS).
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  ARMY OFFICERS (HOME SERVICE).
  ARMY OFFICERS (HOME SERVICE).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  ROYAL FUSILIERS (WILLIAM GOLDSMITH).
  ROYAL FUSILIERS (WILLIAM GOLDSMITH).
  APPEAL RIGHTS.
  APPEAL RIGHTS.
MUNITIONS.
  BRUSH MAKERS (WAR BONUS).
  BRUSH MAKERS (WAR BONUS).
  MILK CHURNS (MANUFACTURERS).
  MILK CHURNS (MANUFACTURERS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  INVALIDED OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  INVALIDED OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES (STEEL HELMETS).
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES (STEEL HELMETS).
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS (EVICTIONS).
  SMALL HOLDINGS (EVICTIONS).
  CIVIL LIABILITIES (GRANTS TO OFFICERS).
  CIVIL LIABILITIES (GRANTS TO OFFICERS).
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT (FORMS).
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT (FORMS).
  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANY (LASCARS).
  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANY (LASCARS).
  INTERNED SHIPS.
  INTERNED SHIPS.
  LABOUR RESETTLEMENT (IRELAND).
  LABOUR RESETTLEMENT (IRELAND).
  TIMBER (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  TIMBER (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (INQUIRIES).
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (INQUIRIES).
  GIRL TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS.
  GIRL TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Town Tenants (Ireland).
  Town Tenants (Ireland).
  Housing (Ireland).
  Housing (Ireland).
  Mr. Ginnell, M.P. (Speech).
  Mr. Ginnell, M.P. (Speech).
  Secondary Education.
  Secondary Education.
Education Bill.
  FINANCE.
  FINANCE.
  CONTINUATION CLASSES.
  CONTINUATION CLASSES.

ECONOMY IN PRINTING.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, before public business commences this afternoon I would ask your Lordships' attention for a moment to a matter of some moment in its effect upon ourselves. I have just had handed to me a Paper representing what has passed in the House of Commons. It relates to the printing and circulation of the Votes and Proceedings of that House. It appears that the Speaker has directed that, in view of the acute shortage of paper, the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons shall not in future be circulated to Members generally, but only to such Members as shall signify on a slip before the 23rd inst. that they desire to receive copies as issued. In the absence of any notification from a Member that he desires to be supplied with copies, the supply will be discontinued as from the 9th proximo. The reasons for that action in another place are obvious, and I hope I shall not be wrong in suggesting that they apply equally to ourselves. It is clear that there must be a very considerable expenditure—I might almost say in some cases a waste—of material, labour, and paper in the circulation, every day, to all members of your Lordships' House, wherever they may be and in whatever part of the country they reside, of the Minutes of Proceedings of this House; and the measure of restraint which in the public interest the Speaker has suggested that the House of Commons should apply to itself, and which that House has accepted, I am sure your Lordships will be willing, in the public interest, to accept for yourselves.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I hope I may, unless I hear to the contrary, assume the assent of your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, as the noble Earl appears to expect acquiescence, I may say that so far as I am concerned I most cheerfully give it. I think probably there is a great waste of paper, and I am quite sure that what
512
applies to the Minutes may not also apply to a considerable proportion of the Bills. A very large number of Bills, some of them occupying considerable space and not perhaps dearly cherished by those who receive them, are circulated with the Minutes to, I suppose, all members of your Lordships' House. I should have thought that some restriction might possibly be exercised with respect to Bills as well as in respect of the Journal, Minutes and daily entries of business. I do not know whether the noble Earl has any views on this point. It may be difficult to discriminate as between Bills which are of general interest and special importance and those which are not, but a great many of the Bills which are received by your Lordships find their way, I am afraid, to the waste paper basket, and are not studied.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I think the remarks of the noble Marquess are most pertinent, and for my part I entirely agree with them. I recall very well, in the proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill, how day after day we saw on this Table, and we ourselves received, constant reprints, voluminous in character, during the different stages of that Bill, and I thought at the time that it might be possible, and if possible it certainly ought to be done, to practise some economy in that respect. I will consult with the Clerks at the Table and see whether some restriction cannot be applied to Bills as well as to other Papers.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, may I inquire how we are to know the business of the day? Is any notification to be sent as to what business will be taken? Unless something is circulated giving the business of the day, members of your Lordships' House will be compelled to ask for the Minutes and Papers for which a great many of them would not otherwise ask. If we could have from day to day the business that was to be taken on the next day, many noble Lords would not ask for the Minutes and Papers.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It is true, of course, that a statement appears in the Press every morning as to the general nature of the business to be taken in your Lordships' House. But I do not assume that there would be a complete stoppage of the circulation of Papers. I thought

513
that the noble and learned Viscount would have been—like myself and other noble Lords—one of the favoured ones, and would receive the Papers. If the proposal is accepted, the Papers would be circulated to noble Lords living in London and constant in their attendance at your Lordships' House, and we should escape the sending of Papers to noble Lords living at a great distance and not attending here at all.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I quite agree with that. But may I point out that unless some provision is made for telling noble Lords the Bills that are to be taken and the Motions to be considered, they would not get the information in any other way. It does not appear in the newspapers now, and they would be compelled to ask for the whole of the Papers, thereby leading to a great deal of waste. If some provision could be made, by means of a single sheet, which would acquaint us with what business is to be taken, a great many members would abstain from asking for anything more.
EARL CURZON or KEDLESTON: I should not like to answer on the spur of the moment, but I will consult with the Clerks at the Table on the matter.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I make a suggestion to the noble Earl? It is that any change that is made should be done by a Resolution of the House, so that we should know where we are, and that such and such Papers cannot be got in future.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: With the permission of tire House, I will consider the various suggestions that have been made and make a brief statement on the matter to-morrow.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

THE BESTOWAL OF HONOURS.
The EARL of SELBORNE The EARL of SELBORNE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the Honours List published on January 1, 1918; to point out wherein the public statement therein made of the reasons for which these honours were recommended to the Crown falls short of the undertaking given by His Majesty's Government to this House on October 31, 1917; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the point to which I wish draw your attention to-day is a very limited one. We have had more than one discussion in this House on the subject of the abuses which some of us think have taken place in the recommendations made to His Majesty in respect of honours. I do not desire to-day to raise the question of abuse; I wish to confine myself to the consideration of the Resolution which was actually passed by this House and accepted by His Majesty's Government on October 31 last.
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, brought forward two Resolutions. One of them was accepted without amendment by the Government, and the other was accepted with an Amendment moved by my noble friend the Marquess of Lansdowne. I myself voted against that Amendment, because I preferred the Motion in the form in which the noble Earl, Lord Loreburn, had moved it. I am not going back on that question to-day, but having gained what seemed to us a real concession from the Government, a concession which, in our judgment, marked a step in advance in the regulation of this most difficult matter, I hope your Lordships will agree with me in endeavouring jealously to safeguard that concession, and to watch the lists that are published and the statements that are made; and if we find that His Majesty's Government are not acting up to what we consider the spirit of their undertaking, we should remind them and ask an explanation from them.
Let me remind you to what it was that His Majesty's Government pledged themselves on October 31 last. Lord Loreburn moved the following two Resolutions—

"(1) That when any honour or dignity is conferred upon a British subject, other than a member of the Royal family or the members of the Naval, Military, or permanent Civil Service under the Crown, a definite public statement of the reasons for which he has been recommended to the Crown shall accompany the notification of the grant.

"(2) That a declaration to the Sovereign be made by the Prime Minister, in recommending any person to His Majesty's favour for any such honour or dignity, that he has satisfied himself that no payment or expectation of payment to any Party funds is directly or indirectly associated with the grant or promise of such honour or dignity."

