Sitting of 16 May 1918

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Land Drainage (Pinchbeck) Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (by Order), Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Land Drainage (Woodwalton) Provisional Order Bill, "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, in the matter of a proposed Drainage District in the parishes of Ramsey and Woodwalton, in the county of Huntingdon," presented by Sir RICHARD WINFREY; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.

PLACES OF WORSHIP, ETC. (GRANTS OF LAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 8th November, 1917; Mr. King];to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 60.]
NATIONAL INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE) REGULATIONS, 1918.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 22nd April, 1918, made by the Treasury under Section 83 of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

EAST INDIA (FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND BUDGET).
Copy presented of Financial Statement and Budget for 1918–19, and discussions thereon in the Legislative Council of the Governor General [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 61.]
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:

1. Arundel Port,—Copy of Annual Report and General Account of the Commissioners of Arundel Port for period from 25th March, 1916, to 25th March, 1917 [by Act];

2. Public Records (High Court of Justice in Bankruptcy), — Copy of Fourth Schedule, containing a list and particulars of certain classes of documents existing or accruing in the High Court of Justice in Bankruptcy which are not of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Ordered, That the Reports of the Select Committee on National Expenditure of Session 1917– 18 be referred to the Select Committee on National Expenditure.— [Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BAGHDAD RAILWAY.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the official circulation of Prince Lichnowsky's Memorandum, which contains a statement of public interest with regard to the support to be accorded by the British Government to German enterprises associated with the Baghdad Railway, he will now publish the terms of the agreement relating to this matter which was on the point of being signed by the British Foreign Secretary when the crisis of 1914 arose?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned on the 15th March, 1915, to the hon. Member for Roxburghshire, and would add that the considerations on which that reply was based still retain their force.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the fact of the circulation of this Memorandum might be taken by the Government to signify that the statements made as regards the concessions to be made to Germany in connection with the Baghdad Treaty were correct?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not know, and the hon. Gentleman had better ask another Department as to the circulation of this document, to which I had nothing to add. But I am quite sure that no Government Department pledges itself as to the literal accuracy of every statement made in that document.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Why?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Why should it?
    Mr. KING: Arising out of that answer, inasmuch as this memorandum in pamphlet form of Prince Lichnowsky has been widely disseminated at the public expense, cannot it possibly be assumed that it did not contain radically false interpretations of our policy?
    Mr. BALFOUR: It is not suggested that it contains radical interpretations of policy. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: If this is a question of the Memorandum containing concessions to Germany, is not that a radical matter as regards our foreign policy, and are not the public very possibly being misinformed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going a very long way from the question on the Paper.

    EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA'S LETTER.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that Prince Sixte de Bourbon paid two visits to England in connection with the peace proposals made by the Emperor Karl to President Poincaré and that he was in communication with the Prime
    506
    Minister on the subject; whether the Prime Minister informed him that proposals for peace had been made; and, if so, at what date?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have already explained to the House that this subject cannot, in my opinion, be properly dealt with by question and answer. I gather that it will be raised on the Adjournment.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will probably have an opportunity in the course of the Debate.

    FINLAND, THE UKRAINE, AND RUSSIA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to recognise the present de facto Governments of Finland, the Ukraine, and Russia, respectively?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The answer must be in the same terms as that which I gave to the question of the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite).
    Mr. KING: I beg to give notice that I shall refer to this matter in the course of the Debate this afternoon.

    MAY-DAY LABOUR CELEBRATION (PROHIBITION).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Home Secretary for what reason the May-Day labour demonstration proposed to be held in Finsbury Park on Sunday, 5th May, was proclaimed; whether he is aware that eight trades councils and over 100 trade union branches were to be represented at the demonstration; and who was responsible for the action taken?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): This meeting was prohibited by an Order made by me under No. 9 A of the Defence of the Realm Regulations because I was satisfied from the information before me that if held it would give rise to grave disorder, and cause undue demands to be made on the police, and that the holding of certain processions which were being arranged in connection with the meeting would conduce to a breach of the peace.

    507
    The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. I am, of course, responsible for the action taken.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is the policy of his Department, whenever any organisation, for its own purpose, publishes a scheme for a meeting, to say that it will create a disturbance?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is asking a general question, of which he must give notice.
    Mr. ANDERSON: May I ask whether there was from any quarter any manifestations of hostility to this meeting, apart from one newspaper, owned by the Director of Information, and edited by a gentleman named Blumenfeld?
    Sir G. CAVE: I acted on the reports from the police, and not on what appeared in any newspaper.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a conflict at Knutsford between certain civilians and conscientious objectors; whether the conscientious objectors arm themselves with sticks for the purpose of defending themselves; and, if so, whether he will see that these men are drafted immediately into the Army so that their pugilistic tendencies may be utilised in the service of their country?
    Sir G. CAVE: My attention has been called to this occurrence. I am informed by the chief constable that a series of attacks on conscientious objectors returning to their quarters at Knutsford developed on Sunday into an attack on fifty or sixty others who were standing outside the work centre. About half of these had sticks, apparently in anticipation of an attack, but only two or three of them were seen to defend themselves and these used their fists and not the sticks. The men were rushed by the crowd, who took possession of the sticks and used them. Summonses have been issued and the whole matter is being effectively dealt with.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not right that the Military Service Act says
    508
    that a conscientious objector is a man who objects to fighting, and surely this was fighting, and therefore they cannot be conscientious objectors?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not asking a question, but is arguing the matter.
    Mr. KING: Is the same course taken with regard to conscientious objectors as against others? Are these conscientious objectors regarded as members of the public?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think some of the summonses were against persons who assaulted others, but, of course, we are dealing with the whole matter.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he will inquire into the case of Private Padgett, No. G/18289, 13th Battalion, Royal Sussex Regiment, now in No. 2 Military Prison, Rouen, formerly of the Royal Army Medical Corps, who has refused to obey military orders owing to a conscientious objection to military service; and whether he can be brought to England so that his case may come before the Central Tribunal, and an opportunity given him to undertake work of national importance?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I am making inquiries, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    COAL MINERS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Minister of National Service if, in his calling up of miners, he has in mind the impending shortage of coal; and, if so, what methods does he propose to prevent a famine in fuel?
    Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): The Minister of National Service is glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that the recruitment of coal miners has been adjusted in the closest co-operation with the Controller of Coal Mines, and the necessary steps are being taken to safeguard the output of coal.

    MEDICAL INSTRUCTIONS.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that the medical instructions to the National Service medical boards with regard to the grading of men of from forty-

    509
    three to fifty-one years of age are not issued to the public, although the previous medical instructions for younger men were so issued; what is the reason of this differentiation; and whether the decision not to issue the latest instructions to the public may be reconsidered in the interest of equal treatment of older and younger men?
    Mr. PRATT: My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. National Service Instructions 87 and 88, of 1918, which deal with the Subject referred to by my hon. Friend, were circulated to Members of both Houses of Parliament immediatey after issue. They were widely published in the Press, and 10,000 copies were distributed to the Government information kiosks, where they can be obtained free on application.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Would the hon. Gentleman state whether other instructions are issued to the medical boards which have not been made public and are not available to the general public?
    Mr. PRATT: I am quite unable to answer that.

    APPEALS.
    Mr. T. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of National Service whether men of eighteen years of age coming within the operations of the Military Service Acts should appeal within the time allowed under the Act of 1916 or under Regulation R 185 of the Military Service Act, 1918?
    Mr. PRATT: Any applications to tribunals on the part of men coming within the operation of the Military Service Acts, 1916 to 1918, on attaining the age of eighteen, must be lodged within the limits of time provided in the Military Service Regulations, 1918, published under reference R185.
    Major HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether in all other industries except agriculture there is a right of appeal to an Appeal Tribunal, but, in the case of agriculture, there is no appeal unless leave is given by the Agricultural Executive Committee; and, if so, why this distinction is made against agriculture?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Walsh): I have been asked to answer this question. In ordinary agricultural cases there is the same right of appeal as in other cases. As regards young men
    510
    engaged in agriculture who, with others of the same age, come within the recent Proclamation, the limited right of applying to the Appeal Tribunal is given as a special concession.
    Major HUNT: Is it not the fact that there is no appeal to an Appeal Tribunal except with the leave of the War Agriculture Committee? Is that the case with agriculture and with no other industry?
    Mr. WALSH: That is the case; but certainly the War Agricultural Committee is very likely to view with very great favour any case on occupational grounds that comes before them. In other cases there is no right of appeal on occupational grounds for people who are within the ages and come within the Proclamation.

    MEDICAL EXAMINATION (OVERSEAS SERVICE).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under secretary of State for War if he will further inquire into the allegation that the medical officer charged with the examination of the men of the furlough details recently attached to the 4th Battalion Welsh Fusiliers at Oswestry, but transferred on the 6th April to the 4th Reserve Battalion, South Lancashire Regiment; has been passing men as fit for overseas without a proper examination; will he inquire if a medical examination of these men was ordered for the Egyptian details, that the medical officer of the unit gave the medical examination which resulted in about thirty men being marked unfit, but that, on the following day, these men were again paraded for examination by the same doctor and practically all passed as fit, with the result that eleven of these men were taken ill and admitted to hospital on their arrival at Southampton, some of them having to be conveyed to hospital in ambulances; whether this medical officer has received instructions to pass these men as fit If they could travel at all; and will he say why these men have since been transferred to the 10th Battalion Liverpool Scottish?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making further inquiries, and will communicate with my hon. Friend in due course.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under secretary of State for War if he will have a special medical examination made of Gunner 308049, B Company, 16th Battalion, Tank Corps, Bovington Camp, who

    511
    is passed A 1 by a medical board, though suffering badly from glandular tuberculosis, with open wounds in the neck and abdomen, and who at the time of his classification as A 1 was awaiting instructions from the Glasgow Western Infirmary authorities to undergo a fourth operation for glandular tuberculosis; and will he further make inquiries as to why a youth in this physical condition was passed into the Army at all?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will have inquiry made into this case, but I should be glad if my hon. Friend will furnish me privately with the man's name in order to avoid unnecessary correspondence with the Record Office.

    RETIRED INDIAN CIVILIANS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Minister of National Service whether Indian civilians retired upon an invalid pension at an earlier age than fifty-one are liable to Conscription into the ranks?
    Mr. PRATT: These men, if within the limits of age laid down by the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918, are liable under that Act in the same manner as any other men, and they have the same rights of application to tribunals for exemption as are possessed by other men in accordance with the Regulations for tribunals.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he has inquired into the case of Ellen Carter, who was, on 10th May, sentenced at Eastbourne to six months' imprisonment under Regulation 40 D; whether the two soldiers concerned in this case were called as witnesses; whether the woman underwent medical examination; and whether he will consider a reduction of this sentence?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am making inquiry as to this case, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS.
    Major HUNTasked the Home Secretary if he can state the number of Russians, including Russian Jews, who
    512
    have been allowed to come into this country since the 1st January this year; and if he can state the number of other aliens of friendly nationalities, not including those in navies or armies, who have come into this country since the same date?
    Sir G. CAVE: Excluding Russian officers and soldiers passing through this country between France and Russia, 249 Russian passengers have been admitted since the 1st January last. A considerable proportion of these were en route to other countries, and in all cases the aliens officers were satisfied that there were good reasons for their admission. None of them were immigrants coming to settle here, and it is believed that (with the exception of one woman who was afterwards sent back to Russia) none were Jews. For the reasons explained to the hon. and gallant Member on previous occasions, I regret that the figures asked for in the second part of the question are not available.
    Major HUNT: Are Czechs and Poles included amongst the Russians, and can the right hon. Gentleman say what precautions are taken to prevent enemy aliens as well as Russians coming into this country under the pretence that they are Belgians, Frenchmen, or of some other nationality?
    Sir G. CAVE: All Russian subjects are included in the figures I have given. As to nationality, the authorities verify the nationality of applicants.

    COUNTY HALL, WESTMINSTER.
    Mr. WATTasked the First Commissioner of Works how many rooms are now utilised in the London County Council building at Westminster Bridge; and is it now in contemplation to utilise the workmen at present engaged on temporary buildings all over London in completing this permanent structure instead of engaging in work which must shortly be demolished?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): One hundred and twenty-one rooms are now being utilised, and a further eighty-four rooms are being prepared for occupation. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING.

    STANDARD VESSELS.
    Colonel ROYDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether our available inland engineering resources are being utilised to the full extent for production of standard ships' engines, boilers, auxiliary machinery, fittings, frames, and plating preparatory to these being sent to shipbuilding yards for assembling?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Yes, Sir; the resources of inland engineering works are being utilised, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, to the fullest extent possible when the capacity of the constructional yards is taken into consideration. So far as ships' engines and boilers are concerned, some twenty-three engineering firms who had not previously been engaged on marine work are now building marine engines and boilers. All demands for auxiliaries can be met from the former manufacturers without utilising the services of firms who would be new to the work. Fittings, frames, and plating are now being manufactured by constructional engineers and bridge builders in various parts of the country, and when complete will be sent to the shipbuilding yards for assembling.
    Mr. FRANCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is a sufficient supply of skilled and unskilled labour for carrying out the work in the yards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty gave an answer last week on this subject in which he stated the view of the Controller-General of Merchant Shipping, who is satisfied that at the moment all practicable steps are being taken to utilise existing private yard facilities to the full.
    Mr. FRANCE: And for this purpose?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should think so for the time being, but if my hon. Friend will put a question on that point, I will obtain an answer.

    TONNAGE HANDLING.
    Colonel ROYDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, with the object of ascertaining whether the most economical use is being made of our existing shipping tonnage, he will in the public in-
    514
    terest publish monthly or other Returns showing the time and tonnage lost by reason of ships lying in harbour laden or partly laden, ships making passages only partly laden, ships making one port and having to discharge at another port, and delay in discharging or loading of ships?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I have been asked to reply to this question. As I indicated in reply to a similar question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend on the 8th May, it is hardly practicable to make such a Return. I may add that even if it were made it certainly would not show whether the most economical use is being made of tonnage.

    "SPIES IN BRISTOL CHANNEL" (SIR E. NICHOLL'S STATEMENT).
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether an explanation has yet been received from Commander Sir Edward Nicholl as to his statement that there were spies in every port in the Bristol Channel?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for putting this question.
    It is due to Sir Edward Nicholl that I should say that my reply of the 1st May stating that he had been asked for an explanation by the War Office, which had not then been received, was incorrect. The War Office appear to have written to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief under whom Sir Edward Nicholl had been serving, and that officer replied that Sir Edward Nicholl had ceased to hold his appointment under him on 1st September, 1917. The request for explanation did not therefore reach Sir Edward Nicholl, as I presumed it had done. Had it done so, I am sure he would have forwarded forthwith the grounds upon which on 3rd March he expressed the opinion already referred to.
    I have recently, however, had an opportunity of going into the matter pretty fully with Sir Edward Nicholl and hearing from him the grounds for his belief, stated on 3rd March, that there were spies in. the Bristol Channel. His statement, except in one particular, does not in fact add to the information already possessed at the Admiralty.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    SOUTH WICK CAMP (RATIONS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will inquire whether the non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Marine Engineers, South-wick Camp, Sussex, who are on the home scale of rations, have 10 ozs. of fresh meat or 7½ozs. of preserved meat, seeing that by War Office letter, No. 53/Gen., No. 9,777 (Q.M.G. 6), dated 27th April, 1917, the scale which came into force on 1st May is 8 ozs. of fresh meat instead of 10 ozs., or 6 ozs. of preserved meat instead of 7½ozs.; and will he consider the fact that though the daily allowance of 5½d. is increased by this order to 6½d., this increase of 1d. is of no value, as the food is not good?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Since the reply to the previous question on this subject it has been ascertained that the Army scale of rations for home service has been reduced from the 1st May as follows:
    Fresh meat—
    Reduced from 10 ozs. to 8 ozs.
    Preserved meat—
    Reduced from 7½ ozs. to 6 ozs.
    with a corresponding increase of the daily cash allowance from 5½d. to 6½d., and this amended scale will apply to the Royal Marine Engineers at Southwick Camp in common with other troops in the Home Forces. The question of some increase in this ration is now under consideration, but no decision has yet been arrived at. I have ascertained that there have been no complaints locally as to the quality of the ration, but only as to the quantity, and that I have dealt with above.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In considering this matter will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact mentioned in the last part of the question, namely, that it is little use raising the money ration allowance when there is no food there to purchase?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is now being considered, but I assure my hon. Friend I that he is not correct in assuming that I the quality is bad. We have made inquiries, and so far as we know the quality has not being complained of. The quantity has.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my first question the ground of complaint is the quantity?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will take that from my hon. Friend. The point raised here is the quality.

    CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he has received a communication from the Darwen Co-operative Society pointing out the invidious position in which the society is placed in regard to supplies of live stock, and that this society is the largest dealer in meat in the town, having twenty-two shops, and supplying probably three-quarters of the whole population; that they have now been classed as retailers, and have to look to their supplies to comparatively small wholesalers, and that in consequence their trade is being strangled and that their customers are not supplied; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. JAMES PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It has been decided that the Retail Meat Departments of the Darwen Co-operative Society cannot be granted privileges which are not accorded to other retail butchers, but the suggestion that the society has therefore necessarily to look for its supplies to comparatively small wholesalers, and that its trade is in consequence being strangled is unfounded. The proper course for the society to adopt is to join the Retail Butchers' Association for the district, when it will receive an allocation of live stock and dead meat in proportion to the number of its registered customers.
    Colonel THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the "Ministry of Food whether certain large traders in tea have stocks in excess of their requirements, whilst a number of co-operative stores find it impossible to obtain sufficient supplies, notwithstanding the increased allowance made to the Co-operative Wholesale Society recently, to supply co-operators with less than 1½ozs. of tea per unit per week, as ascertained by the units registered with them on the sugar-card indents; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to divert excessive supplies in certain traders' hands, in order to allow this deficiency to be made up?
    Mr. PARKER: Certain traders in tea have stocks in excess of their require-

    517
    merits, but the present method of distribution is about to be replaced by a system under which supplies will be allotted on the basis of registered customers. The Ministry of Food has no information that any co-operative stores find it impossible to obtain sufficient supplies after the recent allowance made to the co-operative wholesale societies. If any such cases are brought to the notice of the Ministry they will be investigated.

    INVALIDS' RATIONS (GREENOCK).
    Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Local Food Committee in Greenock were unable at times during the month of April to accept requests for extra rations for invalids under medical certificates because they had no cards in stock on which such applications for extra rations were bound to be made under the Department's Regulation; and, if so, will he see that cards of this type are not at any time wanting in the offices of all local food committees or that applications from invalids will be accepted in some other form?
    Mr. PARKER: A shortage of the special form in question was lately reported from Greenock, and immediate steps were taken to forward the necessary supply. Every effort is and will be made to prevent any local food office from running out of essential rationing documents. A food control committee would be justified in making suitable local arrangements for dealing with an emergency such as that described in the question.

    MALE. AND FEMALE WORKERS.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether further consideration has been given to the representations made by the Deptford local food committee on the subject of the differentiation as to the issue of supplementary ration cards between male and female workers employed upon similar work; and, if so, will he state the result?
    Mr. PARKER: As my hon. Friend is aware, the subject of differentiation between male and female workers, together with other matters connected with supplementary rations, is under consideration by a Special Committee. No general decision has been reached.

    NATIONAL KITCHENS.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that, although the Department has repeatedly urged on local authorities the necessity for establishing national kitchens, difficulty has arisen in obtaining the necessary equipment through the refusal of the Ministry of Munitions to grant a sufficiently high priority number for the manufacture of kitchen utensils; and whether he will make representations to the Ministry of Munitions with a view to a higher priority number being granted, in order that local authorities may be enabled to comply with the requests of the Food Controller?
    Mr. PARKER: The Director of National Kitchens is satisfied with the priority accorded by the Ministry of Munitions, and arrangements have recently been made for the supply in substantial quantities of the raw materials required in the production of plant.