My noble friend the Leader of the House (Earl Curzon of Kedleston), in dealing with these Resolutions of Lord Loreburn, referred to the second one as follows—
"As I understand, in proposing the omission

515
of the words about a declaration to the Sovereign—"
That was is allusion to Lord Lansdowne's Amendment—
"in which I concur, he suggested that Resolution No. 2 should run as follows: 'That the Prime Minister, before recommending any person for any such honour or dignity, should satisfy himself that no payment or expectation of payment to any Party fund is directly or indirectly associated with the grant or promise of such honour or dignity.'"
He went on to say—
"If Lord Lansdowne moved his Amendment in the form which I understand him to recommend—that is to say, the Motion of the noble and learned Earl omitting the Preamble, containing No. 1 in its present form and No. 2 in the amended form which I read out to your Lordships—I shall be quite prepared to suggest that it should meet with your Lordships' acceptance."
I have only now to say in respect of the second of those Resolutions, which dealt with the obligation of the Prime Minister to satisfy himself that no payment or expectation of payment to any Party fund is directly or indirectly associated with the grant or promise of such honour or dignity, that I assume that in relation to the Honours List of January 1 the Prime Minister acted on the assurance given to us on his behalf by my noble friend the Leader of the House. Therefore I have nothing more to say about that.
It is to the first of these Resolutions, which was accepted without any qualification by my noble friend, that I wish to refer. The acceptance by my noble friend was quite complete and unreserved. My noble friend Lord Salisbury felt some doubts as to the extent to which the noble Earl who leads the House was prepared to commit His Majesty's Government, and my noble friend the Leader of the House exhibited a little impatience with my noble friend's doubts. Then Lord Lansdowne stepped in in order to clear up what seemed to him to be a misunderstanding, and spoke as follows—
"My noble friend Lord Salisbury asked the Leader of the House what action he proposed to take if this Resolution was carried. I understand the noble Earl to say that he is prepared to accept the Resolution on behalf of the Government of which he is a member—that is, the Government presided over by the Prime Minister; and surely the inference from that is that the Prime Minister and his colleagues would abide by the terms of the Resolution."
My noble friend the Leader of the House stated—
"That was exactly what I said, almost totidem verbis."
516
Therefore there is no doubt whatever that the Resolution as amended was accepted without reservation by my noble friend on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
The first occasion since that debate on which there has been a grant of honours on a large scale—and it was on a very large scale—was on January 1 last. You may say that it is rather late in the day, in the middle of March, to raise a question about a list that appeared on January 1, but it has not been in our power to find an opportunity to raise this question earlier. Your Lordships will remember that in the early part of the year this House was occupied entirely with the Franchise Bill, and there has been other important work ensuing on that, and to-day is the first day on which I could get the opportunity of raising this matter. I want to say, in order to follow out what I said at the beginning, that I am not to-day going to deal with the general subject, nor am I going to deal with the merits or otherwise of any of the gentlemen whose names are found on this rather portentous list. My sole object is to point out to my noble friend, who of course is not personally responsible for the statements inserted in the papers, that the spirit of the Governmental obligation does not seem to me to be entirely and in every case fulfilled.
Before I give instances, I want to give my noble friend a piece of information of which I do not think he is aware, and which I have only learned after strenuous inquiry and a long search, and that is that these honours of Peerages, Baronetcies, and Knighthoods are the only honours bestowed by His Majesty which are never put into the London Gazette. They are never sent to the London Gazette at all, though every other honour is sent to it. I ask my noble friend to see that that is remedied, and for this reason. The Government is pledged when these honours are published to make a statement as to the reasons for which the recommendation on behalf of these gentlemen has been made to His Majesty. That statement, I have ascertained, is issued from the Lord Chamberlain's office, but, it is only sent to the daily Press and not to the London Gazette. There is no obligation on any newspaper to publish a word of that statement absolutely none; whereas if it is sent to the London Gazette we are perfectly certain that it will be published. Everybody would know where to look for

517
it if he is interested in the subject, and the matter is regularised, and put on an official footing. I do ask my noble friend most earnestly, as the natural consequence and complement of the pledge given on October 31, that he will see that these honours are henceforward, with the official statements issued, published in the London Gazette. I think he will be surprised when I tell him it is not so now, but I assure him it is a fact, because the head of the Stationery Office, who is responsible, is my informant.
Now, I come to the statements themselves. I have no wish to make out any case against His Majesty's Government, and therefore I am not going through this list in at all an exhaustive way. I think if any of your Lordships had the curiosity to refer to The Times of January 1 and read these statements through, you would agree with me that, while some of them give the public all the information which could be desired, a good many of them fall short very materially of the spirit of the undertaking given to your Lordships' House by my noble friend on behalf of His Majesty's Government. But I am not going to attempt an exhaustive inquiry. I am going to take only three instances. And again, in taking those instances, I wish it to be understood that I am making no reference to the merits of the gentlemen in question; I am dealing only with the statement issued by His Majesty's Government from the Lord Chamberlain's office of the reason for which the honour is conferred. I am taking these three cases only as illustrations.
Alexander Black, Esq., is put down for a baronetcy. The statement of the reasons for which it is given is in the following words—
"An active worker, supporting local charities and efforts to encourage food production. Has assisted the Government in the promotion of the fishing industry."
If you substitute for "fishing" agriculture, coal, iron, cotton, or any other industry, I think you will agree with me that there probably are at least 100,000 gentlemen in the country whom that description will exactly fit—an active worker, supporting local charities and food production; has assisted the Government in the promotion of a certain industry. I submit that this is altogether too general and too vague a statement to be accepted as a real reason for the grant by His Majesty of such a signal honour as that of a baronetcy, and
518
that it does not really carry out the spirit of the pledges given to us.
Then I come to the second case—W. H. Clemmy, Esq. Here the statement of reasons is very short and very sweet. It is "Mayor of Booth."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is that all?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is all—"Mayor of Bootle." And he receives a knighthood. Another knighthood is given to "S. B. Quinn. Esq., Mayor of Limerick." In the same number of The Times there is a grant of a knighthood for another gentleman who has occupied the mayoral chair—"S. Garland, Esq. Has been Mayor of Chichester for six consecutive years." That is a signal instance of public service. Nobody who knows what is implied in the amount of self-sacrifice and public work in the mayoralty of a town like Chichester for six consecutive years can deny that it is a striking example of public service, and it is most natural that His Majesty should select such a man to honour. But what inducement can there be to anybody in the future to become mayor for six consecutive years if he can get the same honour by being mayor for one year? I suggest that if the mere occupation of the mayoral chair on a single occasion is to be taken as a sufficient qualification for a knighthood, then we may revise our estimates of the value of these honours and of the meaning conveyed in an approbation by His Majesty of public service. I submit that those curt statements, "Mayor of Bootle" and "Mayor of Limerick" are wholly insufficient as an endorsement of the pledge given on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Nothing would surprise me less than to find that these gentlemen have behind them an excellent record of public service. But why is it not stated? And what can be in the mind of the official—I wonder very much who the official was who drew up these statements—what can have been in his mind when he thought that it was a respectful thing to your Lordships' House or to the public that all the information that could be vouchsafed to us was that a gentleman was a mayor of a provincial town?
I have said that my point was a small one. I do not pretend that it is otherwise, but I think that it is very important that, having secured this willing and full concession from His Majesty's Government

519
—not going so far as I should like, but still going a considerable way—we should scrutinise these lists, and when we think the statements are inadequate, as indeed I think in many of these cases they are, that we should draw the attention of my noble friend to their inadequacy. He does not think for a moment that I regard him as personally responsible for this inadequacy, but unless he will, on behalf of the Government, see that the official who is charged with this responsibility really fulfils it, I am quite sure that it will not be fulfilled according to the spirit of his undertaking. I beg to move.
EARL CURZON of KEDLESTON: My Lords, although I do not think that my noble friend was either altogether happy or altogether just in his criticism of the list, to which I will presently turn, I have no objection whatever to his raising this matter, which I think he was fully entitled to do. Nor do I dispute anything that he said as to the interpretation of the words which I employed on the previous occasion—October last—when this matter came before your Lordships' House. I am sure that neither he nor any other noble Lord will suspect me of any wish to detract in the smallest degree from the fulfilment of the pledge which, on the part of His Majesty's Government, I then gave. I entirely accept the canon laid down by the noble Earl—that this House is right, in the event of any pledge having been given from the Ministerial Bench, to act as the jealous guardian of the rights which it has thereby secured.
The remarks of the noble Earl this afternoon have been directed not to the second part of the Resolutions carried by your Lordships in the month of October, but to the first branch of those Resolutions. I will briefly read again the particular Resolution to which he has asked your Lordships' attention. It ran as follows—
"That when any honour or dignity is conferred upon a British subject, other than a member of the Royal Family, or the members of the Naval, Military, or permanent Civil Service under the Crown, a definite public statement of the reasons for which it has been recommended to the Crown shall accompany the notification of the grant."
That was the Resolution which, on behalf of His Majesty's Government and with the fullest intention that it should be observed in all future Honours Lists, I accepted in your Lordships' House. Now, if you will look at the report of the discussion you will
520
see that I was myself in some doubt as to what was the exact form of statement which your Lordships' House, and those noble Lords who led the discussion, required. I pointed out at the time that a statement—of which the noble Earl seems still to be unaware—is issued to the Press as an ordinary practice upon the distribution of honours, a statement which contains an account of the services rendered by the recipient. I am very sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in his place, because on that occasion he gave a categorical and point-blank denial to what I said across the floor of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord was wrong, and I was right. Such a statement—I have a copy of the latest one—is drawn up, not in the Lord Chamberlain's office, but at Downing-street. It is printed, and it is issued on the same day and at the same hour as the List of Honours itself, to the representatives of the Press for their use in the columns of the daily Press the next day; and the statements that you read in the newspapers are in the main derived from the compilation of which I hold a copy in my hands. Downing-street, of course, cannot compel the Press to make full use, or any use at all, of this statement. Sometimes they use it; sometimes they do not; sometimes, perhaps, they amplify it; sometitnes—and more commonly, owing to the pressure upon their space—they compress it.
Having made that statement about this Paper (which I shall be only too glad to hand to any noble Lord who desires to see it), I then in the debate asked what more the House, and those who were leading the discussion, desired. These were my words—
"It is, of course, difficult to settle this matter by dialogue or conversation across the House. Assuming that the Government are quite willing to carry it out, noble Lords should favour me with their own views as to the best method of carrying it out, and as to what extent the range of it should extend."
That is, the range of information about individual cases. To that question on my part the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, speaking a little later in the afternoon, made reply. His observations are to be found in column 879. They are as follows—
"Broadly, we may say that, if anybody receives an honour, somebody ought to be able to say why he receives it, and what the good reasons for its bestowal are; and the only question is to have those reasons printed in public. Whether they are printed in the Gazette or in

521
Papers laid before your Lordships' House is a matter indifference. The point is that when anybody receives an honour there ought to be some good reason for its conferment. Let us print what the good reason is."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I have nothing to object to in that language. There the matter rested, and when the debate was over and the Resolution had been accepted by your Lordships' House I drew the attention of Downing-street to the Resolution, with the full intention that it should be acted upon not only in the letter but in the spirit. I think the impression prevailed there that the printed statement which is now drawn up, and to which I have more than once alluded, is adequate, and satisfied the requirements laid down in this discussion by your Lordships' House. But it is clear from what the noble Earl has said that it has not satisfied him, and he has drawn attention to this list—or, rather, not to this list in the form in which it was issued to the Press, but to the List of Honours in the form in which it appeared in the Press.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I had no possibility, of course, of seeing the other list.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No; the noble Earl, of course, had not any possibility of seeing it. I am merely explaining the practice that has hitherto prevailed, and was carried out on January 1 last. The noble Earl has called attention to the statements that appeared in the Press, and he has named one or two cases in which he seems to think that they were inadequate. If I may say so, I do not think the cases of the noble Earl were altogether well chosen. Let us see what they were. He took the case of a Baronetcy conferred upon Mr. Alexander Black. I know nothing about that gentleman beyond what is stated in this record and in the newspapers. The newspapers having, as I indicated just now, varied very much in the degree of information they gave, let me read what appeared in the Daily Telegraph, for instance, about Mr. Alexander Black. These were the words in which they justified the appointment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I read it from The Times.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes. The Daily Telegraph contained a fuller use of the information supplied. It is there stated—
"Mr. Alexander Black has taken an active part in many directions, and has been a generous supporter of local war charities. He has shown particular interest in the encouragement of food production and school gardens on a large scale, and has made a handsome gift in furtherance of these objects. The Government secured his aid in connection with the fishing industry."
THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: Is the noble Earl quoting from the Official Paper?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am reading from the use made by the Daily Telegraph of the information in the Official Paper. That seems to me precisely the kind of general statement about the services of a man who has moved in public life, and who has been what we may call an honourable, useful, and distinguished servant in the best sense of the term. It is precisely the kind of information which the noble Earl complained of our not giving. Later on Lord Selborne came to the case of the two Mayors. It is rather difficult to satisfy my noble friend. If we give the information he says, "That is too general." But when we come down to the case of the Mayors he says, "Give me general information; that is what I want."
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Could we hear what is said in the Official Paper about the case of Mr. Black?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It is a compression of what I have read. It says—
"Alexander Black, Esquire. Has been a generous supporter of all local war charities, including gifts to encourage food production and school gardens on a large scale. Has rendered valuable assistance to the Government in connection with the fishing industry."
I take now the case of the two Mayors. One of those gentlemen was Mr. Clemmy, the Mayor of Bootle; the other was the Mayor of Limerick. The noble Earl expressed dissatisfaction that the mere statement of this fact was regarded as sufficient by the Government, and he seemed to claim that a Mayor is not worthy of an honour at the hands of his Sovereign—certainly not of the honour of Knighthood—unless he has served for a number of years in succession; because the test that

523
the noble Earl applied was that of another Mayor, Mr. Garland, who had served for six years in succession. I suggest that a man who, very likely in the latter part of a meritorious life, becomes the Mayor of a great borough and receives this proof of the confidence of his fellow-citizens, is likely to be in the list of persons who might be suitably considered, and who have for more than a generation past been considered, for such a form of honour. Now I will go a little more particularly into these two cases. Take the case of the Mayor of Bootle. It does not satisfy the noble Earl that he has not been elected many times in succession, but at any rate the Government were satisfied that this gentleman, now between seventy and eighty years of age—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the noble Earl going to read from the Official Paper directly?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am now giving the reasons for which the appointment was made, and I shall proceed to ask what it is that the noble Marquess and his friends desire should have been stated in the published record. The printed list contains the remarks "Mr. So-and-so, Mayor of Bootle."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What we are anxious to ascertain is whether those terse and impressive words are all that is contained in the official communiqué.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes; and I am now trying to explain why more was not contained in the official statement issued to the Press. This gentleman was rewarded by the confidence of his fellow-citizens, being made Mayor of Bootle. He has had a long and distinguished career and has been identified with many war services, and that is the kind of man who in the evening of his life receives this kind of honour. He was recommended by the Member for the constituency, who happens to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by another member of His Majesty's Government. In those circumstances I really do not quite understand what kind of statement of the public services of this gentleman it is that the noble Marquess or the noble Earl would desire.
Then I take the case of the Mayor of Limerick. I do not know what the career
524
or the services of this gentleman have been, but he was Mayor of Limerick and was recommended for this honour by the Lord Lieutenant and by the Chief Secretary. Is not that enough? Are you to put in the statement of this gentleman's services "Mayor of Limerick, recommended by the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary" or is it of great interest to the public to know that this gentleman has rendered this or that public service? I should not have taken these instances unless they had been selected—I think not altogether successfully selected—by the noble Earl himself. But let me point out to the House what is the real difficulty that arises in the case. The noble Earl is really interested in the case of gentlemen, unknown perhaps to himself, and perhaps unknown to the public at large, and he is very anxious, and rightly anxious, that in such cases the public should be given a clear idea as to why the honour is conferred. He accordingly demands that a full statement should be made in each case. Now let us see how that would work out in practice. In the New Year's Honours List, which he was criticising, there are, among the names of Privy Councillors, those of Lord Hugh Cecil, Sir Gordon Hewart, and Lord Edmund Talbot. The gift of that honour to them would be recognised by everybody without a word of explanation as an entirely reasonable and legitimate thing. The positions they occupy are known to the world. Does anybody really mean that where a Privy Councillorship is conferred a kind of biography of the recipient should be published in the Gazette, or, if this is unnecessary because it is already in "Who's Who," that the services which they have rendered in the preceding one year or two years should be put down? I take the case of Baronetcies, and there I find the name included of Mr. Ellis Griffith, M.P., a very distinguished man, who has served for many years in the House of Commons. The sole thing stated here is that he was M.P. for Anglesey since 1895. If that does not satisfy the views of the noble Earl, what more would he have us do? Then Sir F. E. Smith was made a Baronet, and the only information given to the public was "Attorney-General." Again, are we to give a full description?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have a very full description here of Mr. Ellis Griffith.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am talking now about the list issued by the Government, which was challenged. The newspapers may have amplified it or treated it in what way they liked, but I am speaking about what you are talking about, and I am seeking to get from the House information as to what it is that you have in your minds. Take the case of knighthoods, about which, in regard to those conferred upon mayors, the noble Earl was so sensitive. But Mayors are not the only recipients, and in the list of knighthoods on the last occasion, I find the following. "Mr. John Galsworthy, novelist and playwright—"
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Who refused it.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It was offered him. "Mr. John Lavery, artist; Mr. Edwin L. Lutyens, architect; Mr. Leslie Ward, the artist of Vanity Fair." In all those cases it has been considered by the Government at any rate sufficient to state to the public what were the main credentials and credit of the recipient. Does the House want more? When a statement is published in the Gazette or otherwise—I am coming to that in a moment—what is it exactly that the House desires? Does it desire that one standard shall be applied in the case of inconspicuous people and another in the case of conspicuous people? Are gentleman of the class of whom I am speaking to be treated as if their tames alone were sufficient to justify the acceptance of title, but in other cases are we to embroider the services and give a full record to the country? The point is one of some difficulty, which I should be very glad if this debate should enable your Lordships to elucidate for my benefit.
Take again the case of a Peerage. That was a point about which noble Lords were very sensitive when we discussed the matter two or three months ago. When Lord Tennyson, or Lord Lister, or Lord French, or Lord Jellicoe are made Peers, are we to draw up a list of their services and present it in the Gazette, or otherwise, to the House; or is the mere fact that they have been appointed with the general approval of their countrymen, to whom their names are so well known, sufficient? That, again, is a question to which I shall be very grateful for some sort of reply. Therefore I have shown that, with the utmost desire on the
526
part of the Government to carry out its pledge to the full, I am still, even after these three debates, in some doubt as to what it really is that the House desires. One other point abort the Gazette. The noble Earl acquainted its with a discovery that he had made—namely, that hereditary honours are nut published in the Gazette. I am not quite certain that the noble Earl is correct in that.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What I ascertained was that these Birthday and New Year's honours, except the orders of knighthood, are not published in the Gazette.
EARL CURZON or KEDLESTON: Obviously they cannot be, for this reason. Suppose a man is created a Peer. The statement of the intended honour appears, we will say, in the New Year's Honour List. Then some time elapses during which the patent has to be made out. The title which the noble Lord is going to take has to he settled between him and the advisers of the Crown, and in some cases arrangements as to the form of remainder or other points have to be settled. I think I remember my own case, in which two or three months elapsed between the date on which the Peerage was announced in the paper and that at which I was, as I believe, gazetted. Upon that point I hesitate to pronounce definitely, but my impression is that, although a Peerage cannot be gazetted straight away for the reason I have named, it is gazetted later on.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear hear.
EARL CURZON or KEDLESTON: There are noble Lords heer who support me in what I say.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What about the others—the baronetcies and knighthoods?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I cannot speak for the question of knighthoods. As regards baronetcies, with hereditary title, the same questions have to be settled. The noble Earl just now seemed to think that it would be an easy thing to publish the statement in the Gazette. For the reasons I have named I do not believe it would be easy, but I have a suggestion to make to the House