    SWEETMEATS.
    Sir C. HENRYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if it is intended that the Sale of Sweetmeats (Restriction) Order, 1918, should apply to the distribution of sweets through the medium of automatic machines; and, if not, whether he will take steps in order that distribution by this method shall be discontinued as long as the restriction Order remains in force?
    Mr. PARKER: Existing automatic machines are expressly exempted from the operation of this Order, and, having regard to the extent to which their owners are dependent upon the sale of confectionery, I am not prepared to take the action suggested.
    Sir C. HENRYasked if, in order that the object of the Sale of Sweetmeats (Restriction) Order, 1918, may be attained, and the small shopkeeper may be protected, it is the intention to include within the Order those multiple shops which are owned and carried on by whole sale firms and manufacturers of sweets?
    Mr. PARKER: The shops referred to will be dealt with under this Order on the same footing as all other shops. Steps are being taken to see that distribution is fairly carried out by the wholesale firms and manufacturers which will prevent these shops from receiving preferential treatment.

    BUTTER.
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the many hinds in the county of Roxburgh who keep only one cow have been prohibited to sell the butter they make except to grocers; whether the result is a decrease of butter supplies, and an inability to make up for that by an increase of cheese supplies because of the absence of dairy rooms and appliances; and whether he will give considerate attention to such representations as may be made to him by these daily workers on farms who are losing a means of profit?
    Mr. PARKER: Under the Scottish scheme for the distribution of butter supplies it is necessary for producers selling direct to the consumer to register with the Local Food Control Committee, though they may sell to grocers without this formality. Grocers in Roxburghshire have in some cases refused to buy hinds' butter on account of the irregular quality, but it is hoped to arrange for the collection of this butter by Local Food Control Committees for use by bakers and biscuit makers.

    STORE CATTLE.
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the Government are purchasing fat cattle in Ireland at prices higher than the maximum price of 75s. for fat cattle in the county of Roxburgh; whether the Food Controller allows cattle to be sold in Ire land to English buyers at prices up to £5 per live cwt.; and whether he is aware that the effect of the high prices prevailing in Ireland is to attract Irish half-fattened store cattle to the Irish markets so as to raise the price and reduce the condition of all store cattle sent to the feeder farmers of the county of Roxburgh, and with the increase of price making it difficult to buy store cattle at prices to allow any profit to feeders under the controlled maximum for fat cattle in that county?
    Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As I have already stated, prices for fat cattle add in Ireland are not controlled, owing to the fact that it has not been found possible to set up grading machinery in Irish markets Fat cattle purchased in Ireland for slaughter in Great Britain must now, however, pass through markets in this country before slaughter, and be graded and allocated to butchers at the
    520
    controlled prices. There is, therefore, no longer any inducement to British buyers to pay excessive prices for fat cattle in Ireland. I am aware of the effect upon, the sale of stores of the high prices recently paid in Ireland for fat cattle, but the arrangements already described in. regard to fat cattle entering Great Britain should effect a reduction in the price of stores. I may remind the hon. Baronet that the price of store cattle is not controlled, either in Ireland or in Great Britain.

    ARGENTINE SHEEP AND CATTLE.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, having regard to the limited quantity of meat now available for distribution and the accompanying necessity for rationing and to the requirements of an increased supply of hides and skins essential for the manufacture of leather goods, space on the decks of steamers to carry live cattle and sheep from the Argentine as heretofore will be made available; is he aware that, as a result of such deck space being made available and the embargo removed from the importation of cattle and sheep from the Argentine, fresh offal, providing millions of cheap meals, would be obtainable; and, having regard to the present importance of this matter, will he take steps for the removal of the embargo?
    Mr. PARKER: It is considered inadvisable to encourage the importation of live cattle and sheep from the Argentine, in view of the fact that the limited freight space available can be more profitably utilised for the transport of other food products.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Is the hon. Member aware of the fact that, after all, the importation of meat requires enormous machinery in the hold of the vessel, whereas this deck space is unoccupied at the present, and for the purposes mentioned in the question might be utilised?
    Mr. PARKER: Well, in a general kind of way I am aware of those facts, but I cannot go into the details.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Will the hon. Gentleman convey the information to the Minister?

    BOYS' SUPPLEMENTARY RATIONS.
    Mr. W. REAasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food

    521
    if his attention has been drawn to the refusal of local food control officers to issue the supplementary ration granted to boys under eighteen years of age to those just above that age who are awaiting their call to the Colours; and whether, in view of the importance of maintaining these prospective soldiers in full vigour, he will give instructions for the issue of the supplementary ration in such cases?
    Mr. PARKER: Boys who have received supplementary ration cards may continue to use them during the currency of the present issue notwithstanding that they attain the age of eighteen in the meantime. I am considering the case of boys between eighteen and nineteen who are awaiting their call to the Colours, and hope to arrange for the issue of the supplementary ration in their case.

    PERTHSHIRE AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland, as President of the Scottish Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the threatened resignation of the Perthshire Central District Agricultural Committee on account of several largo landowners in that district having refused to break up their share of grass land and then demanded advances of rent equal to double last year's rental for the grazing of the fields which they ought to have broken up; and, if so, what action the Board intends to take in such matters?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am not aware of any such threat of resignation, but I am causing inquiry to be made.

    ADMIRALTY EMPLOYES, HONG KONG.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has received a petition from the chargemen of trades, draughtsmen, and station supervisors stationed at Hong Kong Yard for some increase in pay to meet the increased cost of living; whether he is aware that these men have been denied the advance granted to the storehousemen, with the result that the latter are now in receipt of higher wages than the former; and whether he will reconsider the matter or have it submitted to the Government Conciliation and Arbitration Board?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir; such a petition has been received. We cannot agree that the circumstances warrant an increase in emoluments. The comparison between the storehousemen on the one hand and the chargemen, draughtsmen, and station supervisors on the other is misleading, because the conditions of service are different. As regards the last point in the question, the employés referred to by my hon. Friend wrote to the Conciliation and Arbitration Board, and that body informed them that it was outside their jurisdiction to deal with the emoluments of persons employed abroad.

    RECRUITING OFFICES, HOUGHTON-LE-SPRING.
    Mr. WINGasked the Minister of National Service (1) if he is aware of the discontent in the Houghton-le-Spring Division of Durham at the absence of a recruiting office at Hough-ton-le-Spring where information can be obtained, inquiries made, and enlistment and medical examination take place, and thus save much inconvenience and loss which is occasioned by persons having to travel to Sunderland, involving much loss; and if he will see that this want is remedied; and (2) if he is aware that a deputation, representing the Urban District Council of Hetton and the Rural District of Houghton-le-Spring, attended the headquarters of Northern regiments at Newcastle-on-Tyne to confer with the Deputy Director of Recruiting for the purpose of securing the reopening of the recently-closed recruiting office at Houghton-le-Spring, and left under the impression that such office would be reopened and used as the office of the National Service representative; and, if so, what reason prevents this request?
    Mr. PRATT: It will be convenient, with the permission of the House, to answer these questions together. The Minister of National Service was aware that the deputation to which my hon. Friend refers had visited the headquarters of the northern region at Newcastle-on-Tyne. The recruiting office at Houghton-le-Spring was closed after very careful consideration with a view to cutting down expense. The Minister of National Service regrets that it is not possible to provide a medical board nearer than. Sunderland, which is only 5½ miles distant.

    523
    The deputation was informed of the reasons which necessitated the closing of the Houghton-le-Spring Recruiting Office, but that it was hoped that one room would be retained as the office of the National Service representative. It was subsequently decided that it would be an unjustifiable expense to retain a room for that purpose as the object in view could be obtained by the National Service representative for Houghton-le-Spring continuing to use his own office in that town. The head office of all National Service representatives is now at the tribunal department at the Sunderland area headquarters which, as I have stated, is only 5½miles away.
    Mr. WING: Is it not a fact that it will take a man a day to go to Sunderland and back, notwithstanding the distance of 5½miles pointed out by the hon. Gentleman, as there are several miles to travel to get to the railway station? Am I to gather from the reply that there really will be an office or representative in Houghton-le-Spring of the National Service Ministry?
    Mr. PRATT: Yes; at his own house.

    WOOD THEFTS, PENRITH BEACON.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to recent proceedings at the Penrith Police Court when three women were convicted of stealing wood valued at 2s., the property of the Controller of the Board of Trade Timber Supply, and were condemned to pay 5s. each for the costs of the prosecution; whether the wood stolen consisted of shavings and other waste resulting from the operations of the Canadian Forestry Corps in felling timber on Penrith Beacon; and whether, in view of the fact that according to their terms of employment the corps were under obligation to clear away this waste, and would have burnt it if it had not been taken away, he will give immediate instructions that poor persons in the neighbourhood of the beacon shall be allowed to take such waste for fuel, and will make Regulations enabling this to be done without risk of injury or loss of timber of value?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): In the case referred to the wood was not waste which would have been burnt, but fuel wood intended for sale stolen from the Canadian sawmill. Permission was at first given to poor persons to remove waste wood and brush at Penrith, which would otherwise have been burnt, but the permission had to be cancelled because it was abused. The Controller of Timber Supplies would be pleased to give my hon. Friend full information in any such case.

    WELSH COAL.
    Colonel THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Welsh colliery owners have decided to reduce the Welsh household coal by 10s. per ton, to come into operation on 1st June; and whether the coal sent to London and other provincial towns will be reduced to the same extent?
    Mr. WARDLE: There is no foundation for the suggestion that a reduction is to be made by the Welsh colliery owners in the price of household coal.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMITTEE (ASSURANCE POLICY PREMIUMS).
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Civil Liabilities Committee have power to pay the premiums on assurance policies of men called up for naval or military service who are unable to keep them up; and, if so, why so many of these policies have been lapsed?
    Mr. WARDLE: Insurance premiums are included in the obligations in respect of which assistance is granted by the Civil Liabilities Committee to men called up for naval or military service, and I have no information that their policies are specially subject to lapsing.
    Major HUNT: If men apply to have their policies paid up by the Civil Liabilities Committee, are the Civil Liabilities Committee bound to consider the claims, and bound to pay them if they are good cases?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that.

    GATWICK RACES (SPECIAL TRAINS).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of. Trade whether two special trains were provided by the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway for the use of race-goers attending the Gatwick races on Saturday last, and that tickets were issued to holders of special vouchers; if so, whether this arrangement was made with the knowledge and sanction of the Board of Trade; by what authority and under what conditions the special vouchers were issued; whether he is aware that a special undertaking was given in the House some months ago that no additional railway facilities would be provided in connection with race meetings; and whether effect will be given to this undertaking in future?
    Mr. WARDLE: Two trains were run on the occasion referred to, engines and rolling stock being available without any interference with other demands on the railway. The object of the issue of vouchers was to restrict the number of passengers travelling to Gatwick, and is part of an arrangement which was made to secure that end. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply which was given on Thursday last to the right hon. Member for South Molton division.

    TUBERCULOUS SOLDIERS (TREATMENT AND TRAINING).
    Major DAVIESasked the Pensions Minister what arrangements have been arrived at in conjunction with the Welsh National Memorial Association for the treatment and training of discharged soldiers who are suffering from tuberculosis; and what steps he proposes to take to expedite the provision of treatment for discharged men suffering from tuberculosis in Wales and Monmouthshire?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): As explained in my answers to the hon. Member on the 28th November, 1917, and the 5th March, 1918. the responsibility for the treatment of discharged disabled men suffering from tuberculosis rests primarily with the Insurance Commissioners and Insurance Committees under the National Health Insurance Acts. No special arrangements have been made with the Welsh National
    526
    Memorial Association other than arrangements for payment in cases of advanced tuberculosis, accommodated in existing sanatoria In view of the fact that the Welsh National Memorial Association have recently been able to make provision for cases from England, there would not appear to be any difficulty in securing accommodation for discharged men in Wales. If evidence of such difficulty is brought to my notice, I shall be glad to make representations to the proper quarter.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Sir M. BARLOWasked the Pensions Minister whether officers who have been invalided out of the Navy, Army, or Air Force and have been awarded gratuities on the ground that their disabilities have been neither caused nor aggravated by their service have the same right of appeal against the decision as is enjoyed by non-commissioned officers, and men; and, if so, whether an Appeal Tribunal for officers has been constituted?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The answer is in the affirmative; it is intended the officers should have the right of appeal already possessed by non-commissioned officers and men in regard to the question whether their disabilities were or were not attributable to or aggravated by their naval or military service. I constituted a special committee a short time ago, to which such cases have from time to time been referred, and I propose to ask this committee to form the tribunal for dealing with officers' appeals.
    Sir M. BARLOW: Do I understand that tribunal will be operating at once in any case that comes before them?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes, certainly. As a matter of fact, they have operated in one or two cases already.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it retrospective in its effect?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Certainly. Just as the men's tribunal deals with all cases of rejection in previous years, so, similarly, cases of rejection in the past may be brought forward in the case of officers.
    Mr. WINGasked the Prime Minister if the Government will appoint a Committee to reconsider the question of

    527
    allowances to soldiers' wives and dependants, with a view of adopting such methods as the experience of the last three years suggests?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have been asked to answer this question. I am not aware of any difficulties in the system as now worked which rendered a new Committee necessary.

    WAR CABINET COMMITTEES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the number of Committees created by the War Cabinet?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The total number of Committees and Sub-committees set up by the War Cabinet is ninety-five.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is that in addition to the two or three which have been set up by the War Cabinet itself?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is the number set up by the War Cabinet. I cannot give particulars of the others.

    FOREIGN SECOND CHAMBERS (MEMORANDA).
    Mr. WHYTEasked the Prime Minister whether he will publish the Memoranda on Foreign Second Chambers, written by distinguished foreigners for the Second Chamber Conference, and referred to by Lord Bryce in his letter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not seen the Memoranda referred to. I shall, however, communicate with Lord Bryce on the subject, and if the hon. Member will put his question down again after the Recess, I hope to be able to reply to it.

    MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
    Major DAVIESasked the Prime Minister if he will say how many officials have resigned their positions in the Minis try of Propaganda since 10th February; whether he can state the reasons which
    528
    induced them to resign and how many of these officials have been transferred to the Foreign Office; whether the Foreign Office has a Propaganda Department of its own; and whether he can assure the House that steps have been taken to prevent competition and overlapping between these two Departments?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Since the 10th February two officials of the Ministry of Information have resigned, one to take a post in another Government Department, the other because of the reconstruction of the section of which he had been in charge. Apart from these, in accordance with the decision taken before the Ministry of Information was established, the staff of the former Intelligence Bureau of the Department of Information was transferred to the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office has no Propaganda Department.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the Ministry of Information refer to the Foreign Office pamphlets, and so on, dealing with foreign affairs?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obvious that there must be close connection between the two Departments. I do not suggest it will be possible that everything should be referred to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Why is it sometimes done, and was the Memorandum of Prince Lichnowsky referred to the Foreign Office?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think I must have notice of that.

    GERMAN BANKS.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether land has been bought or is about to be bought for a new German bank in London; and, if so, whether it is the policy of the Government to allow Germans to carry on business in their own banks in this country after the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not heard of any proposal of such a transaction as is suggested in the question, which I feel sure would be illegal.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the length of the term for which new premises in Bishops gate Street have been taken for the London agency of the Deutsche Bank and the reasons why the particular length of term was decided, on?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The tenancy of the premises has been taken for a period expiring six months after the declaration of peace. It was a matter of no little difficulty to obtain suitable premises, and the terms of the lease were the best that could be made in the circumstances.

    AMERICAN ARMY (INSURANCE).
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether the American Government have instituted a scheme for insuring all their men serving in the Navy and Army; and, if so, could he say what the conditions of that scheme are and whether it could be applied to our own sailors and soldiers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware that the United States Government have instituted an insurance scheme, but, in view of the pension schemes which have been adopted in this country, I do not think that a scheme of this kind could now be adopted here.
    Major HUNT: Is not this scheme much more favourable to the men than the schemes in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think we must judge as to what it is possible to do by our own position. I think the House is always inclined to be generous in the matter.
    Mr. HOGGE: Would the Prime Minister look into the point as to the lapsing of these men's policies, and, in view of the small amounts payable, consider whether or not it is possible for the Government to insure them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is really another question, of which I shall require notice.

    BRITISH HIGH COMMAND, FRANCE.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether any change has taken place or is contemplated in the High Command in France?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No change has taken place nor is any in contemplation. I may say, however, that, in my opinion, this is a question which ought not to be asked, and in future I shall decline to answer any question of the kind.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Arising out of that reply, will the right hon. Gentleman discourage statements in the official Press which indicate that such changes are in contemplation.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by the "official Press." Certainly anything of the kind is much to be deprecated, wherever it occurs.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the statement in an article by Mr. Lovat Eraser in the "Daily Mail" to the effect that the end of the "old military gang" was in contemplation?
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that question.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does not the reply of the right hon. Gentleman show that this is a question which ought to have been put, in view of the rumours there are abroad that General Haig has resigned or has been dismissed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I think if the hon. Member looks at the question he will see that it is the kind of question which the Government obviously could not at all times answer; and if such a question could not always be answered, it is the kind of question which ought not to be put.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he can now fix a date for the promised Government of Ireland Bill; and whether, in order to ease the present tension in Ireland, he will assure the House that no draft Order in Council for the application of military Conscription in Ireland will be presented until the promised Bill is assured of passing into law?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to my previous replies on this subject.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (BALANCE-SHEETS).
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the Ministry

    531
    of Munitions have now undertaken to keep proper books and furnish balance-sheets, he can undertake that all the other Government Departments which are temporarily carrying on import, productive, or distributive businesses will be made to furnish balance-sheets, giving particulars of their operations, and showing the cost, profit, and loss incurred for the year ending 31st March, 1918, or some other convenient period; and whether he can have these laid before the House in each case as early as possible?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: All Government Departments which are temporarily carrying on business of this kind are required by the Treasury to furnish balance-sheets giving information as suggested in the question. The question of publishing an abstract of the information is under consideration.
    Mr. LOUGH: Is there any objection to laying the results of this trading before the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I say it is under consideration—yes, I think there might be many objections.

    DISCHARGED AND DISABLED SOLDIERS (TRAINING).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked what arrangements have been made in Scotland for the training of disabled and discharged soldiers in forestry and in agricultural pursuits?
    Mr. MUNRO: Arrangements have been, or are, in the course of being made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to facilitate the training of disabled and discharged soldiers as working foresters, foreman foresters, and market gardeners, and for horticulture, bee, pig, and poultry keeping, and farm work generally. I cannot enter into full details within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, but if my hon. and learned Friend desires it I shall be glad to send him a note of the schemes which are proceeding.
    Mr. MILLAR: Has a school of forestry for discharged soldiers not recently been opened in Scotland?
    Mr. MUNRO: I cannot, without notice, say whether it has actually been opened, but certainly it is in course of preparation.

  MUNITIONS.

    CANNEL COAL (BY-PRODUCTS).
    Captain BARNETTasked the Minister of Munitions if the product now being obtained from the distillation of cannel coal at gasworks is of any value as Admiralty fuel; and whether the offer by the Controller of the Munitions Mineral Oil Department of a £2,000 prize to any person who can make a satisfactory mixture of dehydrated coal-tar and petroleum does not indicate that low temperature distillation would be better adapted for the production of liquid fuel from cannel coal?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): My hon. Friend has been called away on important business and has asked me to answer this question. It is expected that the product now being obtained from the distillation of cannel coal at gas works will be of considerable value as an Admiralty fuel. The prize offered by the Controller of Munitions Mineral Oil Production Department is for a different purpose altogether, having as its object the utilisation as fuel, in addition to cannel oil, large quantities of tar at present available from gas works not using cannel.
    Captain BARNETT: Will my hon. Friend consider the desirability of offering a similar prize for the best method of desulphurising the Dorset and Norfolk shales?
    Mr. HOPE: Well, that is obviously a matter that I cannot answer. No doubt my right hon. Friend will consider the desirability of taking this course.

    ROYAL ARSENAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (MOTOR VEHICLES).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that since December last correspondence has passed between the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society and the Director of Mechanical Transport regarding the release of a Dennis chassis which the society had been endeavouring to obtain since May of 1916; that upon the outbreak of war certain of the society's mechanical vehicles were commandeered; and that since then no new vehicles have been purchased, with the result that the existing fleet is fast wearing out, rendering it necessary that the Dennis chassis should be released in

    533
    order that the distribution of foodstuffs through the society's 100 depots and shops may be continued; and whether he will inquire into the matter with a view to the chassis in question being released?
    Mr. HOPE: Inquiries are being made into this matter, and the result will be communicated to my hon. Friend.

    MESSRS. WORKMAN AND CLARK (AGREEMENT WITH EMPLOYES).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that Messrs. Workman and Clark, shipbuilders, of Belfast, a controlled establishment, have drawn up an agreement for the clerks engaged in their counting house and their timekeepers, stipulating as a condition of employment that these employés shall not be connected with in any way any organisation of a trade union character; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Munitions of War Act, he will say what action he proposes to take?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am afraid the answer is rather long. I understand that the firm in question have not drawn up any such agreement for their clerks in the counting-house, but have drawn up one for their timekeepers.
    The provisions of the Munitions of War Acts, to which my hon. Friend refers, are apparently Section 4 (3) of the Act of 1915, Section 12 of the Act of 1916, and Section 9 of the Act of 1917. The effect of these enactments, so far as they bear, if at all, on the point now raised, appears shortly to be this:

    (1) That no workman employed on, or in connection with munition work shall be discharged on the ground that he has joined or is a member of a trade union.

    (2) That if any employer discharges a workman on any such ground, he shall be guilty of an offence under the original Act.

    (3) That the term "workmen" in the original Act includes foremen, clerks, typists, draughtsmen, and other persons whole usual occupation consists wholly or mainly in work other than manual labour.

    (4) That any rule, practice, or custom, not having the force of law which
    534
    tends to restrict production or employment shall be suspended, and if any person is party to an endeavour to comply with such rule, that person is guilty of an offence under the original Act.

    The precise bearing of these various enactments upon the agreement drawn up for timekeepers in this case is presumably a matter for the Law Officers, but it appears to me to be so far clear that if any timekeeper were refused employment, or discharged from employment, on the ground that he had refused to sign this undertaking, that would be a breach of the law. I give this as a layman's opinion. I have not had time to consult the Law Officers.
    I ought to add, and this appears to bear upon Section 4 (3) of the original Act, that no person connected with any trade union organisation has ever applied for a situation as timekeeper with this firm, nor has any such person been discharged by the firm on that ground.

    REGISTRATION FORMS.
    Sir H. NIELDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of a woman householder who refused to fill up or have anything to do with Form A, she stating that in her belief it was an attempt on the part of the Government to conscript her for military service; and whether he will consider the desirability of issuing a simple form which can be easily understood by uneducated persons, and which will not give rise to misapprehension of this character?
    Mr. WALSH: My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has not had his attention drawn to this particular case. It would be impossible to frame a form, however simple, which would not give rise to misapprehension on the part of some persons, educated or uneducated.
    Sir H. NIELDasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether he is aware that in some parishes the percentage of forms (Form A) returned by householders incorrectly filled up is as high as 70 per cent., in which cases it is necessary for the forms to be returned for completion or correction, involving repeated calls by canvassers and

    535
    consequent delay in compiling the lists; whether he is aware that the inability to fill up the form is due to its complex nature rather than to lack of intelligence on the part of the householder; whether there is any real prospect of the register being printed by the date fixed by the Order in Council; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take in the matter;
    (2) whether he has received any reports from registration officers, overseers, or others, as to the relative numbers or the percentage of postcards received from naval and military voters abroad claiming to be entered upon the electors' lists, in accordance with the arrangement outlined in the Memorandum R. P. 7, issued by his Department; whether he is able to give any estimate of the proportion of such voters who are likely to be disfranchised in consequence of the non-receipt by registration officers of such postcards; whether the system is working satisfactorily; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of arranging for an extension of the time within which the register is to be completed, in order that the names of all persons entitled to be registered may be entered in the lists; and
    (3) whether he has received from registration officers any representations as to the impossibility of completing the register of electors within the prescribed time; and, if so, whether he will consider the question of extending the time in order to ensure that the register shall be complete and accurate?
    Mr. WALSH: My right hon. Friend is aware that in many districts considerable difficulties are experienced by registration officers in getting the information necessary to enable them to publish the lists in the time prescribed by the Order-in-Council and that these difficulties arise from a variety of causes. The question of & short postponement of dates for the preparation of the lists is under consideration.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the hon. Gentleman state whether it is proposed, as suggested in one of these questions, to use a simpler form for the guidance of the people who have to fill them up?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Would it not have been much better if instructions had been given for a house-to-house canvass?
    Mr. WALSH: Circulars have been sent out to the registration officers impressing
    536
    upon them the desirability of making, wherever possible, a house-to-house canvass. That is distinctly laid down in the circular. As to the simpler form, it is not so easy as the hon. Member may think, and simplicity itself sometimes leads to greater difficulties.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Does my hon. Friend think the form sent out is the last word in simplicity?
    Mr. GULLAND: If a longer period is given, will the hon. Member see that longer time is given for the inspection of the register in order to ensure that everyone will have an opportunity of seeing whether his or her name is on the register?
    Mr. WALSH: It is quite impossible to promise that, but the whole matter is receiving very careful consideration. On the one hand, it is impossible to make it a long period, and, on the other, it is desirable that a reasonable time should be given.

    INTERNED BRITISH SUBJECTS (HOLLAND).
    Mr. SMALLWOODasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) if he is satisfied that British subjects interned in Holland are receiving a sufficient amount of food?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to questions on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West.

    HIRE OF VESSELS (FRANCE AND ITALY).
    Mr. HOLTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller if he is now able to state the amount of monthly hire paid by the French and Italian Governments, respectively, to a vessel of their own nationality of 4,800 tons gross register, 12 knots speed, and 7,500 tons dead-weight capacity, when requisitioned by them?
    Sir. L. CHIOZZA MONEY: As to France, it would seem that for a vessel of the type, size, and speed referred to, and assuming that the vessel has not changed hands during the War and that the rate of depreciation adopted by the owner during the War is not more than 5 per cent. per

    537
    annum, the French owner would-receive, under requisition, about 13s. 3d. per gross ton per month, owners paying the whole coat of crews' wages and not merely the pre-war cost, and the French Government taking the marine risk As to Italy, I am not yet in a position to furnish the information desired by my hon. Friend as to the Italian terms.

    SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education the number of additional teachers who will be required to supply, after twelve months, the deficiencies of teachers in elementary and secondary schools, and the additional number required if the Education Bill passes into law and becomes fully operative after twelve months; whether he has sanctioned the release of a large number of teachers from schools for military service; and how he proposes to supply the existing and prospective demand for trained teachers?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): It is not possible to deal with the first point within the limits of a question and answer. It is estimated that over 20,000 teachers have been released from service in elementary schools and about 2,500 from Grant-aided secondary schools. The problem of increasing the supply of teachers is engaging my constant and anxious attention.
    Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman not recently within the last few days released a large number more of teachers, and how does he square that with his policy under the Education Bill?
    Mr. FISHER: I think the two lines of policy are compatible. It is obviously necessary in the military urgency that some additional teachers should be released. That, of course, is regrettable, but at the same time I am hoping to improve the conditions of the teaching profession and make it sufficiently attractive to cause more candidates to come forward.

    ARMY MEDICAL SERVICES.
    Major DAVIESasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether it is proposed to appoint a Committee of inquiry into the Army medical services in
    538
    this country and in the Eastern theatres of war, with a view to the better utilisation of the services of medical men in the Royal Army Medical Corps?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the negative.
    Major DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman give the original terms of reference to this Committee?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir.
    Major DAVIESasked the Under secretary of State for War whether the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the medical services in France contained any proposals for the reorganisation of the service with a view to utilising; to the fullest degree medical officers who are at present serving in the Army Medical Corps; and, if so, whether he can now state the reasons for withholding the publication of this Report to Parliament?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 2nd May.
    Major DAVIES: Can the hon. Member; give any indication as to what the recommendations of this Committee were?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am quite willing to see my hon. and gallant Friend privately, and give him any information I have.
    General COLVINasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is intended to raise the pay of the Territorial officer, Royal Army Medical Corps, so as to place him on the same footing as a temporary medical officer?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on the 21st February last to my hon. Friend the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool.

    RETIRED OFFICERS.
    Major DAVIESasked whether an officer of His Majesty's Special Reserve of Officers who has been placed on the Retired List in consequence of wounds, But who has not relinquished his commission, is entitled to the gratuity awarded to officers who have left the service and also to the issue of a service rendered badge?
    Mr. FORSTER: An officer in such circumstances would be entitled to the gratuity under Article 497 of the Royal Warrant and also to wear the silver war badge.
    Major DAVIESasked whether officers of His Majesty's Special Reserve of Officers who have been placed on the re tired list in consequence of wounds, who are described in the Army List as non- effective officers and who clearly still hold His Majesty's commission, are debarred from wearing uniform?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Officers of the Special Reserve on the Retired List are permitted to wear uniform when employed in a military capacity, and on ceremonial occasions of a military nature.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (TREATMENT).
    Major DAVIESasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the treatment of British prisoners; whether the stipulations of the military convention of January, 1917, are being infringed; and, if so, what retaliatory measures it is proposed to take?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This matter has been referred to the War Cabinet, but I am afraid I can add nothing at present to the reply which I gave my hon. and gallant Friend on the 2nd May.

    MACHINE GUN CORPS, GRANTHAM.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under secretary of State for War if he will have inquiry made into the way in which the men of the Machine Gun Corps, No. 1 Reserve Battalion, Belton Park Camp, Grantham, are being treated, having to rise at 5.30 in the morning, and, with the exception of three short intervals for meals, are kept hard at work on physical training, rifle drill, company drill, and so on, until 6.30, and on the second day have to mount guard in the evening until 7 a.m. next morning, when they have to fall in at the usual drills without an interval?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am having inquiries made, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    RED CROSS SOCIETY, KIRKCUD-BRIGHTSHIRE.
    Mr. GULLANDasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that on Christmas Day, 1917, a number of members of the Voluntary Aid Detachment of the Red Cross Society of Kirkcudbrightshire received notice of dismissal owing to an alleged breach of discipline, and that their request to allow them to be heard in their own defence has been rejected by all their superior officers; whether he is aware that these ladies have given years of devoted service gratuitously, and what steps he proposes to take to secure justice for these ladies?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: These ladies were serving in a voluntary hospital under the administration of the Scottish Red Cross Society, and I am afraid that it is not a matter in which I can intervene.
    Mr. GULLAND: Has the War Office nothing to do with this detachment?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Nothing at all. This hospital is administered by the Red Cross Society.

    CANADIAN AND AMERICAN WOMEN (REPATRIATION).
    Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any arrangements have been made by his Department to utilise the steamers returning to America by repatriating Canadian and American women desirous of going back; and is he aware that many prospective brides have been waiting for years for some arrangement for ship accommodation being made by his Department?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: On behalf of the Department concerned, I have to say that advantage is taken of suitable opportunities to repatriate Canadian women and children, and the selection of the passengers to embark is made in consultation with the Departments and Dominion representatives concerned. With regard to prospective brides, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply of 5th February, a copy of which I am sending him. I believe arrangements are made by the United States authorities for repatriating American women.

    INCOME TAX (BONUS SHARES).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether bonus shares, resulting from the capitalisation of undistributed profits, are treated as income or as capital in respect of taxation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is a fundamental principle of the Income Tax Acts to charge Income Tax upon all profits at the source whether they are distributed or not. As regards bonus shares issued in respect of accumulated taxed profits, the question whether they fall to be included in the computation of the total income of the person receiving them is one which can only be determined by reference to the particular facts.

    GENERAL MAURICE.
    Sir TUDOR WALTERSasked the Home Secretary whether the letter from General Maurice appearing in yesterday's "Daily Chronicle" was submitted to the Censor before publication; if so, were any portions of the original letter deleted by the Censor?
    Sir G. CAVE: This letter was submitted to the Censor before publication, and some words were deleted by him. I may add that I have looked into the matter and am satisfied that the words in question were properly deleted.
    Sir T. WALTERS: May I ask whether the words that were deleted were so deleted because it was considered that they would give information to the enemy or be prejudicial to this country and the Allies, and if it was not upon those grounds, by whose authority were they deleted on any other ground?
    Sir G. CAVE: The words in question were deleted because they contained a reference to a secret document to which General Maurice had had access by virtue of his official position, and because the words, if published, would, I think, have given a wrong impression of the contents of that document.
    Sir T. WALTERS: May I ask if it in offence against the Defence of the Realm Act—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a legal question,, which requires notice.

    PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) sent out on behalf of the Executive of the National Unionist Association a three-lined Whip against proportional representation urging Unionist Members to vote against the Commissioners' scheme, and whether he does not consider this a breach of the promise made that this Division should be free from the influence of party Whips?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware, nor was my Noble Friend the Patronage Secretary, of the fact mentioned in the question, and I have not had an opportunity of consulting my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger), who is in Scotland. I find, however, that, as chairman of the committee referred to, my hon. Friend did send out this Whip, but I learn also that during the passage of the Franchise Bill he occasionally sent out Whips in favour of Amendments against which I voted. It must not be overlooked that my hon. Friend has no official connection with the Government.
    Mr. WATT: Would my right hon. Friend say whether he does not think that there is some inconsistency in the Unionist machine being used in connection with a matter which he admits is an open question in the Unionist party?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; I should prefer saying nothing about this until I have consulted my hon. Friend, but I think the members of our party who take a different view have a grievance, if anyone has a grievance. It is really the result of the relaxation of party discipline which results from a Coalition Government.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I take ft for granted that this Whip was not sent out from the Government Whip's office?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Most certainly; and the Government Whips know nothing whatever about it.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Whip against proportional representation sent out by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) was sent out from the Government Whip's office, or at any rate was prepared there?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question of which the hon. Member has given no notice.

    ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE.
    Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Canadian Press that the Colonial Office is responsible for the creation of the Order of the British Empire, and that the Colonial Secretary has repeatedly pressed the Prime Minister of Canada to submit lists of recommendations, and if he can give the House any information on this subject?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Long): I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity of making a statement on this matter, as to which considerable misapprehension seems to exist. The Colonial Office was not consulted on the question of creating the Order of the British Empire, as this arose out of considerations which had no special reference to the Dominions or Colonies. But when it was decided to make use of this Order for the purpose of recognising notable war service rendered by civilians of both sexes in this country, I claimed that services of no less merit had been rendered in the Dominions and that it should be made possible for their Prime Ministers, if they thought fit, to submit names for similar recognition on precisely the same scale as that adopted here. My claim was readily allowed, and, after ascertaining the scale proposed for this country, I communicated to the various Governors-General and the Governor of Newfoundland the number of honours in each of the five classes of the Order for which it would be open to their Prime Ministers to make recommendations. I think I made it perfectly clear that the numbers given represented merely an upward limit, and that within those numbers it was—as, of course, it must have been—entirely a matter for the Prime Minister's discretion to put forward as many or as few names as he chose, or, indeed, to put forward none at all if he so decided.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, before making these representations, he inquired of the representatives of the Overseas Dominions in this country whether the countries they represented were desirous of an extension of these shoddy ornaments?
    Mr. LONG: The hon. Member's suggestion is one which it would be most improper for any Minister to act upon. I make my communications to the Governments concerned.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the grant of these honours causes much more dissatisfaction to people who do not get them than to people who get them?

    Scottish education bill.
    Mr. GULLANDasked the Secretary for Scotland when he will introduce the Scottish Education Bill?
    Mr. MUNRO: I hope to introduce the Education (Scotland) Bill shortly after the Whitsuntide Recess.

    poor law infirmaries (lunatics).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the present crowded state of asylums and of the existing unfair differentiation against the claims put forward by the relatives of pauper patients, an compared with the claims which can be put forward by the relatives of private, or paying, patients, he will cause to be posted near the entrance to the observation wards in all Poor Law infirmaries the terms of Section 22 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, which provides that a friend or relative of the alleged lunatic may, previous to certification, claim that the pauper patient be delivered over to their custody, assuming the responsibility in regard to his being no longer chargeable to any union, and being prevented doing harm to himself or others; and is he aware that in the majority of such cases the relatives are wholly ignorant of the terms of this Section, and that it has in consequence become a dead letter?
    Mr. S. WALSH: My right hon. Friend will consult the Secretary of State as to the desirability or otherwise of adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.

    Aliens Act, 1914.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship caused by the Status of Aliens Act, 1914, on children born abroad on or after 1st January, 1915, of British fathers, themselves born in a foreign country, with the result that their children cannot be registered as

    545
    British subjects; and whether he will introduce legislation to remedy this hardship?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir. This question is one of a number of difficult problems of nationality affecting the British Empire which will, I hope, be investigated after the War, with a view to legislation where necessary.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,
    Land Drainage (Lotting Fen) Provisional Order Bill,
    Post Office (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the closing and sale of the church of St. Olave, Southwark, and the sale of the St. Olave's rectory and the site of the old rectory; the extinction of the ecclesiastical parish of St. Olave, Southwark, and the merger thereof in other parishes; and for other purposes." [St. Olave's Church, Southwark, Bill [Lords.]