527
which I think may be a way out of the difficulty—that is that in substitution for, or preferably in addition to, the statement to which I have more than once referred as issued from Downing-street now, there shall be drawn up a list which should be issued by the Government simultaneously with the appearance of the Honour List in the Press, and which should contain the information that the House desires, and that I, on behalf of the Government, promised to give. It might take the form—I think it would be possible that it should take the form—of a special Gazette (not an ordinary Gazette, for the reasons I have named), issued for the purpose of stating the reasons for these honours, and published synchronously with the appearance of the list of names in the newspapers. That suggestion, which I throw out, will I hope meet with the approval of your Lordships. But, again, I would say that it still leaves me in some doubt as to exactly what this Gazette ought to contain. I put to the House the difficulty which is in my own mind as to the discrimination between the recipients of honours who are well known to the public and those who are not, and I would ask your Lordships who take an interest in the matter to give me some guidance as to the character of the description that you want in both of these cases.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we are glad that at the close of his remarks my noble friend proposed a method by which the publication, whatever it is, can be properly secured; but before I say anything about that I should like to remind my noble friend of what is quite evident—and your Lordships generally will agree—that when your Lordships debated this subject for two whole afternoons you did not do so with the object of getting some technical compliance with a rule which the Government accepted. I am sure your Lordships will all agree, and my noble friend himself will agree, that something more was intended by the House than a technical compliance with a rule accepted by him on behalf of the Government. What is behind it? There is no advantage in printing a gentleman's name either in the newspapers or in the Gazette with an insufficient description of his services. That does no good to any one. What is required is that the public should know the reason why Ministers have recommended to the Sovereign a particular gentleman for an
528
honour. That is the substance of the thing. It is that which the public should know.
The question which we have to put to my noble friend is, Did the list which he tells us was circulated to the newspapers contain the full information for which the public have a right to ask? I need not tell your Lordships why the public have a right to ask for it. Everybody knows the real reason. The only difficulty of stating the reason is that one is most reluctant to seem to imply any suggestion against particular gentlemen's names which must perforce be mentioned in the course of the debate. I have no doubt that the Mayor of Bootle and the Mayor of Limerick are most worthy gentlemen, entirely deserving, so far as I know—I certainly do not know anything to the contrary—of His Majesty's favour. But the point is that if nothing but a phrase like "the Mayor of Bootle" or "the Mayor of Limerick" be published, there is no security against what we know in common colloquial language as a political "job." That is the point. Do not let anybody think that I am suggesting for a moment that the noble Earl and his colleagues are guilty in these cases of "jobs." I have no doubt they are not. The noble Earl, of course, has nothing whatever to do with the matter except that he is kind enough to answer our questions in this House. But the point we have to secure, as the guardians of the public credit, is that there should be no room for political "jobs." That was the reason for the debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House. We established on the last occasion that political "jobs" had taken place. We proved to your Lordships that money had been asked for for political honours, and we shrewdly suspect—indeed, we are all satisfied; let us not pretend—we are all satisfied that money has been given for honours. Very well. It is in order to prevent this that we are asking the Government to make certain concessions, and one of the concessions was the obvious one that the reasons why a gentleman was recommended to His Majesty's favour for an honour should be published. The question is, Is such a phrase as "the Mayor of Slocombe Poget" sufficient to protect the public against a political "job"? Obviously it is not. That, standing by itself, is no use whatever.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Why?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is net very distinctive. The Mayor of Slocombe Puget! There are a great many Mayors, one every year. It is quite obvious that this is no protection whatever. No doubt, if the gentleman is in the particular case made a Mayor in the latter part of a meritorious life, which was my noble friend's phrase, it makes a considerable difference. But who knows that it was the latter part of a meritorious life? All we knew was that he was Mayor of some place or other. That is no protection. That is nothing more than a technical compliance with the rule to which your Lordships agreed, and which the Government accepted in the most solemn manner. They assured us, or gave us to understand, that they intended to comply with it. My noble friend said: "Are you proposing one rule for humble people and another rule for more distinguished people?" Apply my criterion. Does the country wish to be carefully and elaborately informed why Lord Jellicoe has been recommended to His Majesty for a Peerage? Obviously not. The Government are protected by the distinction and fame which that gallant officer has obtained. But I see no objection why all his services—perhaps they are so numerous as to make that impossible—but why a selection of his services should not be printed. It would be a proper thing to do. There is no difficulty. The same observation applies to a large number of the eases which the noble Earl quoted—gentlemen who have been made Privy Councillors or Peers.
The noble Earl thought it was amply sufficient if he said "the gentleman has been recommended by the Chief Secretary," or "by the Lord Lieutenant." "What more can you want?" he said. I can see my noble friend standing at the box and saying, "This gentleman is recommended by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury; what more can you want?" There is no charge against the Chief Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant, or against these gentlemen, as far as I know, who fully deserve the honour, but the language of the noble Earl—and he himself knew it—was no protection against the particular evil which the whole of the discussions in your Lordships' House on the last two occasions were designed to prevent.
I am quite certain that when my noble friend comes to think over the matter, and also when your Lordships think over it, you
530
will see that what is wanted is a publication of the motives, the real reasons, width led the Government to recommend a gentleman for an honour. If he is a citizen of a considerable town, lots worked long for many years and has grown grey in the service of the town, why should not that be stated? What is the objection to it? It is all to his honour and to his credit, and I suggest that in the future everything should be so stated. Then there will be security. Let my noble friend recollect that, glad as we are to see him occupying a great position in the Government, he and his colleagues will not be there for ever. They will be succeeded by other Governments in the course of nature, and some day we may have a Government which is less meticulous in the care with which they recommend for honours. Then these precedents which we set will become effective. The mere designation of a gentleman as the Mayor of something or other may be used to conceal every conceivable kind of mischief which we desire to avoid. We are not legislating or establishing rules and regulations for the moment; we are doing it as a permanent part of the practice of our Constitution, and in that spirit I suggest we have established that such terse and limited accounts of gentlemen's services are not sufficient really to comply with the spirit of the Resolution which the Government accepted in your Lordships' House.
Then comes the question of how the publication should be made. The noble Earl says he sees a way out of the difficulty. He would have a special edition of the Gazette in which all these things should be set forth. I have nothing to say against that; it appears to be a very valuable suggestion. I do not make any complaint against newspapers. They are extremely valuable public servants in this respect, but we have no security that they will print what the Government give to them, and there will always be a doubt, when we see that somebody has been honoured because he is an alderman of something or other, that the whole facts are not stated in the newspapers. I was obliged to put a question to the noble Earl to know whether there was anything more in the official publication than appeared in the newspapers, and that doubt will always occur to every one. But once the matter is printed in a special Gazette no doubt will arise, and we shall know that we have the full reasons why the Government have recommended to His Majesty gentlemen to