    PRIVATE BUSINESS.
    St. Olave's Church, Southwark, Bill [Lords],
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what business will be taken on the day that we reassemble? If he can tell us what business will be taken on the succeeding days in the week it will be for the general convenience?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On the Tuesday it will be Supply—Pensions Vote—and the two subsequent days will be devoted to the Education Bill.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Irish Home Rule Bill will be introduced, and when the Order in Council dealing with Conscription in Ireland will be issued?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already answered a question on that subject to-day, saying that I can give no information.
  Mr. HOGGE: I understand the Pensions Vote is to be taken on the Tuesday. Am I to take it that will be a Supply day purely, and that the Resolution down in the name of the hon. Member for Salford (Sir M. Barlow)—
  ["That, in the interests alike of the State and of the wounded and discharged sailors and soldiers and their dependants, and of the widows and orphans of those who have fallen, it is essential that all questions relating to Pensions and Allowances should be kept free from party politics and the influence of party organisations"]—
  will not be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, that is the understanding.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will that Vote be taken if the Minister of Pensions at that time is not a Member of this House, in view of his announced resignation?
  Mr. PRINGLE: He will think better of it and drop it.
  Mr. KING: Referring to the Irish Home Rule Bill, may we know whether it is the intention really to introduce it, especially in view of the Prime Minister's statement, now about a month ago, that it would be introduced immediately?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Member will devote his mind to the subject he will realise that a Bill of this kind is not so
  566
  easily prepared as one would think. I do-not think that there has been any undue delay.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I have a reply to my question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is hypothetical.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on-Consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Defence of the Realm (Food Profits) Bill and on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House (Whitsuntide) have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (FOOD PROFITS) BILL.
  Order read for consideration of Lords. Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Lords Amendment be now considered."
  Mr. LOUGH: I wish to suggest reasons why this business should not be taken to-day, and I hope my right hon. Friend-will give them consideration. These Amendments are of a very far-reaching character. Of course, I cannot, on this Motion, go into the nature of the Amendments, but I would point out that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Controller is no there to-day, and I feel the Bill ought not to be taken in his absence. There is no special pressure in regard to it. My second objection is much more far-reaching. If any hon. Member will look at the Lords Amendments—[An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up; we cannot hear a word!"]—he will see that they refer to Bill No. 25. That Bill has not been printed. I asked for a copy of it only five minutes ago, and could not obtain it. I repeat, the Amendments proposed to be introduced are of a far-reaching character, and I think it is inevitable that they will lead to considerable discussion. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has already made an appeal to us to-day, in the interests of the general convenience of Members, not to unduly prolong the proceedings, and in view of the fact also that the other day he spoke of his very great reluctance to interpose business on days allotted to Supply, also, in view further of the fact that no notice was given of the intention to consider these Amendments—
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): They are only of a drafting character.
  Mr. LOUGH: They are not at all of a drafting character; they alter the whole character of the Bill. There are two very long Amendments, but in view of the reasons I have already indicated, and bearing in mind the fact that this is not urgent business, I do ask that the consideration of these Amendments be postponed until after the holidays.
  Mr. MUNRO: In the absence of the representative of the Ministry of Food, I will take the responsibility of saying a word or two as to the Amendments on the Paper, one of which, of course, refers to Scotland. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he will look at the Amendments he will find that they are of a purely drafting character. The right hon. Gentleman will see that an account is to be taken in connection with breaches of Food Orders, but the provisions are not sufficiently clear, and, accordingly, an Amendment has been introduced, and we ask this House to insert it for the purpose of making it perfectly clear that if there is a breach of the Order the person who has broken the Order may be compelled to exhibit his books, so that it may be ascertained whether, on any previous occasion he has broken an Order, and if it be found that he has, then certain consequences will ensue.
  Mr. LOUGH: That is not a drafting Amendment.
  Mr. MUNRO: I suggest it is purely a drafting Amendment. The House will observe that the Bill itself provides that if the Court is satisfied there has been a breach of the Order it may direct that an account be taken, and this Amendment, so far as England is concerned, provides in terms for the taking of that account. The Scottish part of the Amendment is a mere translation of the other. I do appeal to my right hon. Friend to let this Bill go through. It is very desirable it should operate at the earliest possible moment. I think I have explained it fully, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not persist in his opposition.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment considered accordingly.
  CLAUSE 1.—(Forfeiture of Excess Profits from Overcharging for Food.)
  Where a person has, after the passing of this Act, sold any goods at a price in excess of that allowed by or under any Order made by the Food Controller in pursuance of the powers conferred on him by the Defence of the Realm Regulations, that person in addition to any other penalty to which he may be liable, shall forfeit to His Majesty a sum equal to double the amount of such excess, and in any proceedings taken to recover such amount the Court, if satisfied that there has been a breach of the Order, may order an account to be taken in like manner as if the sum recoverable under this provision had been money had and received for the account of His Majesty.
  Lords Amendment:
  Leave out all words after the word, "and" ["the amount of such excess and"], and insert instead thereof the words,
  "that sum shall be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown.
  "(2) In any proceedings in England or Ireland under this Act against any person in respect of any such sale as aforesaid, the Court, if satisfied that there has been a breach by him of any Order so made by the Food Controller, may order an account to be taken with respect to that sale and with respect to any other sales by that person of any goods to which any such Order applies, and may upon such account being taken direct the payment of double the amount of the excess thereby appearing to have been realised on the sales.
  "(3) In any proceedings in Scotland under this Act against any person in respect of any such sale as aforesaid, the Court, if satisfied that there has been a breach by him of any Order so made by the Food Controller may proceed in like manner as if such proceedings were an action of count reckoning and payment concluding for production of an account of the aforesaid sale, and of any other sales by that person of any goods to which any such Order applies, and for payment of double the amount of the excess thereby appearing to have been realised on the sales"
  Lords Amendment read a second time.
  Mr. LOUGH: I am sure there is one Amendment which is required here. The whole thing of a very far-reaching character. I do not like to make a statement on a legal point in contradiction of that of the Secretary for Scotland, but in the House of Commons we inserted in the Bill the words "after the passing of this Act," and I suggest that similar words ought to be put into these new Sections. When, the Bill was under discussion here the question was asked whether it was intended to be retrospective, and we were assured that it was not, but without the inclusion of the words I suggest it might possibly be made retrospective, and I would therefore like

  569
  to move in paragraph (2), after the word "person" ["other sales by that person"], to insert the words "after the passing of this Act" That would bring the whole thing into harmony with the circumstances tinder which the measure was passed through this House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment is unnecessary. The Act will only apply to the cases of persons who have, after its passing, sold goods, and therefore no offence can arise unless a man, after the passing of the Act, has sold goods. Then the appropriate punishment will apply.
  Mr. LOUGH: It did occur to me that these words were very material, and that the Bill if amended, as now proposed, might be made applicable to other sales, but if the Secretary for Scotland assures me that the words already introduced govern the whole procedure, I am willing not to press my opposition.
  Mr. MUNRO: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for withdrawing his opposition. I can give him the assurance he asks for that the words "after the passing of this Act" govern all sales, including those provided for in the Lords Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

  WHITSUNTIDE RECESS (ADJOURNMENT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, the 28th May."— [Mr. Bonar Law.]

  EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA'S LETTER.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the course of the last two weeks a number of questions have been put to the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Blockade about the publication in France and in this country of extracts from the remarkable letter written by the Emperor Charles to Prince Sixte of Bourbonne, and the events, discussions, and proceedings which appear to have sprung there from. The Foreign Secretary has quite properly, if I may say so, declined to discuss this at Question Time, and I agree with him that matters so delicate cannot be dealt with then, but I understood him to say just now that, although he could not answer the ques-
  570
  tion put to him then, he would participate in the discussion that was likely to take place on the Motion for the Adjournment. It is in the hope, therefore, that he will be able to give this House and the country some information on these events that I shall put to him, if he will permit me, a number of questions, without, I need hardly say, desiring to cause him or the Government any difficulty—for I realise how difficult the position has been, still is, and may continue to be —but in order that we may have some information on which we can rely in respect to the communication from the Emperor Charles, and the part that has been taken in them by the Prime Ministers and others who dealt with the matter last summer.
  The calendar of these events is some what interesting. The Revolution in Russia broke out about the beginning of March, 1917, and the letter was written by the Emperor Charles on 31st March. It appears to be an inference justified by events that what happened in Russia was not without its influence on the Emperor's mind. It was a letter of a most confidential nature, written to Prince Sixte, who is connected with the Emperor Charles. It appears, if the newspaper accounts may be believed, to have been shown by Prince Sixte to President Poincaré It is said that President Poincaré showed it to the Prime Minister of France, M. Ribot, and that the purport of the letter was at that time communicated to our own Prime Minister. I am bound to use the phrase "it is said," because we have in this country no official information on the subject, and the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly has declined to discuss it at Question Time, but that the facts more or less follow these lines appears to be clear, not only from what has passed in the French Press but also from circumstantial accounts which have been given in one of our own important newspapers, the "Manchester Guardian" If, therefore, anything that I say with regard to what is generally known is incorrect, I must plead that I can only rely on what has been published in the Press, and if there have been inaccuracies no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will clear them up.
  It was on 31st March that the Emperor Charles wrote his famous letter. Oddly enough, on 3rd April Count Czernin gave an interview to the "Fremdenblatt," suggesting that there was now a possibility of

  571
  negotiation without an armistice. I would infer from that, therefore, that the Emperor Charles was not acting altogether without the knowledge of his Chancellor. Some time in April the Emperor of Austria and the Emperor of Germany met at their general headquarters, and it may be—we do not know—that they discussed the possibility of negotiation. If there was any collusion between them, then, no doubt would be the opportunity for the suggestion of collusion, for the organising of such communications and the publication of such interviews as might lend themselves to the purposes of the two Emperors. But shortly afterwards, as far as we can ascertain, the Emperor wrote a second letter in which it is said he added that Bulgaria agreed to the action which had been taken by him and proposals made by him in the first, and I think he added, if one may believe current reports, that Roumania had also been communicated with, in what way we are not able to ascertain. He suggested that if the territorial claims of the Allies were restricted to Alsace-Lorraine there was a possibility of carrying the negotiations further. We immediately find ourselves in the middle of territorial discussions of the most delicate character, which at that time appeared to be the rock on which any negotiations would break and so far as future transactions are concerned have always been matters of the greatest delicacy. M. Briand shortly afterwards, and not in any way connected with the transactions which surrounded the letters, seems to have met Von Laken in Switerland, and from information which he has given to his Government and to the Committee of the French Chamber since his return, the proposals made to him there were that Trieste and the Trentino could be assured to Italy. I draw no inference from these transactions except that it would appear that there was collusion between the two Emperors, that Austria was prepared to suggest to France a settlement of their grave differences by securing to France Alsace-Lorraine, and that, getting wind of this, Germany was prepared to suggest to anyone who would communicate to Italy that we might settle our differences by their giving away the Trentino and Trieste—a characteristic transaction, each being prepared to give that which did not belong to him.
  Belgium and Roumania for the first time were communicated with in the
  572
  course of these transactions by the Allies, and the first question I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: When the Emperor Charles's letter was first communicated to the French Government, and by the heads of their Government communicated to our Prime Minister, were any of the other Allies except Baron Sonnino consulted? Was there, for instance, any communication with the other European Allies, and in particular was there at that time any communication made by our Prime Minister or the French Government to the American Government? They were as deeply concerned in the attainment of peace as we were. Their influence in the Alliance at that time was not as great as it has since become, but it was growing rapidly, and that these great transactions—for they might have been great in their result if they had been started in good faith and had been carried through by the belligerent countries—should have gone on without the knowledge of President Wilson is almost inconceivable. As far as one can ascertain, at the beginning of the correspondence Russia was not informed of what had taken place. It is difficult to tell how far any Government in Russia at that time would or would not have been able to take part in important pourparlers, but from such information as has come through to us from Paris it appears to be clear that M. Kerensky was not then given any information about what had taken place, and I presume he was entirely in the dark as to proposals having reached the French Government from the Emperor Charles. And it was at the very moment when M. Kerensky was appealing to the Allies to take some steps towards a negotiated peace!
  Mixed up in this curious tangle of events there is the proposed Conference at Stockholm. It is impossible to disentangle the Conference at Stockholm from these transactions, and it has a direct bearing upon the attitude of M. Kerensky at that time and upon the attitude of other important persons since then. M. Kerensky was in favour of the Stockholm Conference, and so, we are given to understand, was M. Albert Thomas, who had been in Russia and had just returned. So, we are informed, was M. Ribot, at first. Indeed, he is said by the Socialists in France to have promised to issue passports. We are also informed by one of the important organs of the

  573
  Press, which represents the Prime Minister's views, that our Prime Minister was in favour of the issue of passports at first. During this very period, when communications. were passing somewhat freely, owing to movements in France, M. Ribot withheld his consent to the issue of passports. The same attitude was taken up by this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson) has already stated that he counted on the co-operation of the leaders of Socialist opinion in France when he wished to take part in that Conference, and he has, more than once, publicly stated that, in his view, with such knowledge as he had at that time, and which has accumulated since, the virtual prohibition of that Conference by the French and British Governments has been a misfortune. I can express no opinion on that one way or the other, but I hope that any attempt to bring together the organised Labour of belligerent countries in future will not find any obstacles placed in its way. There is no doubt that the negotiations which were passing in this somewhat irregular way were mixed up with the prohibition of the Stockholm Conference. There appears to have been an entire change in the views of the Alliance in regard to the proposals which came through from Austria and Germany, and if the right hon. Gentleman can give us any information on that subject to-day I think it would do a good deal to calm public opinion here in many quarters. Not in pacifist quarters only, but in many other quarters there is disquiet, due to the disclosures which hare been made in France.
  The questions I have to put forward are these: Why at the time of the receipt of that letter did our Government not communicate with the American Government; why was the American Government not informed of what was passing? My second question is of a different nature, and refers more to the responsibility which our own Government Departments and our Government as a whole have over matters of peace and war, and it is this: Did our Prime Minister inform the Foreign Office at the time of the communication of the fact of the communication having been made and having been shown to him? I know that he was unable at the moment to consult the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour), because, if my memory serves me rightly, he was in America; but it would not have been
  574
  impossible to have communicated the facts to the right hon. Gentleman and to the President of the American Republic at one and the same time, and the presence of the right hon. Gentleman in Washington would have been a convenient moment for consultation between President Wilson and the Foreign Secretary. The last question I would ask is this: Why were negotiations dropped; was it on purely territorial grounds, or was it because the demand was made by France not only for Alsace-Lorraine, but for the 1814 line? It is said in some quarters that the demand is even for the 1790 line. That seems to me inconceivable, but it is so generally stated that the right hon. Gentleman will be doing a real service to public opinion in this country if he can clear it up at once. If the 1814 line is in any way incorporated in our war aims, I need hardly say that would cause great surprise to public opinion in this country. So far as I have been able to ascertain, that has never at any time been contemplated by the Foreign Office or in any statements which have been made by the present or the previous Prime Minister, although I ought to add that some members of the War Cabinet have at times made speeches which lent themselves to the view that the 1814 line was part of the war aims which they contemplated, and that when speeches were made about the banks of the Rhine it was with the knowledge in their minds that the 1814 line was freely canvassed by those who spoke on behalf of the French Government. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to clear up these points. On the general necessity of making a statement now, I would like to point out that far more has been communicated to the Foreign Affairs Committee in France than has been vouchsafed to the House of Commons. That Committee exists for special purposes, and it is supposed to be secret in its rules and procedure, whereas here we have nothing to correspond to it. I understand that the Government deems all Select Committees as objectionable organisation, and that none of them can be trusted with confidential information. I ask for nothing confidential. I merely ask for such information as the Foreign Secretary feels that he can communicate to the House, fortifying my request with the knowledge that unless we get some information that rumour must continue, that opinion instead of being healthy will

  575
  be diseased, and that it is in the interests of the Allies that we should be told as much in England as can be communicated to the public in France.
  HON. MEMBERS: Balfour! Balfour!
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): I thought the proper thing was to reply on the Debate.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It will always be possible to pass to another topic after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, if the House so desire.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentlemen who has just sat down has not been pouring in a series of questions for the last fortnight like the hon. Gentlemen I see congregated below the Gangway, and who have indicated in the ordinary Parliamentary fashion that they mean to take amore or less important part in this Debate. I conceived, therefore, that I should be only acting in accordance with the convenience of the House if I waited until I had heard their case before attempting to reply, which of course, by the Rules of the House, cannot be repeated. I understand that they have entrusted their case to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Runciman).
  Mr. RUNCIMANindicated dissent.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not suggest that there has been any collusion between them, but I thought that the case presented by the right hon. Gentleman was their case.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) has returned, and that we have been informed that he also will take part in this discussion this afternoon?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken on that point. There is no suggestion that my Noble Friend should deal with the particular topic raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and on which so many questions have been asked me in the course of the last fortnight or three weeks. The right hon. Gentleman has put two or three questions to me on this subject. The subject is very naturally exciting a great deal of interest both in this country and abroad. I must, however, remind the House that there is a very natural tendency to treat this subject as if it were one in which the British Government alone were con-
  576
  cerned, and that the Opposition or the critics of the Government of the day had a right, therefore, in the public interest and in their own, to extract the last drop of information which it is in the power of the Government to give. That is a very natural mood for the House of Commons to be in. It is one to which we are accustomed on ordinary subjects of domestic controversy, and it is a mood of which we cannot be expected easily to divest ourselves when we come to deal with these delicate questions of international policy. Although this point was very fully present to the mind of my right hon. Friend, and I am not at all sure that it was present to the minds of many ton. Members of this assembly. This is not a question which can be discussed as if it were a domestic question. The people whose conduct is impugned or against whom suggestions are made are not merely or chiefly British Ministers. The question is an international question which touches not only our domestic controversies, but even more acutely the domestic controversies of many of our neighbours and our Allies. It goes far deeper than that, and it is perfectly impossible, and it would foe grossly improper for anybody holding my office to attempt to deal with this subject in a form which would not only be desirable, but necessary, if I were merely defending the action of His Majesty's Ministers on a domestic subject. This is a matter deeply affecting the conduct of our foreign relations. That general observation is true, and would be true of all discussions of these most delicate subjects, and the approaches towards peace discussions.
  It is a curious thing in regard to the gentlemen who are proud of the name of pacifists, whom I see opposite to me, that there is a little inconsistency between their conduct in this House and their professions. The hon. Gentlemen must know quite well that now the condition of international affairs has got to its present position in Europe, it is not a good thing necessarily to discourage informal attempts at conversations.— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—Hon. Gentlemen who are always trying to make Parliamentary capital, directly the suggestion is made, try to turn it to some controversial purpose. As far as I am concerned, let me say that we have never, at any time, initiated conversations. We have never, at any time, laid

  577
  it down that we would not listen to conversations if other people wished it. If any representative of any belligerent country desires seriously to lay before us any proposals, we are prepared to listen to them. Of course, we are not going to deal with them without our Allies, but in the full confidence of our Allies. Certainly the last thing I should lay down would be that the door must be shut to any kind of informal approach which had any elements of authenticity, and which had adequate credentials. The very fact that such conversations are of an informal kind at the time necessarily makes them very improper subjects for discussion in this House, and that which is true as a general proposition is emphatically and specially true of the international episode which is the subject of our discussion today. The letter which is attracting public attention was a private letter written by the Emperor of Austria to a relative, conveyed by the relative to the French President and the French Prime Minister, under the seal of the strictest secrecy, and without permission to convey it to anybody except the Prime Minister and the Sovereign of this country; without permission even to communicate it to the Cabinet colleagues of the Prime Minister of this country.
  Mr. ASQUITH: As a matter of fact, it -was not conveyed only to the President?
  Mr. BALFOUR: It was conveyed to the Prime Minister.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: He knew it.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I understand in the first instance (it was conveyed to the President, and it was communicated to the French Prime Minister and the British Prime Minister under those pledges. A more inconvenient method of dealing with great transactions could hardly be conceived. The inconvenience was not due to any wish on the part of the French Prime Minister to carry out public business in this most inconvenient fashion.
  When you go outside the ordinary channels of public business and the ordinary methods of conducting great international affairs, you land yourself in very great difficulty. Records are not kept. Discussion is hampered or is impossible. The whole machinery of Government works with extreme difficulty. As my right hon. Friend has reminded the House, I was away at the time, and I never heard of
  578
  these transactions until I returned, when practically the subject had become a matter of history in all its main aspects; and I confess that, as I have very little time for dealing with history, I did not go as intimately as I might have done into these details, because the transaction was over.
  My right hon. Friend has asked me a specific question—whether the President of the United States was informed of this? As Foreign Minister—not acting Foreign Minister, but still as titular Foreign Minister of Great Britain—I was in Washington at the time. I was not informed, and could not be informed in the conditions that I described, of the transaction. I need hardly say, therefore, that, as I was away acting in quite a different matter in Washington, the Government was better acquainted with these facts than I was myself; but if anybody supposes on that account that we ever showed any want of confidence in the Government or the President of the United States, he is under a complete delusion. I have no secrets from President Wilson. Every thought that I have in the way of diplomacy connected with the War is absolutely open to President Wilson. I do not believe that it is possible for Great Britain and the United States of America to carry on the great work in which they are engaged, and to deal with the complex problems which we have from day to day, without complete confidence, and, as far as I am concerned, complete confidence has always been given. So much for that, which is the first of the questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
  The second question he put to me related to the Stockholm Conference. I am not going into the whole question of the Stockholm Conference. Personally I think that it is a matter of which it is very difficult to speak with any confidence, a matter on which there is much to be said, and reasonably said, on both sides. But I myself was no believer in the Stockholm Conference. I did not think then, and I do not think now, that it would really have conduced in any important way to a settlement of this great War. But however that may be, putting that subject aside—it is not the subject on which I think the right hon. Gentleman wanted me to speak—I may re-assure him on this point. The course taken by the British Government with regard to Stockholm had no relation, near or remote, with the Emperor Karl's private letter to Prince Sixte, or with