531
be the recipients of honours, and we shall be satisfied that to some extent protection is afforded to the public against a misuse of this power of the Crown.
LORD BURNHAM: My Lords, I regret that I was not in my place when the noble Earl referred to an interruption of mine in a former debate in which he said I was misinformed. The interruption was to the effect that no official notice was sent to newspapers to be inserted as to the reasons for the conferment of honours upon gentlemen whose names were sent for publication. I took the trouble, after that debate, to refer to the actual papers which came into the newspaper offices, and I find that, strictly speaking, that was absolutely correct. The information sent was not, in the strict sense, official at all.
I will tell your Lordships what actually happens. It is only recently that any information was given to the papers at all. I think it dates from the time when Lord Gainford was Patronage Secretary to the Treasury in a former Administration. Then it was limited to certain classes of honours. Up to the moment when I spoke no information was given at all in respect to those gentlemen on whom the honour of a Peerage was conferred, and who were called to His Majesty's Privy Council. I do not know whether it was assumed in all cases that their merits were so obvious that no explanation was required, but in those cases no information was given at all.
In regard to Baronets and Knights information was furnished by the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, and it appeared in a paper issuing horn official quarters but not in the nature of an official publication. This information was generally of a perfunctory kind. It merely gave what could be gathered from some books of reference, or from local histories where the general book of reference did not embrace the name, and it was the practice, I think, in most newspaper offices to take this paper and use it for what it was worth. The details given were as to the public offices which the gentleman on whom the distinction was conferred had filled. Sometimes these were supplemented by biographical details derived from other sources. It was not looked upon as giving the official reasons for the conferment of the honour, the particular services for which the honour was conferred, but as showing the general nature of the claims of public service and
532
other reasons of that kind. I saw the Paper actually that came in on the last occasion, and in the case of Peerages and Privy Councillors no reasons and no record were given. Therefore I do not think I was wrong in informing your Lordships' House that in these two most important classes of honours no information was given—and attention had been directed to the case of Peerages which had been conferred, as it was alleged (I am making no allegation myself) from undesirable motives. Therefore it is true that since last January there has been this list sent round, but it cannot be looked upon, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury has said, as giving the reasons for the conferment of the Peerage, or otherwise than as a record of the bare facts in a ecrtain number of cases.
Even in regard to some knights and baronets, no details at all were given. They may not have been available, or there may not have been any record worth giving, or the facts may have been so well-known that they were not furnished. Certainly what was given was not sufficient for the purpose of a newspaper office, which had to supplement the information in other ways. It is to be assumed that the information furnished is the ground upon which the honour is conferred. I would suggest that it ought to be given in a slightly different way. If the service done in war or peace is to be presented to the public as the reason for the Crown having acted, that ought in itself to be stated, and not merely facts which can in most cases be derived from books of reference. Since the last list I have noticed in the case of Peerages, that a statement was made as to the posts which the gentlemen so honoured had occupied. I observed that especially in the case of one of my noble friends who was sitting for a moment behind Lord Curzon.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the point is a small one, because it does not touch the main subject of our discussion. But the noble Lord is not quite accurate in his recollection of what he said on a previous occasion, or in his account of the practice that at present prevails. What he said on a previous occasion was this—
"It is not the case that any official statement is issued of the Honours List, or circulated to the newspapers."
LORD BURNHAM: Officially.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble Lord added—
"The Press agencies send out details as to the lists and as to the merits of various persons in the Honours List, but no official statement is issued."
That, my Lords was incorrect. An official statement is drawn up at Downing-street. It is issued—I have a copy of the last in my hands—in this form. It is not sent out, but it is handed to the representatives of the Press at, I think, five or six o'clock in the evening of the day before that on which the honours are published, along with the list itself. Representatives of the Press take it away, and I have no doubt tha the representative of the Daily Telegraph did so. It is therefore an official statement. It may not be sufficient for the purpose of the noble Lord, or for your Lordships' House, but it is an official statement. It has been twice issued since the present Government came into power in the case of two distributions of honours, and I was told by the Secretary to the Prime Minister that he was carrying on the practice which he had inherited from his predecessor. Further, my Lords, the statement is not limited to Peers.
LORD BURNHAM: Not now.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I can only answer for the present Government. The statement—here it is—contains an account of the service and the reason for which the honour is conferred not only upon Peers or Baronets, but upon Knights. In fact, it covers the entire Honours List. The point, however, is one of no very great importance.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, the Motion that I have put upon the Paper ollows on a suggestion which was made to me during the debate on March 6 by my noble friend who leads the House. The suggestion was made in such a very polite way that I find it impossible to resist it. These were the noble Earl's words to me—
"If I may venture humbly to advise him, it would be to withdraw his Motion and put some other Question upon the Paper."
The noble Earl had already enjoined upon me the necessity of definition, and had animadverted upon the futility of vagueness in any Motion of this kind. The Motion
534
which I have now put down is the result, of my desire to fall in with Lord Curzon's counsels. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That there be laid before the House a tabulated Return for each of the years 1916, 1917, and 1918, showing new Departments or sub-Departments created, with the name of the Minister in charge of each Department and his salary, if any, and the individual names and salaries of all new appointments exceeding £250 per annum, and the total cost of the remainder of the staff of each such Department or sub-Department; the Return further to indicate shortly whether the powers of the Department are conferred by Statute or by Order in Council, with the necessary references.—(Lord Ribblesdale.)
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has correctly described what passed the other afternoon. I will take the terms of his Motion, as it stands upon the Paper. In the third line it asks for a Return for each of three years of new Departments or sub-Departments. The Departments or sub-Departments to which he refers are, I imagine, the Ministries of Labour, Pensions, Munitions, Food, Shipping, National Service, Reconstruction, Blockade, Air Ministry, and such Departments as the War Trade Department, the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), the Foreign Trade Department, the Food Production Department, and the Department for Information. The greater part of the information for which the noble Lord asks is already given, and is accessible to any one who knows where to look for it, in certain Parliamentary publications to which I will refer my noble friend. For instance, the Ministry of Labour is given in the ordinary Civil Services Estimates, Class 7, Vote 7. It is given there in full detail, but without the names, which are never given in these statements to Parliament, for reasons which I will explain in a moment. The list of the Ministry of Labour is given in those Estimates; and as regards audited expenditure, in the corresponding Appropriation Accounts presented every year to Parliament. The salaries of the Ministries of Pensions, Food, Shipping, National Service, Reconstruction, Blockade, and Munitions and of their Parliamentary Secretaries are shown in the total Estimates for those Departments. They also are presented to the House of Commons, and are accessible to any one who desires to possess them. Full particulars of the total expenditure of

535
these Departments are published at the end of each year in the Appropriation Account in the Vote of Credit. This contains the salaries and expenses of Departments which do not appear in the ordinary Estimates. That is the information already accessible to the public, and I think it shows that a good deal of what the noble Lord has asked for is already available.
But I may inform the noble Lord—and I think it will give him satisfaction to know—that the Treasury are about, in connection with the Vote of Credit for 1918–19, to publish a White Paper which will give totals of the salaries and cost of the staffs of the various Departments, with particulars of the number of posts carrying salaries in excess of £300 a year in each Department. There are good reasons for making the dividing line £300 instead of £250 which I could explain if necessary, but it is hardly needful to trouble the House with that. I think the noble Lord will see that in this way he either has got, or will presently get, the greater part of what he desires.
I must say a word with regard to names, because one of the notable features of the noble Lord's Motion is that the individual's name should be given. I must ask the noble Lord not to press that, and for these reasons. The names have never yet been given in any Return of this character presented to Parliament relating to the Public Service. But I do not base myself upon precedent only. Let the noble Lord look at the case as it now stands. If we were required to draw up and to lay a list of the names of all the persons employed above a certain salary in these Departments the number would be many thousands. And observe, too, what a waste it would be, because a great many of these persons are constantly changing their posts. The noble Lord asked for a Return for the three years 1916, 1917 and 1918. Many a man who was appointed in 1916 to a post has gone away, has left the Office, has been promoted, or has been shifted somewhere else, and the amount of time that would he taken in identification would be very great. I do not think that the noble Lord in putting down his Motion had probably any idea of the labour that would be involved in compiling a list of names. I do not know whether he has any idea of the number of persons who are employed in these Departments, but I might mention to him that in the Munitions Department alone 17,600 persons are employed. Of
536
course only a small proportion of them is drawing a salary of £300 or over a year. But I expect that you would find that even that number was very considerable, and it would place a great strain upon the time of those who were called upon to identify them.
The return in this form could, of course, be drawn up, but I must tell your Lordships quite plainly that it would take from two to three months of public time. It would take away men from work which they are doing, work vital to the prosecution of the war, to satisfy the perhaps quite legitimate, but, I think, rather exaggerated curiosity of your Lordships' House, and so far from serving any public purpose I think you would be doing an injury if you required so novel a procedure to be adopted. In these circumstances I hope that, while I have given satisfaction to the noble Lord on the question of salaries, he will not press me on that portion of his demand relating to names, which I have shown would not only be contrary to precedent but would in the present case be distinctly detrimental to the public interest.
The last words of the noble Lord's Motion are that the Return for which he asks is to indicate "whether the powers of the Department are conferred by Statute or by Order in Council, with the necessary references." That information also is already available, because of the Departments to which he refers all the more important have been created by Statute—I am speaking of those which have been created since the beginning of the war. For instance, the Ministries of Munitions. Air, Pensions, Food, Shipping, National Service, Reconstruction, Labour, and the Overseas Trade Department, a Bill concerning which is now before Parliament, have all been created by Statute, and in their case a reference to the creating Statute is given in each case in print in the ordinary Civil Service Estimates, to which I have referred. And as to Departments to which the noble Lord refers as having been created by an Order in Council, there is only one Department which has been so created, and that is the Liquor Control Board, which was instituted by Order in Council under the Defence of the Realm Acts. I hope, therefore, that the indications which I have given to the noble Lord and the promise that I have held out to him about the Paper shortly to be pre-