  579
  the negotiations or conversations that thereupon took place. They were wholly separate transactions decided on quite, different principles, and absolutely unconnected one with the other. There was only one other question which the right hon. Gentleman put to me. He asked me whether one of the reasons why the negotiations broke down—why these incipient conversations did not lead to any fruitful result, was that France, not content with asking for the return of the Alsace-Lorraine of 1870, asked in addition to that for those further territories which were attached to Alsace-Lorraine in 1790 or in 1814. He was referring, of course, to all that passed, or was alleged to have passed, between M. Doumergue and the late Tsar, I think in the early days of 1917. There was no question of this bigger Alsace being a war aim of the Allies. M. Doumergue's mission to Russia, his conversations with the Tsar, were not known to us until very much later. They had no international bearing. Certainly this Government never gave the least encouragement to any such notion. It was altogether outside our whole modes of thought on this subject. It was not a subject which we should ever have seriously contemplated, nor do I think it ever was a very fixed or solid part of the foreign policy for any length of time of any French Government.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: The reference is not, as the right hon. Gentleman supposes, to this Treaty, but to the statement in the Press that President Poincareé met the Emperor Karl's suggestion by a demand for these further extensions of territory.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Pourparlers were not interfered with by any such demands as the hon. Gentleman suggests. That was not the point at all. I know that some Members of this House think that I have been too reticent in my refusals to answer questions put to me across the Floor of the House; and even those who thought, perhaps, that I was well advised in not answering such questions may think I ought to deal more fully than I propose to do with the subject in debate. But a little consideration will, I think, show the House that I am absolutely well advised on this point. We do not know—and perhaps. until the secrets of the archives of Europe are opened to the historian of the future we shall not know, or perhaps we never shall know—exactly what motives influenced Count Czernin, the Emperor
  580
  Karl, and the Emperor of Germany in these various transactions. I am inclined to think that it was all part of what now is sometimes called a "peace offensive" An hon. Gentleman whom I think I see opposite seemed to interpret the phrase "peace offensive" as carrying with it by inference the suggestion that people who talked about peace offensives were people who intended to reject any propositions for peace, whatever those propositions might be. That is not what peace offensive means. As I think I indicated in an answer to the hon. Gentleman, I am quite unable to follow the logic by which he arrives at that conclusion.
  Mr. PONSONBY: May I ask whether the word "offensive" does not necessarily imply rejection or resistance?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members should allow the right hon. Gentleman to continue his speech, seeing that they did not avail themselves of the opportunity of speaking previously.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. The meaning of the expression "peace offensive "is this, that propositions are made by one party who does not desire peace himself, but who does desire to divide his enemies by making proposals of peace. That is the policy which undoubtedly lay at the root, I will not say of all these transactions because I am not sure, but undoubtedly of a great many of the transactions which have been brought before the House recently, and to which the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has referred. Take for example the publication by M. Clemenceau of the fact of these offers from the Emperor Karl. How did it arise? Why was it done? It was done because Count Czernin, in pursuing a peace offensive, tried to suggest to the world, and especially to the Italian world, that they were being made to go on with the fighting in order that France might obtain Alsace-Lorraine. That was the suggestion made by Count Czernin. The Letter of the Emperor of Austria was directed equally to a peace offensive, but a peace offensive aimed at another member of the Allies. There the suggestion was that France should have Alsace-Lorraine, but no suggestion was made that Italy should have anything. That is the other side of the "peace offensive." That is the whole essence; and no wonder M. Clemenceau, who is a great man but not a patient man, seeing this cynical attempt

  581
  to divide the Allies—by suggesting that the whole War was being continued in order that France might obtain Alsace-Lorraine—turned round, and said to the people who made that insinuation, "You yourselves offered Alsace-Lorraine to France about a year ago" If you are dealing with people as cynical in their methods as the Central Powers, some kind of counter-attack is rendered almost obligatory. The actual mode of counterattack which was adopted by M. Clemenceau appears to me to have been thoroughly effective in the sense that it has exposed, and exposed in the clearest manner, the methods by which Central European diplomacy is animated. There is much that is obscure in the letter. There is much that, I think, will always remain obscure, and I believe that every other effort at conversation made by the Central Powers has never been made in the interests of a fair and an honourable peace, but has always been made in the interests of dividing the Allies against whom the Central Powers are contending. That is the only thread which draws together these disconnected efforts. That is the only common principle which lies at the root of all of them. That they desire peace on their own terms is, of course, absolutely true. Everybody does. The whole world is passionately desirous of peace, if it can be obtained on terms which to the various combatants seem tolerable. There is no symptom whatever at the present time that German public opinion, in so far as German public opinion exists — certainly not the opinion of the soldier, and the civilians dominated by the soldier, who now bears sway in the German governing circles—
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Thanks to you!
  Mr. BALFOUR:—that they either now, or at any time, have contemplated the possibility of what we should regard as a reasonable peace—a peace which is going to secure the future of the world, and the freedom of those who are in danger of falling under German domination. They vary with almost cynical readiness the principles which they profess and the policy which they have adopted. Never under any circumstances does a close examination suggest that they wanted to have the kind of peace with which alone I believe even hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway would feel themselves content. The very letter which is the. occasion of this Debate is surely a proof of that.
  582
  2.0 P.M.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested, and he may very well be right—I certainly have no evidence to the contrary —that the two Emperors met together, and contrived this little coup. It is possible. I do not know whether it is true. But there is this curious and significant fact, that the essence of the offer made by the Austrian Emperor to the President of the French Republic, under the narrow limitations which I have endeavoured to describe to the House, consisted of an offer by the Austrians of something that belonged to the Germans. That is a very significant and very singular fact. The Austrians are hardly in a position now, and hardly were in a position then, to offer the territory of their infinitely more powerful ally to anybody, without that ally's consent. It is almost incredible that Austria, which notoriously has fallen more and more into the grip of Germany, should have quietly suggested that she would be very glad to make peace at Germany's expense. What the explanation of that may be I do not know, except it be the one which I have indicated to the House and which I think was suggested by my right hon. Friend himself. Anyhow a suggestion of that character is not one which anybody would look on very confidently as in itself containing an arrangement that is likely to mature. This question has been examined, no doubt, with a knowledge of the facts, more minute than I can have or give to the House, by a Committee of the French Chamber. My right hon. Friend who just sat down appeared almost to suggest that we should have a Select Committee to inquire into these transactions. I think that would be a most deplorable precedent.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I did not suggest that. What I did was to incidentally remark, in no offensive spirit, that the Government had a horror of Select Committees.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I see! It was a delicate reference to another controversy. At all events, however that may be, it is quite clear that we have not the machinery now for the sort of investigation which the Committee of the French Chamber has carried on, and that a Select Committee will not provide that machinery. I am not going to discuss whether we ought or ought not so to modify our institutions as to copy our neighbours in this respect. My own opinion is that it would be inad-

  583
  visable. We may say this: The French Chamber have the machinery; they have used it freely with regard to this particular controversy, and the conclusion which they came to was that the letter of the Emperor Charles did not provide adequate or satisfactory bases for an honourable peace. You may say that the Committee of the French Chamber were prejudiced. You may say that other motives than a judicial consideration of these historical facts animated their verdict. But observe, if they had prejudices at all, it would surely have been in favour of a peace which gave them Alsace-Lorraine without further fighting! That is the point. The suggestion is that the Emperor of Austria made a proposal, which he could have imposed afterwards upon Germany, by which the War should come to an end, and France would obtain Alsace-Lorraine. Had there been any possibility that that proposal really carried within it the seeds of an honourable peace, is it not patent that a Committee of the French Chamber would have expressed its regret that the opportunity had been thrown away by the French Ministers or the French Prime Minister? They came to precisely the opposite conclusion.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: By only one-third majority.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Of course, it was not unanimous. I did not suggest that it was unanimous. I said that the Committee, by the ordinary procedure of those Committees, had given its verdict in that way, and with that verdict I think the House might well be content.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The French Chamber were not content.
  Mr. BALFOUR: We, at all events, cannot be accused of any selfish considerations in this matter. There is nobody who can be more desirous than the British Government of bringing this War to an honourable termination, and if any method by which that can be accomplished is shown to us, of course it will be accepted. But, Sir, we are fighting, as one among Allies, against the Central Powers, who, so far as I can make out, have never had at any time, and now less than ever, the least intention of meeting our wishes. I am not talking of our legitimate wishes; I mean the wishes in which I believe the whole House, the whole country, and even many hon. Gentlemen sitting below the
  584
  Gangway opposite, entirely agree. Those great aims of ours can only be attained by absolute loyalty between the various Allies. It is not so simple and so easy a matter as some hon. Gentlemen appear to suppose to run an alliance, even if the Alliance has been founded on the most unselfish principles. As long as human nature is what it is, there must be causes of difficulty—there must be causes of friction. It is inevitable that one nation does not look at the problems before it from precisely and exactly the same angle as another nation. Differences of temperament—these small differences of outlook which I have described—even pettier subjects of difference, may arise, and must arise, from time to time. Even if you confine yourself only, as you have no right to do, to the four or five great belligerents—even confining yourselves to them, where you have five Foreign Offices, five War Departments, five Cabinets, of course there are points of difficulty which necessarily arise, and everybody knows that that must happen.
  The one thing which makes it possible to sweep all these things on one side, and to get them in the right proportion, is, in the first place, that we should keep our eyes fixed upon the great common object of the War; and, secondly, that we should have in each other absolute and unbreakable confidence in our mutual loyalty. The main thing which makes me regret such Debates as we are having now, or which makes me see in them some germs of difficulty and danger, is that the sort of controversy to which we are accustomed within, as it were, the limits of our own family affairs should be applied to international affairs. In our own family affairs no harm is done. We are all accustomed to it; we are all familiar with it; it is our daily bread and our daily life. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not very nourishing!"] But it is a very difficult thing when you apply those methods —which are not out of place, or not much out of place, within these walls—to international controversies, to the action of foreign statesmen, to the motives of foreign Parliaments, and to the deeds of foreign armies. Believe me, that kind of freedom of discussion would be absolutely fatal to any Alliance. I think there is no greater duty—sometimes it is a duty difficult to perform and rather ungrateful —more incumbent upon the holder, whoever he may be, of the office which is for the moment entrusted to me, than to take

  585
  care that, in so far as in him lies, nothing shall be said which makes it more difficult to carry out that task, which can be accomplished if all the great Allies remain unanimous, but which will be lost irretrievably if any breach were allowed to creep in between them.
  Mr. ASQUITH: As the right hon. Gentleman has very truly said, we are treading here on the most delicate ground—ground which ought not to be entered upon except with the utmost circumspection and reserve, and with the fullest sense of responsibility, not only on the part of the Minister, but on the part of the Members of this House. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman), as was acknowledged by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, approached the subject in that spirit.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  Mr. ASQUITH: To the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, and which, I believe, will find a ready and cordial response in every quarter of the House—that we should not at this or any stage of the War import into the discussion of matters, whether they be of strategy or diplomacy, the controversial spirit in which we are accustomed to indulge with regard to our domestic affairs—as far as I can I shall venture, not only by precept, but by practice to respond. I rise not for the purpose of probing further into these matters of fact, but simply, if I may, of summarising and recording with satisfaction, in two or three sentences, the substance and effect of what, I venture to think, was a most instructive and opportune statement on the part of the Government Bench. In the first place, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said—there was nobody who would have doubted it if he had not said it, and it is satisfactory not only to us but to the world at large to know it—that the British Government has closed no door to overtures and approaches in the direction of an honourable peace, and that they are not confined to what I may call the formal, the normal, and the conventional methods of full dress diplomacy. From whatever quarter, be it with adequate authority and with real good faith, if an appeal be made which is not merely rhetorical, but which is based upon substantial considerations — from whatever
  586
  quarter such an appeal is directed to them, they would not, I am certain, turn to it a deaf ear. Let that be clear.
  The next point is equally important, and my right hon. Friend was well advised to lay the stress upon it that he did. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman) asked whether any communication was made of this correspondence and the pourparlers, such as they were, which ensued upon it, to the President of the United States. I gather it was not, for what I am quite prepared to suppose were perfectly adequate reasons. The thing did not last long, and it disappeared and became, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a matter of history rather than of actual, practical diplomacy. I welcome, as I am sure the whole House will welcome, his assurance that not only in matters of this, kind will he and the Government at large have no secrets from the President of the United States. What is equally important is that, difficult as the task is, delicate as it is, sometimes almost heartbreaking, to have a complete accord, certainly of knowledge and information, and based upon a full interchange of knowledge and information, of policy and practice between all the Allies fighting in the same cause—difficult and delicate as that task is, it is one which must never be lost sight of, and which must be strenuously pursued, in spite of difficulties, even if in the pursuit of it you are obliged from time to time to reject what may seem to be for the moment promising prospects, or at any rate to delay their being carried into effect I am sure you cannot carry on a struggle of this kind—we feel it increasingly the larger the area of the Alliance—you cannot effectually carry on a struggle of this kind, unless it be on the basis of complete mutual confidence between the Allies.
  The third and last point of which I should like to take note is what my right hon. Friend has said in regard to the claim said to be put forward in France, as one of the conditions of an honourable peace —that is, what is vaguely and conveniently called the "line of 1814" As a matter of fact, I gather from my right hon. Friend's statement—he will correct me if I am wrong—he tells us that, as far as his information goes, after the letter was delivered to President Poincaré —the allegation which we have seen in many quarters that he then put forward this demand for the 1814 line is, as far as my right hon. Friend knows, totally without foundation.

  587
  I am very glad to hear that, and I may say I am not in the least surprised to hear it. But I want to go a step further, and take note, with still more satisfaction, of my right hon. Friend's declaration that it never has been among the war aims of the British Government, and that, so far as he knows—of course, no one can speak with the same absolute assurance—so far as he knows, it has not been, and is not now, to be accounted as a part of the settled policy of the French Government. Am I right in that?
  Mr. BALFOUR: Yes; I think so.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I am extremely glad to hear it, though I never had any doubt of it, and I think the country and the world will be glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said to-day, for, let me state once more—and it is the last word I will say—while, in my judgment, there has not been, and there should not be, any contraction, so equally, in my judgment, there should not be any expansion of the declared aims and purposes for which we entered the War, for which we have prosecuted the War, for the sake of which we desire to see the War brought to a successful issue, and the attainment of which will be, in our opinion, the only foundation of a durable peace.
  Major DAVIES: The one word I want to say on this question is to ask the Foreign Office whether they are not prepared to endeavour to obtain a larger measure of co-operation between ourselves and our Allies in a really constructive policy dealing with the great problems which must arise immediately after the War. We have heard a great deal from the right hon. Gentleman, who represents the Foreign Office, and from the Prime Minister, and from statesmen of Allied countries about a League of Nations. I do say that when there are now eighteen States banded together to defend the civilisation of the world, now is the time that they should amongst themselves be prepared to put into operation the principles and objects for which the League of Nations stands. President Wilson has defined the meaning of a League of Nations, and the whole question now is as to whether we, the Allies, shall make our position perfectly plain, not only to our own people and to neutrals, but also to the people of enemy countries. I was glad to note the other day that the Foreign Office has, I believe, a Committee
  588
  which is engaged on this question, and I hope it will also be considered by the Governments of our Allies. But the point, I think, is that some measure of agreement ought to be arrived at with the least possible delay, and that we should not allow ourselves to drift into the position that this country and our Allies have no constructive policy before them, which they are prepared to put fully into operation the moment the War comes to an end. Now, I think this reconstruction must be based on the recognition of free democracies. That is to say, I do not think anyone can contemplate the domination of a League of this kind by any great military Power, and therefore the crux of the whole thing seems to me to be that any League of Nations of this kind must be based on the principle of general disarmament. That is the crux of the whole problem, and we ought to make it quite clear that that is the positive aim which this country has before it in this War. In the case of nine out of every ten men fighting our battles in France and in the other theatres of war, that is the supreme war aim for which they are fighting at the present moment, and this object is one which appeals to every man and woman in this country. Therefore I say again that we must look to the Foreign Office for a constructive and objective policy, and that we ought not to be satisfied until they have put that great problem in the forefront and made it one of our chief war aims.

  GENERAL MAURICE.
  There is another question to which I desire to draw attention, and it is with regard 'to the matter which came up before the House last week. I refer to the Debate on General Maurice's letter. I voted for the Government on that occasion because, as I understood it, it was a matter which concerned the discipline of the Army. Now I put two questions to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War as to whether the procedure which has been adopted in the case of General Maurice was the one which was usually adopted in similar cases, and he gave me what I considered to be a very unsatisfactory reply. He told us that under some Royal Warrant cases of this kind did come before the Army Council. The first question I want to ask him now is whether he could give us any precedent, any other case which has been dealt with in precisely the same way, and

  589
  the second point is whether the Army Council is a judicial body. I have yet to learn that the Army Council in any way exercises any judicial functions. Another question I asked was whether any other similar offences have been committed during this War, and, if so, what were the punishments meted out in those cases to officers, non-commissioned officers or men who have written to the Press and have conveyed important information or secret information to the Press. The answer I got to that question was that my hon. Friend (Mr. Macpherson) had no information. I suggest to him that if he asks the Judge Advocate-General's Department he ought to be able to furnish us with some facts in order to show that the treatment which General Maurice received was on a par with the treatment which any officer, non-commissioned officer or man would have received in any case of a similar offence. That is all that we ask. We want to be assured by the War Office, because, I understand—and I believe it is true—that a great deal of misapprehension, or at any rate a great deal of feeling exists in certain quarters that generals are not accorded the same treatment as is accorded to other ranks in the Service; and in the interests of the discipline and moral of the Army the War Office must make it perfectly clear to the House and the country that that feeling is ill-founded, and that there is no real cause for its existence. I understand that General Maurice has had a very long and distinguished career in the Army, and I do feel the Government may have shown some rigidity in this matter and in dealing with this particular case. They have also dealt in a very rigid manner with the statements which have been made in the Press. I understand now that General Maurice has been appointed the military correspondent of the "Daily Chronicle" That is really a most extraordinary finale to this whole proceeding, that a distinguished officer, who has been in the innermost circles of the War Office and of the War Cabinet during the last four years, should now become the military correspondent of a certain newspaper. It would appear now as though instead of having one military correspondent thundering against the Government in the "Morning Post," we shall now have two, one thundering in the "Morning Post" and the other thundering in the "Daily Chronicle" We shall have General Maurice giving the result
  590
  of his experience and knowledge through the medium of the "Daily Chronicle," administered in small doses for the benefit of the War Office and the War Cabinet.
  There is another matter on which I wish to endeavour to elicit some information from my hon. Friend, and that is in regard to certain facts and figures which have from time to time appeared in certain organs of the Press, giving away what I consider to be most valuable information to the enemy. I really cannot understand why certain officers—or people who call themselves officers—have not been prosecuted for having given away this information. We should also like to know what are the sources from which they received that information.
  The "Morning Post" we are told, published the number of casualties which took place in the year]917, and we have been told of the deficit in the number of the establishment of the Army in France at the end of last year. I submit that these figures, if they were true, were of great assistance to the enemy. I did not wish to bring up these facts and figures because I felt that it would unnecessarily have drawn attention on the part of the enemy to them. But I think the House and the War Office should make it understood that they will not allow these things to be published in newspapers, and that they will not allow these articles, however highly placed may be the organs in which they appear, to be published, thus giving information broadcast, that damage the Government. There are two things to which we must look. The first is the discipline and moral of our troops, and the second is unity of command, but I maintain that if this sort of thing is to go on it will tend greatly to injure that moral and that discipline, while greatly prejudicing the unity of command. These articles have not helped this country in the progress of the War, and I hold that the Government are chiefly to blame. They have been weak. The Prime Minister has not carried out the policy which he declared he believed in, and which he was convinced was the policy which the Allies ought to pursue. We remember perfectly well, after the Italian debacle, that the Prime Minister made his Paris speech, in which he said that all our disasters, all our upsets, arose from the fact that there was no unity of Allied command.
  The Prime Minister told us that he was going to set up an executive body in Versailles who would regard the Allied

  591
  line from the North Sea to the Adriatic as one line; the policy of the single front was to be adopted. He reinforced all that in this House, but a military section then commenced to kick against unified command, and immediately the Versailles Council was rendered down to an advisory body. Various steps were taken, and we were told that a great Army of manœuvre was going to be established, and that at last this Conference was to be given executive authority. Then the great attack came, and I submit that the Government has been the real cause of our misfortunes to-day. I hope that, in spite of the fact that a certain section of this House have taken up the attitude of backing up the military against the civilian elements, the Government will go on with the unified command and stick to it, and not put up with clamour and attacks. If the House is going to be worthy of its responsibility to the country and the Army, it must insist on putting an end to all these proceedings. I protest in the strongest possible way against the way in which the matter has been handled by the War Office. I could have understood it if Lord Derby had been at the head of the War Office, but now we have a new Minister, a great administrator, at the head of the War Office, and we may hope that reasonable reforms will be carried out, and that we shall see a strong hand and firm leading. In the interests of the Army, in the interests of discipline, in the interests of the moral of the Army, in the interests of moral at home, the Government must take a strong line and they must tell us—I hope they will tell us—why this procedure in the case of General Maurice was adopted, so that the House and the country may be assured that the same justice will be meted out by the War Office to other officers and men.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I will reply to my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down (Major Davies) in so far as what he has said relates to the Department for whose administration I am responsible to this House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman divided his observations into two parts, and I will deal with the smaller one first—namely, that which relates to the publication of facts and figures in the public Press. I am not aware to what particular facts and figures my hon. and gallant Friend refers.
  Major DAVIES: I particularly drew attention to only one sample of many others, where the figures relating to the-casualties in France, in 1917, and other theatres of war, were published; and secondly, I drew attention to the facts and figures relating to the deficit in the establishment of British troops in France at the beginning of this year, and which were given in an article in the "Morning Post" of 24th January.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am obliged to-my hon. and gallant Friend for drawing my attention to the particular facts and figures. I can only say that the publication of any of these facts and figures, which have not been given to the House of Commons, is most reprehensible, and I, for one, cannot find out how these leakages take place, though I have made inquiries. But, so far as lies in our power, we have consistently refused at the War Office to give figures of this nature to be made public by any journal.
  Major DAVIES: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will take steps to prosecute?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The publication of the facts and figures to which my gallant Friend has drawn attention seems to have taken place some months ago, apparently towards the end of January. I am afraid I cannot promise that the authorities would take action in the case, but I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that we regard any publication of this sort as being against the best interests of the country and as being in every way very reprehensible. I can only repeat that neither do they nor do I know how these facts have leaked out, but I can state that no authority for the publication of these facts and figures has been given by any person who is in charge of that kind of information at the War Office. In regard to the second point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, he seems to think that we treated that able and distinguished officer, General Maurice, whose case was before the House last week, rather too gently. I take the view that we treated him not by any means gently, but that we punished him—there is no other word for it—for the action he took, both quickly and effectively, and in accordance with our powers. I pointed out to my hon. and gallant Friend in answer to a question, that there are two ways in which an officer in circumstances of this sort can be

  593
  punished. One is a longer way, and the other is a shorter, and the latter, in my judgment, is the more effective way. The longer way is by court-martial. As the House will appreciate, that is a very difficult form of inquiry in the case of a general of the standing of Sir Frederick Maurice in the Army.
  But the Army Council has power under a Royal Warrant to take immediate action as a judicial body, and this action was taken in the case of General Maurice. The House has always looked upon it as desirable in these cases to come to a quick judgment and to inflict quick punishment, and I think we have been quick in both judgment and punishment. The punishment which General Maurice has received is that he should be retired from the Army, and I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend realises what that punishment means. General Maurice is placed on the retired list, but not with the retired pay of his rank, and at the present moment I do not think that General Maurice will be receiving annually more than £225 a year. When one reflects that his brilliant future has been spoiled and that his very brilliant prospects in the Army have ceased, I think it will be seen that the punishment under Royal Warrant was a swift and severe punishment, and that it will do much to reassure regimental officers and men in the British Army that there is no inclination on the part of the Army Council to favour anyone however exalted the rank. I am quite sure that if you put this case to any general of the British Army at the present time he will say "This is a much more effective way and a much quicker way of dealing with a general than is trial by court-martial" My hon. and gallant Friend asked me whether I have any precedent for this course of action. I tell him quite frankly that I do not know personally of any case where an officer has been punished for sending communications of this sort to the Press. But undoubtedly there may have been occasions when an officer or a soldier had to be tried for this offence, but there are no means by which the War Office can find out definitely information as to the exact number of punishments which have been inflicted under that particular Section of the Army Act or under the Royal Warrant. I can, however, go so far as to say that even distinguished and gallant Members of this House who are or may have been on the Territorial Force Reserve came on one or
  594
  two occasions pretty near it. I need not mention the cases; my hon. and gallant Friend may know of one of them. I can. assure my hon. Friend that I think the-action which had to be taken in the case of General Maurice will have a very great effect, and that it will make generals in. distinguished positions hesitate long before they take the action which General Maurice took. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend raised any other question, but, if so, I shall be only too glad to let him have an answer. Before I sit down. I should like once more, to make it perfectly clear that in the action that we have-taken in regard to General Maurice there-was no attempt on our part to show any favouritism of any sort or kind simply because he happened to be a distinguished general and rendered distinguished service-to the State. I think it would be a calamity if the idea got abroad that because a man occupied a very high rank he received from the Army Council or any other military authority any preferential treatment.
  Commander BELLAIRS: It is the other-way about in some people's minds.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: That may be so And if that is true I think it points to the-facts that in General Maurice's case we-have effected a just punishment, because if the people in the country are divided as to what the effect of that punishment has been it goes a long way to show that a just medium has been reached and that, in the interests of all concerned, particularly in the interests of the discipline of the Army, we have taken a most proper and effective course.

  ALLIED DIPLOMACY.
  Mr. DENMAN: I think it would be a. misfortune if we left the Debate on foreign affairs, which we began this morning without drawing from it the conclusions that will arise in many minds as regards its practical value for the present and the future. There are two considerations I should like to put before His Majesty's Government, and if the Noble Lord is able to give us any assurance on them I am sure it will give widespread public satisfaction. The two considerations that clearly arise from the events of last year are these. First, there are-obvious uses of the diplomatic offensive From that it is natural that we should ask: Are we using the weapon of the

  595
  diplomatic offensive with its full effect? The second question that arises even more insurgently is: Have we attained the utmost unity of diplomatic machinery of which the Alliance is capable, or can we advance along lines of greater unity, and so very really increase our diplomatic forces? The Noble Lord quite recently in an interview referred to the dangers of what was described as a peace offensive. I regret the phrase, because it contains some indication that peace is a disease and something to be avoided at all costs, though I know it is quite unintentional. The phrase I shall myself use is diplomatic offensive, which means the same thing and does not give rise to any misconception. The one thing clear in the interview was the importance the Noble Lord attached to the diplomatic offensive. What was his argument? That by the skilful use of neutral agents, by specious offers spread abroad among the people, you can do something to weaken the popular will to victory. The pacifist is visualised as a person fed on a meagre ration of home-grown food who, on receiving a substantial dump of foreign supplies, waxes fat with offensive zeal. I agree there is a great deal of truth in that. The question arises, Are we endeavouring to perform the same operation amongst the Central Powers and their allies? Of course, in the nature of things it is not a subject on which the Noble Lord can give us intimate details, and I do not complain that he has to answer in very general terms. But there is this difference between the diplomatic offensive conducted by the Central Powers and the one conducted by ourselves, that we are not in the least ashamed. As I understand it, we are all united in the prosecution of the peace aims declared by our Prime Minister and the President of the United States of America, and we are not ashamed to spread them abroad in any quarter of the world. We have no need to adopt that secrecy and those tortuous methods which are necessary to statesmen who are following devious paths.
  I am bound to say the one public fact we have learned as to the Government's activity in this direction is not wholly reassuring. I refer to the appointment of Lord Northcliffe as Director of Propaganda in enemy countries. I hate introducing personalities, because there are far too many of them nowadays, and it poisons a great deal the atmosphere
  596
  which we would like to keep free from such matters. I am the last person to desire to depreciate the valuable work Lord Northcliffe has done in many directions throughout this War. What I want to argue is that just in so far as his work has been valuable in other directions, it makes him an unsuitable instrument for this particular form of activity. Lord Northcliffe stands in the public mind as the leader of the "bitter end," extreme militant point of view, and that is surely the very type of person whom you should not select for conducting propaganda in enemy countries. Lord Northcliffe is to the German what Count Reventlow is to us, and if we were told that Reventlow was undertaking the task of German propaganda in this country obviously the work of German propaganda would be at once absolutely stultified. It would give rise to an atmosphere of extreme hostility in all quarters in this House. The type of mind you want to conduct propaganda in enemy countries is surely the President Wilson type of mind, the man who is prepared to say he has no quarrel with the German people as such, but will wage unending war with the Junker, Prussian, element. A man who can appeal to the democratic spirit in enemy countries and strengthen the democratic influence, rather than turn them into a line of immediate and emphatic hostility When you see the Government employing Lord Northcliffe as an instrument of the diplomatic offensive, it obviously gives room for doubt whether they are making the best use of that weapon and whether they themselves really recognise the powers that can be wielded by means of it, though they are free to recognise the dangers of it when it is used within this country. So I ask the Noble Lord if he will set at rest the widespread doubts and say that, as far as they can, they are doing their utmost towards a peace offensive in enemy lands, and that they are making diplomacy bear its fair share in furthering our aims and not neglecting the full use of one political weapon and thereby throwing undue burdens on the other political weapon, namely, the armed forces of the Crown.
  My doubts are in some measures confirmed by the Government's failure to unify the Allies' diplomatic forces as they have unified so many of our other forces. It is surely remarkable that while they have brought to a very high pitch of unification the military and economic

  597
  3.0 P.M.
  powers of the Allies, they appear to have done exceedingly little to unify the diplomatic forces. I need not enlarge on the increase of diplomatic power which the Allies would derive from possessing a single diplomatic power or a united diplomatic machine. No expression of opinion on this point could have been stronger than that of the Foreign Secretary in the early part of this Debate. But is it not possible that some such machine could be set up; and now surely, if ever, is the time for it! There is of necessity, while the events on the Western Front are still hanging in the balance, a slackening of diplomatic effort. That must be so, and that is the time when you can set up fresh machinery. The Noble Lord knows well enough that if and when we have succeeded in beating back the German offensive there will come a time of diplomatic strain when it will be impossible to start new machinery, and we shall feel the evil effects of five different Foreign Offices and five different Cabinets working without any sufficient co-ordination. The secret treaties have revealed, even more than the affairs we have discussed earlier in the Debate to-day, the confusion caused by the incompatible aim sand ambitions that have surged up from time to time in the councils of the Allies. How great is the weakness of that effect it is most difficult to estimate. The Central Powers have clearly had great encouragement in assuring their people that in 1917 they were fighting in self-defence for the preservation of their country. The Central Powers have been encouraged by the absence of any kind of Allied diplomacy to spread peace offers, which is always a danger to Alliances, more particularly in time of victory. While the American conditions were at least a basis for probably successful negotiations, the attitude of the Allies was a barrier. For this confusion and consequent danger I ask the Government to substitute a central diplomatic council at Versailles, a council speaking with a single voice and examining, with the necessary materials, if any, put before it, every proposal or hint which emanates from the Central Powers, and conducting a vigorous and unceasing diplomatic offensive. Only so can the full united forces of the Allies attain their greatest strength. There are subsidiary, although important, advantages which would arise out of such a council. It would be a body that might
  598
  well form the foundation upon which an institution might be developed appropriate to a League of Nations, and, perhaps of even more importance, would be the knowledge and intimate understanding of foreign affairs which would be gained by the younger generation of statesmen of all Allied countries, including the States. This is a subtle and indirect advantage it is difficult to exaggerate. The rubbing together of different points of view, personal friendships, the daily study of foreign problems, would provide an education in international problems such as has rarely been available to any State, and of the permanent value of which in its influence on peace it is difficult to speak too highly. Those are the two points I wish to bring to the attention of the Government. I regard myself as one of its humblest supporters, and I am sure the Noble Lord will realise that these suggestions are made in no spirit of criticism. I believe the Government to be the best exponent of a policy which seems somehow rare in this House, though common enough outside. I represent those who look for a Government that shall be Prussian in its vigour in the conduct of the War, and American in its single-mindedness in the pursuit of peace; and it is because I should like assurance that it is showing in the latter part of the policy the vigour and energy I recognise it puts into the first part that I have made these suggestions to the Noble Lord to-day.
  Mr. McCURDY: I should like to take the opportunity of the presence of the Noble Lord the Minister of Blockade to say a few further words upon the subject which has been touched upon by the last speaker, and that is the question of what he styled the diplomatic offensive. I want very seriously to suggest to the Minister of Blockade that there is real need of the adoption of new methods on the part of the diplomatists among the Allied countries. It is not fair that our soldiers should be making the enormous sacrifices which they are making without at the same time receiving every kind of support on the part of the diplomatic forces of the Allied Powers, and I cannot help feeling, for reasons which I will briefly explain, that our soldiers are not at present receiving the full support to which they are entitled. We talk a. good deal about bombing German towns, and bombing German trades, but I should like to see a real diplomatic offensive started for the purpose of bombing the con-

  599
  sciences of the German people. The way not to do it is, of course, illustrated by the facts which have been brought out in the Debate this afternoon, and that is by our diplomatists in public continually making statements on war aims of proposals or counter proposals which are based upon questions of territory. It is an entire mistake, I venture to submit, for the Allied Governments ever to state their war aims in terms of territory, because, after all, questions of territory are merely incidental questions, and they are questions a true and fair solution of which can never be determined until we have first settled the main substantial issue, and that is by what reorganisation of the constitution of international relations, or in what other way are we going to give the countries now unhappily at war security for the future.
  I take as an example the question which has been raised this afternoon about what is called the 1814 boundary of Alsace-Lorraine. It is suggested that it would be a very improper thing indeed for France to be making even a suggestion that under any circumstances those ancient frontiers of France might be restored. I noticed the other day the most distinguished Belgian, M. Maeterlinck, was saying that, so far as Belgium is concerned, the Belgians regard the creation of a buffer state from the Saar Valley up to the left bank of the Rhine as essential to the future security of Belgium; and if the Allied Statesmen cannot give Belgium any better security for her future than she possessed at the outbreak of this War, who is there in this House would dare to say that it was an improper or a shameful thing that somebody should propose, as a matter of discussion and negotiation, that, for the protection of Belgium, a buffer State should be created between the frontier of Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine against future German aggression? Therefore, when you come on to these questions of territory, you must first know whether the nations are going to have any security, other than military and naval preparations, in the future, or whether they are not. If in the future, as in the past, the security of a nation is to depend entirely upon its power to defend itself, in case of need, against a wanton violation of public right by force of arms, then it has every right to demand the rectification of frontiers, if necessary,
  600
  or to demand the creation of buffer States, and it is only upon the assumption which we hope will happily prove to be true, that by the formation of that League of Nations, of which President Wilson has spoken, or in some other way, there is to be a real security given to small countries like Belgium for their future, when this War is over—that one can then say, under those circumstances, that any questions of altering frontiers are unnecessary and provocative, and are matters which ought not to be brought up.
  There is another reason why our war aims should not be placed upon a territorial basis. Let us sum up in a sentence or two the letter of the Emperor Karl. What happened I There were, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury said, certain circumstances which pointed strongly to a certain amount of collusion between the two Emperors of the Central Powers as to their movements in March or April of last year, and we find the Emperor Karl, as representing Austria, saying to France in effect, "It is not necessary for the French to continue the War,, because we will give you Alsace-Lorraine. The War is only being continued because those unreasonable Italians want to takeaway territory belonging to Austria. You make a separate peace, and you will have all you want. Never mind about Italy; what is Italy to you? "Then, on the other hand, Germany goes to Italy and says," What are you fighting for? We can get you Trieste and the Trentino from Austria; you need not go on fighting—why-should you?—in order that France may have Alsace-Lorraine! "So they play off one against the other, and with that diabolical cunning which marks the diplomacy of the Central Powers from start to finish, you will observe each Power promises that which it is not in its power to perform. So that once the dupe is brought into the trap, the partner and the Ally can say," Oh, Austria promised you. Alsace-Lorraine, did she? It was very kind of her, but she had no power to give it "Austria can say," Oh, Germany has-been offering the Trentino and Trieste, has she? Well, she did not consult us about it beforehand. Now, like the Bolshevik armies, having laid down your arms and gone home—having got peace negotiations on the brain—we shall reconsider the terms of the Emperor Karl's letter, or any other proposal of that

  601
  description. Now we will let you know what a German peace means" They need not tell us; we know already !
  We do not want to discuss our aims in terms of territory. It is unscientific; it is un statesman like to attempt to do so. You cannot reasonably state what should be the frontiers of Europe until you have first settled the question of whether it is to be a Europe, in the centre of which is to be a militant autocracy, caring for nothing but its own selfish interests, prepared at any moment to resume its business of carrying on its own aggrandisement by war of conquest, or whether, on the other hand, it is a Europe which will come under the rule of law and order. It is quite idle to talk about the rectification of frontiers, just as it is quite idle to talk about the question of the return of the German colonies in Africa, until we know whether the natives are to be handed over to the same people who have butchered, outraged, and massacred them in the past, or whether they are to be handed back to a democratised, reformed, repentant Germany!
  No, that is not the way in which the war aims of the Allies should be stated, if we are to assist our soldiers in the field. Let us not reiterate a multiplicity of territorial issues, which inevitably divide. Why cannot our Government for once state in a plain and unmistakable way to the world at large the simple and essential issue which is not only so much greater and more important than these minor issues, but is different in kind as well as importance? What is the great issue? We are fighting for security. We are fighting to make it impossible for this War to recur. The difference, I say, is in kind as well as in magnitude, because, while other issues arc issues which inevitably divide the combatants, this is an issue which unites, and which unites not merely the Allied Powers, but unites our enemies as well. If we are now fighting, as we are, to make a recurrence of this War impossible, we are fighting for something which is just as dear to the hearts of the German people as it is to our own. If we are fighting to save our children from the horrors of another war we are indeed fighting, too, to save the children of the German people from the horrors of another war—and it is just as well that the German people should be occasionally reminded of that fact. That is why I do press this matter. It is not the first time I have raised this question, and, if the opportunity be given
  602
  me, it will not be the last. I do press upon the Government the necessity of reconsidering their whole method of presenting the war aims of this country to our Allies and to the world at large.
  Reference has been made to Lord Northcliffe as a propagandist. I should like to say this: One of the first acts of Lord Northcliffe, on his appointment as a propagandist, was to devote more than a whole page of the "Times" to a verbatim reprint of the memorandum of war aims drawn up by the Inter-Allied Conference in London representing the Socialism and Labour of all the Allied countries. This was a document of the utmost possible importance. The printing of it in such a verbatim form in the "Times" was obviously not calculated to increase the sale or the circulation of the "Times" in this country. It was, however, an act of very great propagandist value, as ensuring that a verbatim report of an important document would go wherever the "Times" would carry it over the continent of Europe. That was a step in the right direction. It is open to this criticism, the document was one of 3,000 words. It is not a document; it is an encyclopædia, and an encyclopædia which ought to be read and digested on the instalment plan. Volumes could be written on war aims and diplomacy upon all the paragraphs of that voluminous and statesmanlike document. It was followed by a speech from the Prime Minister when he addressed a meeting of the Congress of Trade Unions. That speech was one of 3,000 words. In it the right hon. Gentleman covered the same ground as did the document. It was a most able speech. It was a speech in entire harmony with the views of Labour and Socialism, as expressed in. the document, and of President Wilson; but it was much too long. It went far too much into these territorial questions, which do not carry conviction in the minds of simple-minded men on either side of the North Sea. Therefore I do venture to press upon the Government sometimes to drop this discussion of territorial questions, to leave such discussion over till a more convenient season, and say a few plain, homely words about what we mean when we say that we are fighting for security.
  I make this practical suggestion, that if you really want to explain your war aims to the people of this country, or to the Allies and to the world at large, the simplest explanation would be to do some-