537
sented to Parliament will give him the satisfaction that he desires, and that he will not press me further about the question of names.
LORD SOUTHWARK: May I make a suggestion to the noble Earl? He said that the expenditure was already set out, I understood him to say, in the Estimates. Would it be possible to publish a summary of those Estimates, with a reference to the Estimates, in case anybody wanted to look into further details? Because it would he almost impossible for any noble Lord to search through all the Estimates in order to find out a salary. The expenditure set out in the Estimates could be easily compiled under some heads, with a reference to the Estimate to which it refers.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I think, with all respect, that that is quite unnecessary, because the labour which the noble Lord thinks would be considerable it will not take him ten minutes of time. I could give the noble Lord the particular Estimates to which reference is made. Everything is put down there in due order, sad I am reluctant to impose upon printers and consumers of paper a burden at this time unless it is shown to be in the public interest. There is no concealment in this matter. Everything is there, available to those who require it, and if I indicate to noble Lords the places to which they ought to go for information I submit that that is sufficient for the purposes of the case.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I understand from the noble Earl that the Treasury intend to give us a White Paper almost immediately containing a good deal of this information.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: That will be given now, and not at the end of the year, I understand?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It is already in print.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Well, we shall, of course, study that Paper, and see whether it gives us all the information which we desire. But when the noble Earl says that it has never been the custom to publish the names of the Civil Servants, both high and low, who govern us, I think
538
he has forgotten the official publication yearly—certainly up to the beginning of the war, and, I think, during the early years of the war—of the "Imperial Calendar," as it is now called. It used to be the "Royal Calendar," and it gives the name and the Department of every Civil Servant in the employ of the Crown.
EARL CURZON or KEDLESTON: I did not mean to deny that. I meant that they had not been published in any Return of this character relating to the Public Service.
VICOUNT HARCOURT: The noble Earl has mentioned a number of Offices the details of which can be obtained from the Estimates. But the noble Earl is, no doubt, well aware that many of these new Departments, and Directorates, and Controls, do not appear on the Estimates at all, but are paid for directly out of the Vote on Account. If that is going to be cleared up by the Treasury Paper, it will be satisfactory. But I was sorry to hear the noble Earl state that the Return which is to be offered to us is only of those who are receiving a salary. It is quite clear that in the Estimates before the House of Commons there only appear those to whom salaries have to be voted, but the noble Earl said the other day, and said with much truth, that an enormous amount of unsalaried valuable work is being done for the country. Many of our Controllers and Directors are receiving no salary, but there is no reason why they should not receive the reward of public recognition, and there is no reason, because they are not paid, why we should not be allowed to know their names.
The Departments mentioned by the noble Earl will not give us all the information which would be desirable. For instance, there is a Controller of Wool, who has not been created by Order in Council or by Statute, but was appointed under the Board of Trade, and he is, I imagine, a sub-official of the Board of Trade. In ordinary times all those particulars would appear in "Whitaker's Almanack," supplied by each Department, and to it we could go when we wanted information. We do not want to ask for anything that will take long to compile, that will be expensive to the public, or that will withdraw a number of people from public service. What we want is a few sheets of simple print, which will tell us the names of our governors and rulers to-day.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I do not wish to be unreasonable, particularly after what the noble Earl has said. As the noble Viscount remarked, I think we are entitled to know, after three years of war, a little as to how our affairs are being managed. I believe that a few pages of print would do it, and I think that the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, himself defeats some of his points. For instance, he says there is great difficulty in putting the references, but the references are already there. If they are already there, the making of a summary in a compendious form which everybody could understand without prosecuting all sorts of inquiries into many Returns, does not constitute a difficulty. With regard to the names, I recognise that when you get 17,000 names in one Department this is the sort of thing which is beginning to excite apprehension in the minds of the public. As regards the point of the noble Earl that the names cannot be found because of removals—like removals in the case of votes—I can hardly believe that our affairs are so badly managed that the large number of people we have employed, say, in 1917, but who do not appear in 1918, should have gone away and left no trace behind them, so that nobody can know what they received, what they did, or what their names were. Surely the noble Earl is pressing his point a little far in that connection.
May I speak to the noble Earl in a parable? Let us assume that the noble Earl and I were partners in a large and rapidly-developing property—town property if you like, or anything else; at all events, a property which, owing to circumstances beyond our control, is developing by leaps and bounds. We put that property into the hands of a highly competent and zealous firm of solicitors. We are easy-going gentlemen ourselves and we do not want to be bothered much about these things, so we tell the solicitors that we will give them practically a free hand with regard to finding the proper people to deal with the development of the estate. We tell them that we will allow them to arrange salaries, define the posts of the people employed, and so on. Suddenly the noble Earl and I, after three years of this arrangement, begin to realise that it is costing us a good deal of money, and we do not know exactly for what we are paying that money. Thereupon we ask the solicitors to make us a report on the various classes of posts, and the different
540
kinds of people they have employed during the three years. I do not think that the noble Earl would accept it as a satisfactory answer from these solicitors if they said, "Your estate is so important; it has given us so much anxiety appointing the people required and apportioning their work, and so on, that it is impossible for us to look up our books and to tell you what we have done or what we have not done." But that seems to me to be the position in which the Administration have placed our affairs; and I confess that some of the excuses which the noble Earl has brought forward against the Motion that I have on the Paper to-night do not seem to me any stronger than what I say he would object to very much if, in the hypothetical case I put, his solicitors returned to him such an answer as the one I have indicated.
If this White Paper is to be produced—I think it is in print—and if it deals with the points with which I think it ought to deal, I should be prepared to withdraw my Motion. After what has been said by the noble Earl it would not be good manners, and it would not be good tactics, to divide upon the Motion this evening; but I shall withdraw only upon the clear understanding that, unless this White Paper does give the details which I think requisite and necessary in the present state of our national housekeeping, I shall bring this matter forward again when the White Paper is on the Table of the House. I thank the noble Earl for the very kind way in which he met my Motion, although he did not like the whole of it. It was not likely that he would. But in these circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Motion, on the distinct understanding that the White Paper gives the information which the public want.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SOLICITORS (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): MY Lords, this Bill, of which I propose the Second Reading, raises two points in connection with intending solicitors. It relates to service under articles, and to the intermediate examination which solicitors have to pass in addition to the final examination. Your Lordships may be aware that the law requires that intend-

541
ing solicitors should serve five years under articles, and that during their service under articles they should not engage in any other employment. There is a power to dispense with that requirement as to no other employment being taken with the permission of the solicitor with whom the clerk is articled, and with the approval of the Master of the Rolls. It has been the practice of the Master of the Rolls to grant his approval in cases where he is satisfied that the other employment would not interfere with the service under the articles.
I am informed that when the war broke out practically all articled clerks applied to the solicitors with whom they were articled for permission to join His Majesty's Forces, and, on application being made to the Master of the Rolls, he said that, as far as he could, he would certainly facilitate this being done. But it is doubtful whether, in conformity with the practice that had prevailed, leave could be given in a case where beyond all question service with the Colours would interfere with service actually the time under the articles. Anyhow, it is highly desirable that there should be some general provision upon the subject in order to prevent hardship from being inflicted upon a class of young men who devoted themselves to the most imperative service of their country.
The first clause of this Bill deals with that point, and it provides that, notwithstanding anything in the Solicitors Acts, any time after August 3, 1914, during which an articled clerk has served in any of His Majesty's Forces or in public service in connection with the war, of a character approved by the Master of the Rolls, or has in consequence of the war been detained as a prisoner, military or civil, in any enemy country, or has been interned in an enemy or a neutral country, shall, if the Law Society are satisfied as to the fact and length of such service, detention, or internment and that the articled clerk has in other respects complied with the Acts, be reckoned as time duly served under his articles for all purposes. I commend that clause to your Lordships' favourable consideration.
The other clause deals with the case of the intermediate examination. An intermediate examination has to be passed by intending solicitors in the course of their training; and, of course, as these young men have been away, and very many of them are away at the present moment, on active service, or otherwise detained in consequence of the war, they cannot go
542
up for their examination in the ordinary course. Therefore, it would be a very great hardship upon them if, when they came back, they found themselves compelled to pass both the intermediate and the final examinations. The final examination, of course, cannot be dispensed with. But the object of the second clause, to which I will call your Lordships' attention, is this. It empowers the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, or either of them, where in circumstances arising out of the present war it is thought fit so to do, to exempt any person from compliance with the enactments and regulations with respect to the intermediate examination, either entirely or partially, and subject to any such conditions as may seem fit. The power to impose conditions will enable the Law Society to secure, by application in the proper quarter, that nothing essential about the examination, such as bookkeeping, is altogether neglected. At the same time, it relieves these persons who have acted in so meritorious a manner of what otherwise would be a very serious burden. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, it will be in your Lordships' memory that this question was brought before your Lordships' House at the end of last year. It was then pointed out that under existing conditions the pool from which Deputy Lieutenants could be drawn was a comparatively limited one, and that under an old Statute there had to he a certain property qualification. Various Amendments have been made of the original Act, which is a very old Act, and thus the number of classes of people from whom Deputy Lieutenants could be drawn has been increased; but the fact still remains that even these concessions were to a certain extent nullified by the property qualification still holding good. The matter was brought before your Lordships' House and it received support from, amongst others, Lord Haldane, the noble Marquess

543
opposite, Lord Crewe, and the Earl of Dartmouth, and there was no dissentient. I undertook to look into the matter and consult the Lords Lieutenant.
I referred the matter to the Duke of Bedford, who is Chairman of the Association of Lords Lieutenant, which embraces all except seventeen of the Lords Lieutenant. They entirely agreed, but made certain proposals which have been incorporated in this Bill, with one exception. First, they suggested that the property qualification should be abolished. Secondly that the residential qualification should be retained, but that the condition at present applicable to county justices—namely, residence either within the county or within seven miles thereof—should be applied, subject to the qualification that a Deputy Lieutenant should not necessarily forfeit his office by ceasing to reside within the prescribed limits. Thirdly—this is not in the Bill—that the appointments of Deputy Lieutenants should be non-political Fourthly, that the gentlemen appointed should have rendered worthy service either of a civil or military character on behalf of the Army, Navy, or Auxiliary Forces. I think your Lordships will find that these conditions have been included in the one-clause Bill of which I have the honour to move the Second Reading, and I hope by these means the position of Deputy Lieutenants will be enormously strengthened by the addition to their ranks of many men who do not hold the property qualification but who have done good service to their country during the present war. The Bill applies only to Great Britain and does not apply to Ireland.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Derby.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Earl opposite gave a perfectly accurate account, so far as I am able to speak, of the transactions in relation to this Bill. Speaking generally, I think Lords Lieutenant were, if not unanimous, at any rate by a very great majority in favour of the abolition of the property qualification, and also of the retention of the residential qualification. There was bound to be a certain difference of opinion as to whether it was desirable to maintain the connection, first indeed established in connection with the Territorial Forces Act, between some service to the Forces and appointment as Deputy Lieutenant, or whether it was
544
desirable that the list should be once more thrown open to people of general standing and high character; but I am glad to say that there was a strong opinion among Lords Liuetenant, which I am sure will be confirmed by the House, that it would have been a great pity to break that connection with some form of service to the Forces in favour of a return to the older practice. At the same time the limitation of choice, which many Lieutenants of counties found very inconvenient, to those who had actually served in the Forces, is, I am glad to see, to be removed by the Bill. Those who in a civil capacity have rendered good service to the Territorial Force, or in some cases to the Volunteers, should be recognised in this manner, which is so highly appreciated by many men of worth and standing. I trust, therefore, that this Bill will become law without any Amendment.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

MARRIAGE HOURS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, this Bill assimilates the hours for the solemnisation of matrimony in Ireland with those in this country. At the present moment the Church of Ireland, Wesleyans, and Presbyterians in Ireland are limited to 2 o'clock in the afternoon, whereas in this country it is 3 o'clock. Roman Catholics, Jews, and Quakers, on the other hand, are not subject to such a limitation in Ireland, and the proposal in the Bill is that the hour should be generally extended to 3 o'clock. If the Bill is given a Second Reading I trust that your Lordships will allow it to pass through all its remaining stages to-morrow.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (SECRETARY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, the Bill to which I am going to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading is one to regularise the status of the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department, who has, as a matter of

545
fact, been holding that office since the month of September last. It was a question, I understand, whether it would be possible to deal with the appointment of this new Secretary administratively, by appointing both an Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs and a Secretary to the Board of Trade, but there were certain difficulties in the way of taking this step. In the first place, there was an Act of 31 Victoria, providing for the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade, which was rather unusual in form, and it would appear that under that Act there was only power to appoint one such officer. In the second place, special provision is made by Section 9 (subsection 2) of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, for the appointment of additional Parliamentary Secretaries to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for War respectively, but there certainly seems to be an assumption by Parliament that the number of Under-Secretaries which can be appointed is limited. In the third place, although the number of Under-Secretaries which may be appointed in any Department is not limited, there is in every case a limit to the number of Under-Secretaries who may sit in the louse of Commons. It is true that the limit has been removed for the period of the war and for six months afterwards by Section 9 (subsection 1) of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, but the office of Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade is intended to be a permanent one. In the fourth place, the Treasury have laid it down in very definite terms that it would be wholly improper to make any payment from the Overseas Trade Department Vote for the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary until the creation of his offices has been authorised by Act of Parliament.
There is a certain border land between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade over which this new Secretary is presiding. Of course, the point might be raised that certain overlapping would take place between the new Department and the other Departments of the Board of Trade and Foreign Office respectively. As a matter of fact, ever since the month of September last when Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, the present holder of the office, was appointed, a satisfactory delimitation of functions has been arranged and has been found to work quite reasonably in
546
practice. The broad lines of this delimitation are that the Board of Trade deals with the large issues of commercial policy, and the Political Department of the Foreign Office with all matter affecting international relations, and within these limits the Overseas Trade Department is authorised to take action for the promotion of trade, in addition to collecting and disseminating commercial intelligence. If your Lordships look at the Bill you will see that it consists practically of one clause only. The second is merely a definition clause. I have to ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading this afternoon. At the same time, perhaps it is convenient that I should say that the Government hope the House will make no objection to taking all the remaining stages to-morrow, so that the Bill may receive the Royal Assent on that day.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

INCREASE OF RENT, &c. (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord will pardon me for recurring to a subject which we mentioned last night as to the possibility of making this Bill retrospective. I quite understand that in the short interval he can hardly have Arrived at any sort of even provisional conclusion on that matter, but I had hoped that perhaps the noble and learned Lord, in moving the Third Reading, would indicate whether there was any chance of anything being done in that direction. I have in my hand a paper of to-day's issue, which gives an illustration of the kind of thing that is happening—though it is not precisely the sort of evil which was called attention to yesterday—in which two men at Hitchin are at this moment under a magistrate's order of ejectment from their houses, which have been bought over their heads, in this case not from quite the worst motives of establishing "funk-holes" which we heard of yesterday, but in a sense for the legitimate requirements of the Electric Supply Corporation. It may be suggested that if a wealthy corporation of that kind wants accommodation for its own people the proper course would be for it to build.

547
But what I want to call your Lordships' attention to for a moment is what is mentioned in the paper as the sort of thing which. I think, rather tends to influence and inflame public opinion on this matter. Some sarcastic attention is called to the fact that these two men who are being evicted were among the very earliest men to volunteer for lighting at the Front. They have fought and have been wounded, and they have been honourably discharged from the Army in consequence of their services. Among the various recruiting inducements which incited them to enrol, your Lordships may possibly recollect, was a poster showing a cottage home in England with the words underneath "Is this worth lighting for?" I think your Lordships will appreciate the rather grave irony of these words to these men, when they come back discharged from the Front and find that, although the home may have been worth fighting for, they are no longer to have it; that it has been bought over their heads, and that they are to be turned out.
I quote this only for the sake of emphasising what I was trying to say yesterday—namely, that I think this sort of thing is likely to cause a certain amount of unrest and ill-feeling. Indeed, it is so important that I think it would really be worth while, if the noble and learned Lord agrees with me, that the members of the War Cabinet themselves should consider whether legislation of this sort should he made retrospective. At the same time, I see the great danger of it. If there is a feeling of injustice and unrest created by this sort of thing, every one of your Lordships would agree that the Government should do what they can to put an end to it, but, of course, as I said before, I entirely recognise the difficulties of it, and I had rather hoped that the noble and learned Lord might be in a position to say something to-day on the matter.
There is another point which is one reason why I have thought it desirable to say a word to-night. Although the transactions to which this Bill refers have necessarily to have taken place before the date named—March 12, I think—in the Bill, evictions in connection with these transactions are now proceeding. The magistrates are now being asked for eviction orders as a result of these transactions, and if there were to be any sort of retrospective legislation I think it would be as well that a statement should be made at the earliest possible
548
moment, so as to preserve as far as possible the status quo where, although the sale has taken place, the people have not as yet actually been evicted. The noble and learned Lord will appreciate that if anything is to be done the sooner the statement is made the better, because it will help to settle the situation.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had on the Paper an Amendment to substitute "the fifteenth day of March" for "the twelfth day of March," as the date from which the Bill should take effect. The noble Lord said: I suppose I ought to have moved my Amendment first, because the speech of the noble Earl rather turns on the question that the Bill be passed. The proposal to make it retrospective will, I think, require grave consideration. If you do make it retrospective you must take care that innocent people do not suffer. There are hardships on both sides, and I think full consideration must be given to individual circumstances in each case. I have given notice of my Amendment for this reason, that if this is not done the Bill is already retrospective. I gave the House particulars yesterday of a perfectly innocent transaction which took place on the 13th instant in Glasgow, and I pointed out that if this Bill passed with the date as the 12th a man who had perfectly honestly bought a house on the 13th would find himself in the position that he was not allowed to get possession of the house, although he would be turned out of the one which he had already given up. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I venture to say, did not thoroughly appreciate my point. What he said was—
"This Bill was introduced upon the 12th, and this is the reason why that 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."
I pointed out that it was unfair to date the Bill from the time when it could not be generally known that it had been introduced in this House, and the Lord Chancellor replied—
"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."
I have verified the facts. I find that the Bill was presented, and read a first time, on Tuesday, the 12th. Of course, no speech