  603
  thing—something concrete and tangible which they could see. You say you want to abolish war: why not start by agreeing not to make war on one another? You say, "We are trying to make it impossible for any war to recur" Why not, at any rate, start by agreeing never to make war on the United States of America? They would be quite willing.
  Mr. KING: We have such an agreement already.
  Mr. McCURDY: I beg your pardon: that is an example of the imperfect information that one finds in the most unexpected quarters. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have known the Bryan Treaties from A to Z. They are not treaties abolishing war, but legitimising it, recognising its propriety by defining conditions precedent upon which you can go into a war of aggression with a clean heart and a good conscience. All you have to do is to agree to arbitrate first and then to wait twelve months. That arrangement is only binding between ourselves and America for five years.
  Mr. KING: You would never have war under those conditions—that is, if you have to wait a year—never!
  Mr. McCURDY: A treaty of that kind may satisfy, and rightly satisfy, my hon. Friend, because of his great diplomatic experience and his statesmanlike and constructive mind. He is able to read out of that somewhat jejune document the beneficial results which no doubt may flow from it. Let me say that it is no good for propaganda purposes. We want an agreement much more simple than that and much more comprehensive, and there is no reason why this country and the United States of America and the great Republic of France should not commence tomorrow by saying in the face of the world that we are fighting to make war impossible again, and that, so far as we are concerned, we are never going to make war again, and we put our hands to a solemn Treaty to that effect. That would do more to make clear our essential war aims than many speeches. I support the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Carlisle, (Mr. Denman), that the first real constructive need of war aim propaganda is to start and build, in the eyes of all mankind, at least the foundation of that League of Nations, and of that recon-
  604
  struction of the international machine which President Wilson, and all Allied Statesmen, say is the means on which they will rely to make war impossible in the future, but which is very difficult for the uninstructed man in this country, or Allied countries, to fully understand until he can see in plain form the structure being built, and in that way realise our sincerity of purpose. If that were done, it would be a diplomatic offensive in the right direction, calculated to do-no possible harm to the cause of the Allies, but would, as a matter of fact, weaken and divide the enemy, and strengthen the resolution of our own people and of our own soldiers who are fighting at the front.
  Mr. WHYTE: The speakers on this subject this afternoon have, I think, accepted the hint thrown out by the Foreign Secretary that it is impossible to conduct a discussion on this subject on the same lines as obtain in our discussions on domestic politics. Every Debate on foreign politics during the last three or four years has been conducted, in the main, in that spirit, and, therefore, the Foreign Secretary ought to be well satisfied with the form of this Debate, and the spirit which has animated every speaker. I hope the right hon. Gentleman's mind is receptive enough to take stock of the very useful hint which has just been made in the characteristic and interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. McCurdy). In that speech, as well as in the speech made by the hon. Member for Carlisle, there found expression a feeling which is widespread throughout the country, and in quarters in which pacifist doctrines have never found a place that, along with the portentous and gigantic reorganisation of this country for military purposes of this War, there never has been a sufficient orientation of the mind of the Government towards the political issue. The Foreign Secretary told us, when we are discussing the political issues of the War, we must remember that they are not as domestic issues are, and that in them not only the British Government is concerned, but other Governments, over whom the British Government has no more than the influence of a friend, and sometimes not that, and that therefore anything said in relation to the political attitude of His Majesty's Government

  605
  towards the diplomatic side of the War should always take into account the difficulty of conducting war in an Alliance.
  That is perfectly true. Take, for instance, the specific issue out of which this Debate arose to-day. I do not believe that there would have been a Debate to-day on this subject if it had not been that practically every report which came to us from France offered different accounts of the negotiations launched by the Emperor Charles' letter to Prince Sixte, of Bourbon-Parma. But, though these accounts differ in many important respects, they all coincide in attributing to the British Prime Minister a special and peculiar part in those negotiations, and they all insist that the Prime Minister used his influence with the Prime Ministers of the Republic of France and. the Kingdom of Italy, to show that if a proposal of this sort was made it ought to be probed to the bottom, even though it turned out not to be based on good faith. That is very sound doctrine provided you know who you are dealing with, and the Government and the country knows quite well how to distinguish a purely diplomatic offensive of the kind described by the Foreign Secretary as a peace offensive from a bonâ fide offer of peace terms.
  I do not think the Foreign Secretary can complain that this Debate has been raised to-day because it has given him the opportunity of making several very important announcements. First, that the British Government has never been responsible for the initiation of any of these secret negotiations; secondly, that the Government has always insisted that, whenever proposals were made, and from whatever quarter they came, they should be treated on their merits, although the latest speech of the Minister of Blockade did not seem to indicate that that treatment had been meted out to every proposal that was made; and, thirdly, that whatever wild aims may have been attributed to other members of the Alliance the British Government has never countenanced them. I will never believe that the Alliance as a whole would countenance any extravagant aim. I have always understood that in relation to one or two agreements which were certainly open to criticism, there were at the time the agreements were made cogent reasons why they should be made, although sometimes the makers of them were unable to see their most distant and
  606
  perhaps more disastrous results. Therefore, I do not wish for a moment to cavil at the Government for the course they took, and I think the House will agree with the decision arrived at by a small majority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the French Chamber, that the offer conveyed through the Emperor Charles' letter to Prince Sixte was not one upon which a bonâ fide peace could have been founded. I think my hon. Friends were justified in concluding that there is not a sufficiently cohesive arid coherent method of dealing with these things when they arise.
  I have never been an advocate of open diplomacy in its cruder form, and, I believe, all negotiations must be initiated by private conversations, and there will be little suspicion of those private conversations if the public were assured that the main principles upon which the Government were operating had their full consent, and they would be still more confident of the final result if the diplomatic intentions and movements of the whole Alliance were guided by something like the same unity of control as exists in regard to the military. We have had declarations of the political side of the War from bodies which were really set up to deal with military affairs. I think that we are entitled to ask for something in the nature of a political council at Versailles. There is one substantial difficulty in the way, and it is germane to one of the questions which was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman). What position would the United States occupy in that respect? The United States is in the position of an Ally which has not yet signed the compact of London. It is, therefore, in a position in some way the most powerful of the belligerents, and is not bound exactly by the same compacts which govern the others. Until the United States comes into that compact it might be difficult to form a political council at Versailles, but I am quite sure, if a council of that sort could be formed, and if the Government were assured that its deliberations were governed by those principles which have been laid down over and over again by the principal leaders of the Alliance, both here and abroad, public opinion, as a whole, would be a great deal steadier than it sometimes shows signs of being, and would be able to support the Allied Governments in resisting every diplomatic offensive

  607
  which was not based upon an honest purpose. I should like to say one word, not about the latest diplomatic offensive, but about the diplomatic offensive which has been conducted in one form or another ever since the Sixte letter was handed to M. Ribot. That letter has been discussed this afternoon, mainly as a means of dividing the Allies, and the offer made to M. Briand in Switzerland some months later was also discussed in that sense. I agree, but behind that motive there was surely a much greater one, and that was not to divide one Ally from the other, but to separate the problems of Eastern Europe from those of the West, and to try and persuade the democracies of the West that the result of the War will be that those ideals of public right and justice and freedom for nationalities, and so on, which have figured so often and so eloquently in the proclamations of our war aims, can obtain, if we will, west of the Rhine, but that east of the Rhine to Mesopotamia there shall obtain not the rule of right, but the rule of force as interpreted by German power.
  That seems to me to be the great lesson to be learned from all these offensives. I do not believe in the long run, things being as they are, that it will be possible for any diplomatic design of the Central Powers to separate one of our Allies from the rest, but I do believe, unless the Government take care to keep before the country the even greater issues which I have just mentioned, that when we do come to make peace, serious temptations will be offered to us to make peace on a basis upon which it will be absolutely impossible to establish the rule of right or law throughout Europe. You cannot hope for anything in the nature of that new international order which has just been so eloquently described, or even to lay the first stones of the foundation of that order, unless the peace which emerges from this War is a peace which establishes public law not only in Western Europe but also, and still more firmly, in Eastern Europe. The principles which we proclaimed at the beginning of the War of re-establishing the idea of public right are just as cogent, and infinitely more needed, in Eastern Europe than they are in Western Europe. I believe it is long since any man who has really studied the question closely doubted whether we should be able to release Belgium and restore her complete independence, both politically
  608
  and economically, but it has taken all the four years' education of the War—and the education is not yet complete—to explain to people in this country that exactly the same issue for which we went to war in the Belgian case is at stake in every other crucial case in Eastern Europe. That argument can be addressed with the same success and the same confidence to practically every school of political thought in this country. I do not care whether you are a pure Imperialist, of, say, the "Morning Post" school, or whether you are a pure pacifist of the school of the Union of Democratic Control. A peace founded upon Macht Politik in Eastern Europe is equally disastrous to both. I should have thought by this time that we should be able to see in every diplomatic design of the Central Powers that master thread running through them all—namely, of establishing and garnering the fruits of all their victories in Eastern Europe at the comparatively small expense of yielding territory to which they have no right in Western Europe; and I express the hope with all the cogency at my command to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Blockade that the Government will take care whenever they discuss the diplomatic and political side of the War to accept the hints which have been offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. McCurdy), and in particular to point out to the British people and all the democratic peoples of Western Europe, especially after the peace of Brest-Litovsk and the disastrous peace that the. Central Powers have imposed upon Roumania, that their outlook towards peace in the future is just as much at stake in Eastern Europe as in their own more comfortable and peaceful part in the West.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: It was with great pleasure that I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend, and I want to use additional arguments to force home his point. I have had no consultation with him whatever. I came here to-day convinced that a new point of view should be stated in this House. I was discussing the other day with an important diplomat the vitally important "question of what the war aims were to be, and I said to him" This War is becoming a struggle between President Wilson and the Round Table, "and he said" Yes; and it is the Round Table that will win" I want to put this to my hon. Friends of pacifist persuasion, because they without knowing it

  609
  are so far as I can see in league with the Round Table scheme. Lord Milner and the others of that group, are, I think, anxious to secure a peace of adjustment, a peace which shall attain our aims in the West and leave the East out of account, which shall slice up tropical Africa and the German colonies without any regard to the native rights and any regard to anything but real politik, a peace which will preserve the dynasties, but deny the rights of democracies throughout the world. That peace will not be a real one. It will involve the burden of militarism upon all the peoples of the world till the next war comes. It is a negation of the idea of a League of Nations, because no League of Nations can be based upon an unjust peace which denies the rights of nationalities. You cannot have a League of Nations with an international police to prevent intervention and the altering of existing boundaries, if those boundaries are fundamentally and notoriously unjust. Therefore, this peace which may be offered to us any day now, a peace whereby the Western Powers will attain their aims, and a peace which will absolutely disregard any reopening of the Eastern question would be a disaster to the whole civilised world. It would be a peace which will not obtain the sanction and the guarantee of the American Republic.
  The important thing—indeed, the vital thing—for us as Englishmen is to remember that any peace which is obtained must be a peace guaranteed by America. One thing that this War has done has been to unite the Anglo-Saxon race throughout the world. There is one way in which we can split that unity and revert to the prewar preparation, jealousy and rivalry between ourselves and America—that is, by accepting a peace which denies all that President Wilson has proposed or that he has advocated throughout these years of war; indeed, not merely since the outbreak of war, but before. If we are going to make the world safe for democracy, we have to back up President Wilson and his war aims rather than an adjusted peace, which will be a militaristic peace and which will saddle upon us Conscription, armaments, secret diplomacy, and all the curses of the Old World of which we are striving to get rid. The unfortunate thing is that in this country we speak with a divided voice. One knows that the bulk of the people of this country are in favour of President Wilson's terms. The Labour party have backed it up. I believe the
  610
  Liberal party backs it right through, not only Liberal militarists like myself, but even pacifists like the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite). The people of this country would sooner have President Wilson's war aims than the policy stated by either Front Bench in this House. The bulk of the population of this country, and, so far as I can see, the bulk of the population in France also, support President Wilson's war aims.
  We are in serious danger of being rushed by a secret diplomacy—not merely the diplomacy of our Foreign Office, but the diplomacy run in the "Garden" in Downing Street—into a peace which will perpetuate war, which will perpetuate kings, kingdoms, and aristocracies, and deny rights through all time to democracy throughout the world. We are up against that sort of diplomacy, with the weird combination of Lord Lansdowne, Mr. E. D. Morel, and Lord Milner. No one has a keener admiration for Lord Milner than I have, but I dislike his policy. If that weird combination were to settle a premature peace in this War, it would be a disaster to the whole of the forces of democracy in the world. We do not want to have an unsatisfactory peace. We have made sacrifices, we are prepared to make even more sacrifices if the peace is worth fighting for, but we are not going to be forced by the fear of revolution or by the fear of an Income Tax of 10s. in the £ to compound with our consciences and accept that which sells the rest of the democracy of Europe. I know that strong pressure will be brought when Germany enters the lists for peace to accept the status quo in the East, to accept the subjugation of the subject races in Austria, the subjection of Courland, Lithuania, Livonia, and of Poland, in order that we may get slices of territory in Africa. We do not want slices of territory in Africa. We want justice. Our men are lighting for that and not for militaristic aims. It is not the British Empire, but democracy which is the backbone of this War.
  I welcome the opportunity of stating here that the democracy of England, Liberal and Labour, is behind President Wilson and not behind the "Garden" in Downing Street. [An HON. MEMBER. "What about the Tories?"] The Tories are divided, but many of them are standing for democracy too, although many of them accept the nationalistic ideas of the Old World; they have stepped out of the reign of George III., and think that they

  611
  can conduct the world in the twentieth century on those lines. We know that so far as our Allies are concerned the policy of America must prevail. It is no use blinking the fact. Why, then, should we go out of our way to advocate policies which America has turned down? In the East, particularly in connection with the Russian difficulty, America has throughout taken an absolutely democratic line, which results have shown to be in the interests of the whole Allied policy in this War. Would it not have been better if our Government had taken their cue more from America and less from other of our Allies? It is a difficult subject for me to touch upon, but I will say this, that the more the President of the United States comes out into the open and advocates and forces upon the rest of the Allies this policy, the more he will be supported by the democracy of Europe and the better it will be for our Government if they find out his views beforehand and back them up rather than accept dictation from other directions. We do not want to have any sort of controversy with America. They came into this War, just as we entered it, for purely altruistic reasons. We knew when we started in this War that we were not afraid of invasion by Germany. We went in to protect France and Belgium. America came in for the same reason, not because she was the least afraid about herself. She came in because she believed she was fighting for the cause of democracy and justice. [An HON. MEMBER:" How long did it take her to find it out?"] Perhaps longer than it took us. Distance from the scene of conflict makes a great deal of difference. America has come in on exactly the same lines as ourselves. She is not in this War to get anything for herself. I hope that we in this country are out to get nothing for ourselves, but all for democracy.
  Mr. KING: The two last eloquent speeches have drawn the attention of the House to the position in the East of Europe. I propose, in accordance with the notice I have given, to call attention to the position in the Eastern States of Europe and to ask the Government to make a statement of their policy and aims. Those who are following anxiously but hopefully affairs in Russia and those countries which were previously part of Russia may have observed in the "Times" this morning an account of a speech
  612
  delivered yesterday by Sir George Buchanan, our recent Ambassador in Petrograd, which gives some ground for hope, especially as Sir George Buchanan, in the course of his remarks, stated that he brought to the meeting he was addressing a message from the Foreign Secretary. There cannot, then, be any doubt that he was speaking not merely from the position of one who had held high office in Petrograd under our Foreign Office, but that he also was in immediate touch with the Foreign Secretary on this matter. In the course of his remarks he said:
  "Russia had now been split up into a number of republics. He hoped that in the end she would be stronger than ever. We must not disinterest ourselves in Russia because of what had happened recently, for if we did so it would allow her to fall completely under German domination. If Germany was allowed to control Russia's enormous Empire and her vast natural resources of unexploited wealth, she would become the mistress of the East, and whatever conditions were imposed in the West, then Germany would have won the War. He was afraid this fact had not penetrated into the minds of the British public.'
  Sometimes I am almost afraid to think the fact has not penetrated into the minds of British Statesmen at the Foreign Office, because recently we have had no public sign—I hope something has been going on behind the scenes—that we are offering any material help, encouragement or hope to the Russian people, and it is because I want to face facts and to suggest methods by which we could do this that I am speaking to-day. First of all, are we facing the true facts, not as they are represented by the "Times" Newspaper or Reuter's correspondent, but as we may gather them from the organs of neutral opinion and from the best informed persons who have recently returned from Russia and elsewhere in the East? The-facts are, of course, first of all, that the strength of the present Bolshevik Government is greater than ever. When it was established early in November, 1917, it was the opinion of the newspapers, again and again repeated, and apparently even the opinion of official circles here, that the Bolsheviks would fall, as the five previous Governments of Russia had done, in the course of a week or two. That Government has lasted for six months, and now even the "Times" newspaper is reporting that Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolsheviks are stronger than ever. Some of us, especially if we have Russian bonds, may not like that prospect, but let us face the facts, and if the Bolsheviks have esta-

  613
  blished a strength which no other Government since the Tsar had, if the prospect of being turned out is as remote as ever— more remote than it has been before—the obvious conclusion is that we must in some form or other, sooner or later, recognisen the Bolshevik Government as the de facto Government of the country.
  I believe we can afford to do so if we move on dignified and cautious lines, for one thing is evident. The Bolsheviks are at present modifying and moderating their policy in certain most important respects. They are so modifying their policy as almost to invite us to step in and help them. A little time ago there was nothing but the State bank and the Cooperative bank, but now actually private banks are being enabled to open their doors. That is a great advance, and though no doubt it is under great restrictions it suggests the possibility of the opening of foreign trade and the use of capital apart from strict Socialist control, which we have not had before. That is a remarkable sign. Another is the development of a regular army. The Bolshevik Force, the Red Guards, let us suppose, have been a tatterdemalion crew. Let us suppose they have been lacking in the usual order and discipline of an army. But now there is growing up a definitely organised, better equipped, better officered army than there has been certainly since the early days of the Revolution. Probably the Russian armies which are being formed, and are growing up now, will have the prospect of being stronger in another few weeks for even offensive operations against the Germans than before. That is a matter which is difficult to decide on the evidence that we have, but we still retain our military mission in Russia. I suggest to our authorities that close inquiries as to the progressing organisation of the Russian Army at present might be made by our military authorities. Another point which is very remarkable in connection with recent Bolshevik policy is that the Bolsheviks are now taking into their Soviets others than men who have been manual labourers. At first there was almost a tendency to reject anyone who was not engaged in actual labour. Now intellectuals are coming in in much greater numbers, especially teachers and professors, and the result is that the Bolshevik Government is getting an intellectual force of men of university training
  614
  in a measure which it never had before, and its prospect of organising the country and developing its resources, and getting a real moral and intellectual force behind the Government, is much greater at present than it was.
  That being so, can we not make some approach to the Bolshevik Government? I believe if our Foreign Office had ever really thought the Bolsheviks would have been in their present position six months ago they would not have cut themselves off from relations with them so hopelessly as they did. They did not expect their life to be so prolonged. They did not expect that the Germans, brutal as that military power is, would behave with such callous disregard of their own word and with such public brutality as that with which they treated the Russians. We have all been deceived in these respects, but are there not grounds now why we should come very near to having good relations with the Bolshevik Government? It will mean some amount of restraint and possibly some amount of humiliation for us who have imprisoned Chicherin, the present Foreign Minister, and other great and eminent Bolsheviks within the last few months. It is very difficult, but let us accept our humiliation and do it manfully. After all, if we have committed a fault, do not let us tell lies to make people believe we have never done so. Let us face the fact that we must admit our errors.
  4.0. P.M.
  I will now make some practical suggestions. Having discussed these matters with persons of much greater experience and weight than myself, I make them personally. Act in the closest accord with President Wilson. His remarkable message to the Russians at the time the Brest-Litovsk negotiations had to be accepted and their conclusions faced did an immense amount of good in giving hope to the Russians from America. Let us act in that same spirit here and as closely as possible in the same accord. The second thing I want to suggest is that whether we recognise the Bolshevik Government or not, we should immediately send some sympathtic person to represent us in. Russia. The French have a Minister there who is not very sympathetic. The Americans have a Minister, but he is not fully accredited—Mr. Francis. We might send someone with higher authority and position than Mr. Lockhart. We have a representative in Petrograd now,