549
was made—one never is made on the First Reading of a Bill—and no notice whatever of the contents of this Bill was given, or could be given. I am not blaming any one for that; it is the ordinary procedure. The Bill was not circulated until the morning of the 14th; therefore, it could not be known in Glasgow until the 15th at the earliest. It was read a Second time on the 14th, and the report of that debate appeared in the Glasgow papers, when it became known that the Bill was dated from the 12th. Therefore this unfortunate man in question, who made a perfectly honest transaction on the 13th, was deprived of his rights both ways.
I would have put down an Amendment if I could. A letter was written to me on the 15th, addressed to the House of Lords; it did not arrive until the 16th, and was delivered to me on the 18th, when it was too late to give notice of an Amendment for yesterday's debate. Whatever may be the general question of making the Bill retrospective as a whole, it is an absolute injustice to make it date from the 12th when those who have made perfectly innocent transactions on the 13th could not know of it. I had given notice to move the insertion of the "15th" in the Bill, but look at the position in which one is placed? I know quite well that I can provide myself with a Teller, but if we go to a Division it would have the effect—there being not thirty Peers now in the House—of delaying the Bill until another day.
I must say that great want of consideration has been shown in not giving a much longer notice of the intention to legislate at all. I gather that this has been under consideration for six months, and that there is a certain amount of feeling in different parts of the country on account of what is happening by people arbitrarily giving notice to evict tenants. That is obvious from what the noble Earl said just now, and from what the noble Earl Lord Camperdown, said yesterday. I hope, if the Bill is to be made restrospective hereafter, that consideration will be given to the interests of both sides, and that some tribunal will be set up to see that fair play is bestowed on all alike. I know too well the procedure of your Lordships' House to think that it is possible, reasonably, to divide on this occasion. Therefore I do not suppose I shall go to a Division; but even if I do not go to a Division I shall ask that the Amendment be negatived, so
550
that it shall not be said that I am an assenting party to what I consider a serious injustice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to say a few words with regard to the two speeches which your Lordships have just heard. My noble friend who has just spoken said that the matter had been under consideration for some six months. It was brought to my notice by a letter coming from Buckinghamshire, only a few days before the introduction of the Bill. I at once took steps to have consultation with the Departments concerned—they are somewhat numerous—and the result was that it was felt there must be legislation, and I introduced the Bill with, I think, a minimum of delay from the time when the matter was brought to my attention.
Two points have been mentioned from totally different aspects. On the one side it is said, and said with great force, by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the Bill should be made retrospective, and he put a particular case which, of course, must excite the sympathy of every one. All I can say with regard to that is that it might be very useful if the noble Earl would supply particulars of the case to the Home Secretary, who, I understand, will be in charge of the Bill when it goes, as I hope it will at once, to another place. The final shape to be given to the Bill as regards the date on which it is to operate must be a matter of consideration. I confess that naturally one sympathises very strongly with what the noble Earl said. At the same time, we must not he blind to the difficulties which always attend retrospective legislation, and it is absolutely necessary, before a step of that kind is taken, that it should be seen that there are adequate materials for justifying an exceptional step of that sort. The matter is receiving, and will receive, the most careful consideration.
I felt that it was perfectly impossible that I should be in a position to ask your Lordships' House to pass retrospective legislation without more materials than were available. The information with regard to the subject is coming in from day to day, and when the measure comes on in the House of Commons after the Easter Recess the Government will be in a position to decide what its final shape should be. I think it is very useful that the noble Earl should have called attention to the point, because it is highly desirable

551
it should be realised that this point is under consideration.
My noble friend who spoke last called attention to the matter from another point of view. May I correct one thing he said? He said we were making the Bill to take effect from March 12. It takes effect after the 12th; and on the morning of the 13th, I suppose, most newspapers would have an intimation that a Bill dealing with this subject had been introduced. It certainly would be very widely known. The particulars of the Bill, it is true, would not be known until two days after, but the fact that a Bill dealing with this subject had been introduced would be widely known on the morning of the 13th; and the object of making the Bill apply to any transaction taking place after the 12th was simply to prevent any parties desirous of carrying through transactions of the kind against which the Bill is aimed from hurrying them up so as to get them through before the Bill could actually pass into law. I think that what I said yesterday in answer to my noble friend on this subject was quite accurate and correctly appreciated what my noble friend had said. With regard to the point itself, it is very useful as illustrating the necessity for caution in making anything retrospective even to the mildest extent. A strong case is made, it is said, for retrospective legislation, and then your Lordships are given the particulars of one case, but we really know nothing about it except that it is said to be one where negotiations were pending which had ripened into a bargain on the 13th instant.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I gave the noble Lord the particulars.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend handed me a letter containing the particulars, and from that I am speaking, but I think my noble friend will agree that one hardly had the materials in that letter for forming a judgment upon the whole transaction. Even if that be—and it may be—a case of a most meritorious kind, one does not know whether for one case of that kind which would mean some little hardship there may not be a hundred other cases where it would be very hard that the Bill should not operate from the date of its introduction. If transactions of this kind were hurried through in consequence of the introduction of the Bill it certainly would be said—and said with very great reason—"You ought to have taken steps to prevent
552
the object of the Bill being defeated by these transactions being completed at once as soon as it was generally known that legislation dealing with this subject was intended." I do not, however, wish to say more on the subject to which my noble friend referred in anticipation of the Amendment which stands in his name on the Paper, to be taken after the Third Reading has been carried. All I can say is that what he has said will be given the fullest consideration before the decision of His Majesty's Government becomes final.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, before your Lordships pass the Third Reading of this Bill, may I say one word on behalf of the Board of Agriculture. I understand that the noble and learned Lord does not wish to receive any Amendments in this House, and that it is proposed that an Amendment shall be moved in another place on behalf of the Department which I represent. As your Lordships are aware, it is imperative at this time that no obstacle should be allowed to be put in the way of the increase in food production. The Bill as it at present stands might seriously interfere with the arrangements now being made for changes of occupation in relation to the cottages which are required for new stockmen, herdsmen, and other agricultural workers in the cases where tenancies are being transferred, and in cases of this kind which will occur in future. In its present form the Bill would rule out these changes in the case of cottages which are essential for the proper cultivation of the land, for in the few cases of such cottages required for the men I have indicated orders of ejectment would not be able to be issued. I think, therefore, that the Bill will require some Amendment in this respect. Time has not permitted of an Amendment being moved in your Lordships' House, but I hope that when the Bill returns the difficulty which I have mentioned may have been removed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I may say that my attention has been called to the point to which the noble Duke has just referred, and it is proposed that the subject shall be considered and dealt with in the House of Commons.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, in the circumstances which I have explained I shall not move my Amendment, but I do think that it is hardly fair to this House to introduce a Bill on such short notice which is obviously going to be largely amended at the instance of the Government in another place, and to which a representative of the Government in this House takes serious objection. It seems to me that it does put this House in a false position, and that we shall be told afterwards in the House of Commons that we hurriedly passed a Bill which does not meet the necessities of the case. That all goes down to the discredit of this House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will only say, with regard to that matter, that the case was one of extreme urgency, and it was considered necessary that as little time as possible should be lost. It is not certain that there will be these Amendments in another place. All I said was that the matter is to be most carefully considered from all points of view.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I shall have to move to-morrow, with your Lordships consent, that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered with a view to its being dispensed with in order to pass through their remaining stages the few Bills the names of which appear on the Order Paper.
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of March 19.]
COUNTY OF LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (BRIDGES) BILL. [H.L.]

    PONTYPOOL GAS AND WAT0ER BILL. [H.L.]
    WANDSWORTH, WIMBLEDON, AND EPSOM DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    NELSON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    ALDERSHOT GAS, WATER, AND DISTRICT LIGHTING BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to
    554
    the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

    E. Doncaster (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry),

    E. Eldon,

    V. Falmouth,

    L. Leigh,

    L. Forteviot (Chairman);

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 17th of April next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

    WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION.
    Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of West Bromwich under their Corporate Seal praying for leave to introduce a Bill to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of West Bromwich to alter the Wards thereof, to increase the number of Aldermen and Councillors, and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
    NITRATE RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported, without amendment.
    BRIXHAM GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported, with Amendments.
    HARROD'S STORES BILL. [H.L.]
    Committee (which stands appointed for this day) put off sine die.

    CANVEY DEEP-WATER WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    Second Reading (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off to Wednesday the 10th of April next.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.