  615
  Mr. Lockhart, who is simply entrusted with the care of the interests of British subjects, but he has no diplomatic position. The personal qualifications of Mr. Lockhart are very high, but I would like to suggest that we sent someone who has a. very close sympathy with Labour and internationalism. It was a good move months ago to send the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle to Russia, but the treatment that his suggestions and policy received when he came back almost did away, and probably more than did away, with the wisdom in sending him. Whoever we send, let us send someone who will be personally sympathetic towards the Russian people. If possible, I would suggest, without any disrespect, that we should not send one of the old diplomatic servants. Discourage, as far as possible, offences against the Russians here. Let us recognise that the Russians have different ideals, different mentalities, and a different angle, as the Foreign Secretary himself has said, from ourselves. Do discourage attacks—wild, wicked, and malicious attacks—on Russians here. The way in which the Russians have been spoken of in some of the great organs of the Press as if they were all traitors to the Allied cause, and as if they were all ready to accept so much money from the Germans or anybody else for any purpose, is offensive and does absolutely no good. One or two expressions have been used by Ministers—I will not recall them, but I have them most distinctly in mind—which can be nothing but most offensive to the Russian people as a whole. A very well-known Oxford professor (M. Paul Vino-gradoff) only a few weeks ago expressed in quite strong language the shame he felt that Russia was being, as he said, blackguarded by large sections of the English people.
  I have made practical suggestions, and I hope I have made nothing but what can be called a hopeful speech. I recognise that we have all made mistakes in this War, and all of our Governments, if they could only go back, how differently they would have managed affairs! Of all the mistakes that are obvious, there is none so great as our mistaken policy in the last few months towards Russia; but there is no mistake that we have made which I believe at the present moment we can so easily and honourably go back upon and, if not retrace our steps, at any rate
  616
  strike out on a new line. I do urge upon the Government that every means should be taken, if not by an immediate recognition of the Soviet Government, yet by stages in close accord with our Allies, and especially with President Wilson, to gain that end which we all have constantly in view.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not rise for the purpose of dealing with the point which has been so well put by my hon. friend, but I do express the very earnest hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will be able to give a favourable response to the appeal made by my hon. Friend. I think it is to be regretted that no opportunity was given to any Member sitting on these benches, who were described more than once by the Foreign Secretary as the pacifist group, to reply on the question which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman). I think the results of that part of our Debate are likely to be very good. We had a number of admissions from the Foreign Secretary which even those who sit on these benches must regard as satisfactory, and I hope the policy of the Government in future will be in harmony with the declarations and promises that the Foreign Secretary made. The right hon. Gentleman stated that it was most important that there should be complete confidence between the whole of the members of the alliance. On the Foreign Secretary's own admissions this afternoon in regard to the Emperor of Austria's letter, that policy was not carried out It is perfectly clear from the admissions of the right hon. Gentleman that there was a want of confidence on the part of certain of the Allies towards other members of the Alliance. It was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman that one of the most imporant members of the Alliance was not informed of these negotiations. There was one very remarkable omission from the statement made by the Foreign Secretary about these Austrian negotiations. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury put a number of questions, and most of these were answered categorically by the Foreign Secretary, but one, perhaps the most important of all. was either accidentally or wilfully ignored by the Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury asked why these negotiations broke down, and whether it was because it was impossible to satisfy the territorial demands of certain of the Allies. In the Foreign Secretary's speech the name of Baron

  617
  Sonnino was not once introduced. If any reliance is to be placed upon statements which have appeared in the British newspapers it was because of the dissatisfaction of Italy as well as the extreme demands of France that these at one time very promising negotiations broke down.
  I want to put this further question. The late Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) concluded his speech by saying that he hoped there would be no expansion of the original war aims of this country. What were the original war aims of this country? They were stated very often by the right hon. Gentleman himself in the early days of the War. The original war aims of this country were the restitution and the independence of Belgium and the restitution not only of Belgium politically but economically and also the restitution of Serbia and Montenegro. I do not think there is even amongst those who are called pacifists anyone who would not regard these aims as being aims which this country must have in view in a peace settlement. The late Prime Minister was of opinion that these original war aims should still remain the only aims for which this country continued in the Alliance and in the War. Therefore, I put this question. Are these the only war aims to which this country is committed at the present time? I think it is perfectly clear from what we do know, and from what we have reason to believe, that those negotiations which were initiated by the Emperor Karl a little more than twelve months ago broke down because demands were made by certain of our Allies which went far beyond the original war aims of this country. We were specially glad to hear the Foreign Secretary this afternoon disassociate himself from the demand which it is said has been made by the French President for what it is called the old 1814 or 1790 boundary between France and Germany. I do not know how the disclaimer of the Foreign Secretary will be received by Monsieur Clemenceau, but the declarations which have been made by the French Premier and by his predecessor in regard to the Allies' aims are much more extensive than those which have received the authority of any member of the British Government, not excluding even, I believe, the Prime Minister himself.
  So far as our information goes the grounds on which these negotiations broke down were, first, the demand of France that the old boundaries of more than a century ago should be restored, and,
  618
  second, the demands of Italy. If our information is correct the larger measure of blame, notwithstanding the unreasonable and impossible demands put forward by the French President, appears to attach to Italy. The Foreign Secretary deprecated the discussion of matters in this House in which our Allies were equally interested. But we are equally interested in these matters, and perhaps we are more interested than any one of our Allies, because we have a heavier financial responsibility for this War, and we are paying just as great a toll, if not a greater toll, of human life, than any one of our Allies is paying at the present time. Therefore, we have a. right to discuss this question, and the people of this country who are finding this treasure and making these appalling sacrifices of human life—according to the War Office returns yesterday we had 7,500 casualties—have a right to be informed on these questions and to know for what purpose these lives are being sacrificed, and to know—to use the expression of the late Prime Minister—whether they are fighting for the original war aims of this country or for war aims which have been considerably and unreasonably expanded. It is stated that the Prime Minister was at one time quite favourable to the, perhaps I ought not to say acceptance, but, at any rate, the full consideration of the Austrian proposals. Why did he afterwards change his mind? It said that Prince Sixte came to this country and saw the Prime Minister, and the Prime-Minister appears to have been favourably impressed by his statement. Then he went to France and changed his views.
  Now I protest altogether against the influence that Italy appears to be exercising on the counsels of the Allies. Italy came into this War for no high moral purpose. Italy was bribed to come into this War. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense!"] We have it in black and white. The terms that were offered to Italy to join the Allies were most unreasonable and most outrageous. It appears that this War is to continue and that lives are to be sacrificed in order that Italy may obtain these unreasonable demands. I want to know if, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife said he hoped there would be no expansion of the original war aims of this country, he meant that the secret treaties ought to be repudiated, because the promises made in these secret treaties far transcend the original war aims of this

  619
  country, and go far beyond anything which the people of this country were led to believe was the object for which they were called upon to give their treasure and sacrifice their lives. This War should not be continued for a single day to satisfy the selfish Imperialistic ambitions of Italy. I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary's repudiation of the extreme and unreasonable demands of France. I hope that we may have, if not this afternoon, at any rate before long, an equally emphatic repudiation of the Imperialistic war aims of Italy.
  I was delighted to hear the Foreign Secretary say that it would be very unwise to reject any offer of peace negotiation without inquiring into its character and the possibility of its soundness and honesty, but it seems to me not at all consistent with an act which the Undersecretary perpetrated two or three weeks ago. It seems to be a favourite medium of the Under-Secretary, for the announcement of his views and the enunciation of his policy, to call in a newspaper reporter. The representative of Reuter's agency appears to be specially favoured as a medium for the communication of the right hon. Gentleman's views as to foreign questions and policy. He gave an interview to the representative of Reuter about a fortnight ago. That interview must have been arranged beforehand. It is quite certain that the representative of Reuter did not happen to be walking past the Foreign Office and decide that he would go in to see the Under-Secretary and ascertain if there was anything which he would like to communicate. It goes without saying that that interview was an arranged interview, and it was given with a very definite object. There had been rumours for some time of a likely peace offensive by Germany, if I may use the right hon. Gentleman's words to describe a peace offer. It had been understood that the, I will not say representative of a neutral country, but a man from a neutral country, was in this country at the time, and that there were informal negotiations, and it was in an atmosphere like that that the right hon Gentleman gave his interview. It might be very difficult to point to a line in the report of that interview on which the right hon. Gentleman said that any offer which came from Germany would be rejected because it would not be genuine, but that is the only possible interpretation of the interview as a whole.
  620
  I think I can point to actual words in the interview which convey the impression that if the offer came it would be a dishonest offer, not made in the interests of a genuine peace but merely a move in order to deceive the Germans themselves, and to restore the drooping spirits of the German people. There was in a Sunday newspaper the day after the report of the interview which the right hon. Gentleman gave to Reuters' representative what appeared to be an inspired article dealing with this question. It dotted the i's and crossed the t's of the interview, and it really put into plain language what I think any unprejudiced reader of the interview would have regarded as its proper construction. This article said there had been a conflict between the militarist clique and the politicians in Germany in which the militarists had come out on top, and this reported peace offer was an attempt on the part of Von Kuhlmann to pacify the other side. Surely if that were the object any offer of peace which came from Germany ought to be heartily welcome. But the effect of the interview which the right hon. Gentleman gave could only be to cement together all these different cliques in Germany and to prevent the divorcing of the civilian from the military element in that empire. That, indeed, has been the disastrous effect of the whole diplomatic policy of this country during these three and a-half years of appalling warfare. Apart from the fact that I do not think it is a proper thing for an Under-Secretary to make pronouncements of this character through newspaper interviews—the right hon. Gentleman gives newspaper interviewers information that he disdainfully refuses to the House of Commons—I say that the nature of this interview and the character of the statements of the right hon. Gentlemen were altogether deplorable in their effect in Germany, as was shown by the German reply a few days later. I regret very much that the interview was given, and I hope we may take the statement made by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon that any offers that may come will be carefully and dispassionately considered—I hope we may regard that statement as an implied censure on the right hon. Gentleman for what he said at that interview.
  The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House never speaks without sounding a certain recriminatory note, but I shall endeavour to avoid as far

  621
  as may be imitating his very bad example. It is a little difficult sometimes. With regard to the question of the interview which he has raised, I am glad to have an opportunity of explaining very shortly the actual facts in connection with it, as the interview has been, apparently, very much misunderstood. I have already stated in this House that I was asked to give a weekly interview to American journalists. That was begun before America came into the War, and it was represented that it would be a useful thing to enable American correspondents to put questions to me on blockade and other matters, and if I thought it possible to give information I should do so. I have persisted in that practice ever since. I quite recognise that there are certain objections possible to that course. But it was begun and has been continued with the full approval and sanction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and of other members of the present Government who are specially concerned in such matters. For my part, I have always thought it desirable—and I understood it was the view of hon. Members who sit on that bench—that diplomacy should be carried on as far as possible in public, and that the greatest possible information should be given to the public regarding diplomatic matters as can safely be conveyed. I should have thought that this humble attempt on my part would have met with their approval, but it seems to be otherwise. Certainly the object of the interviews is not to lay down policy, but to give information.
  What happened in this particular case was this. The moment it began I asked, "What subject is it you desire to discuss to-day?" Immediately one of the gentlemen present replied, "The peace offensive," and it was in consequence of that observation that I thereupon explained the view I held, rightly or wrongly, as to the situation, which seemed to render it very likely that the Germans would conduct a so-called peace offensive. What is meant by a "peace offensive"? I am amazed there should be any misapprehension on the subject. It is treated as if it were some kind of peace offer. It is entirely different. The object of a peace offensive—the nature of a peace offensive—is diplomatic or semi-diplomatic action, not with the view of producing peace, but with a view of promoting war. It is intended to be of indirect diplomatic assistance to the German army in the field. That is what I thought likely to happen. I
  622
  am not going to repeat the interview to the House; I merely stated what I thought was very likely to occur in that connection.
  There seemed to me to be certain signs of that being likely to happen, and I explained what I thought they were and what I thought likely to happen in that connection. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member that I intended or conveyed to anybody, except the hon. Member and those who think as he does of myself and of members of the Government, that any offer from Germany would necessarily be rejected, there is not a word I uttered that could be so construed by any fair-minded man; and I do not think it was so construed. I adhere most fully to what was said by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, that if any offer is made coming from a quarter which may be regarded as reasonably trustworthy it deserves examination and consideration from the present Government, because we, at any rate, are as desirous of peace even as the hon. Member for Blackburn. There is only one other observation I desire to make on this interview, and it is this: It was said to have some relation to the presence of a neutral in this country. I want to explain quite clearly that it had no connection at all with the presence of that gentleman in this country. I did not know at the time that he was here, and I only heard of it afterwards. It had no reference at all to his presence of any sort or kind. I regret very much, because it may seem somewhat discourteous to him, that anything I said should be construed as having any reference to his presence. With the rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech I do not propose to deal. My right hon. Friend spoke on the subject of the Emperor Karl's letter, and I do not think it would be useful or desirable for me to add anything to what he has said. He was fortunate enough to secure the approval of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith), and I can face with some equanimity the fact that he did not win an equal approval from the hon. Member for Blackburn.
  But the Member for Blackburn did make one observation which I must repudiate with all the strength I can muster. He chose to make a perfectly undeserved and baseless attack on one of our Allies. For what purpose he did it, except to assist and comfort the enemy, I cannot imagine. I am very reluctant to believe that was his reason, but he perpetually

  623
  does it. It is not an accidental lapse from the proper responsibility of a Member of Parliament. He perpetually does it when he intervenes in these Debates, and to attack one of our Allies at this period of the War in the way that attack was made is an action which does not appear to me capable of any defence whatever. For my part I desire to say, though it is scarcely necessary to say it, that we utterly repudiate and disagree with it, and believe that the aims of Italy-are as high and as pure as those of any other belligerent in the War. We value her assistance to the highest possible degree, and are as determined to maintain our alliance with her as with any other of the Allies. I pass very shortly to some other observations made in the course of the Debate. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Denman) and several other hon. Members were anxious that we should make use of what he described as a diplomatic offensive, by which I understood him to mean that we should carry on propaganda in enemy countries describing the reasonableness of our war aims, and matters of that kind. As the hon. Member said he did not expect me to deal in any detail with that question, I hope he will be satisfied with my assurance that that side of our activities is not lost sight of, and we are doing all we can in that direction.
  As to the other suggestion that we should have at Versailles a diplomatic council, I confess I have more doubts. The object he has in view has my entire sympathy. I quite agree that nothing is more important than the complete unity of the Allies, and I adhere most readily to what was said by several speakers that it is of the utmost possible importance that we should keep in the closest touch and agreement with President Wilson. I am not sure that the establishment of permanent representatives at some centre would really do more than we can do by our existing machinery. After all, my hon. Friend must not forget that on the diplomatic side we have elaborate machinery for being represented at the various Courts of all the Powers, and wherever the centre of interest happens to be they can put the aims of the Allies. On the whole, I believe that system will be more likely to produce unification than the attempt to set up a kind of International Foreign Office, which is, I believe, what the hon. Member has
  624
  in view. After all, he must not forget that when it comes to great questions of policy, the determining of what course any particular country should pursue, that country will always insist on that decision being taken at the seat of government of the country. They will never delegate to any representative, however important, in some foreign centre questions on which may hang the future prosperity, or even the future existence, of the country in question. At the same time, I can assure the hon. Member that if there is anyway in which we can promote a closer co-operation of the Allies, I shall be very glad indeed to see that proposal carried out.
  I think my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees-Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Colonel Wedgwood), and the hon. Member for North. Somerset (Mr. King), were all very anxious that we should hold out a hand to Russia, as it were, and should recollect that we have as great an obligation to secure justice in the East of Europe as we have in the West. That was, I think, the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Whyte). I quite agree with him. We have no quarrel with Russia at all. On the contrary, with the Russian people we have always desired to be on the closest terms of friendship. We have suffered, and we cannot deny it, great disappointment and great loss from the course which Russian politics has pusued. No one can get over that fact. But we are anxious to do all we can to assist and support the Russian people in their difficulty, and to preserve Russia as a great country, not only now, but for the period after this War. I think the hon. Member opposite (Mr. King) has a kind of idea that we have, as it were, some personal or political quarrel with the Bolsheviks, arising, not,. I think, from the direction of their foreign policy, but from some disapproval we may have of their domestic policy. I assure the hon. Member he is entirely mistaken. In our view the domestic policy of Russia is a matter for Russia and Russia alone. Whatever Government the Russians desire to have, the Russians ought to have, and it is not for us to interfere in any way in that matter.
  Mr. KING: Will the Noble Lord make it quite clear that he includes action with regard to foreign loans as part of their domestic policy or as part of their foreign policy?
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not want to go into any unnecessary details.
  Mr. KING: But is not that vital?
  Lord R. CECIL: What I desire to emphasise, with deference to the hon. Member, is that we have no quarrel with the Bolsheviks, but we wish to see Russia preserved as an Allied country, or, if that be impossible, as a non-German one. That is the great foundation stone of our policy. We have no other wish at all; we only desire to see Russia a great and powerful non-German nation. These are the observations I desire to make on that point. Many other things have been said in the course of the Debate, and I do not know that I have very much to reply to. Two of my hon. Friend's spoke with great anxiety about the League of Nations, and I can add nothing to what has been said frequently in this House as to the desirability of establishing that league. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, that we can disregard all territorial questions. After all, territorial questions are at the base of most wars that have taken place. Though I am a convinced and passionate adherent of the idea of a League of Nations, I am also convinced that it will have no chance of success, no chance of useful work in Europe, unless it is established on the basis of justice, and not on the basis of a territorial arrangement, which is not likely to endure. Merely to establish such a league as that, with the inflammable material there is now in Europe as there has been in the past, to establish a League of Nations on existing occupations in Europe, would be to place it on a basis which I am afraid would not do anything to preserve the permanent peace of Europe, which would be the merest deception and delusion, and which would lead not to peace, but to further struggle, and probably cause an increase rather than a diminution of the danger of wars in the future.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Members in all parts of the House will agree that we have had to-day a Debate which will serve a most useful purpose. The speeches of the Foreign Secretary and of the Noble Lord, who has just sat down, have done a great deal to clear the air. I think misapprehensions were rather more rife than the Noble Lord thinks with respect to his interview on what has been called the "peace offensive." That phrase is an unhappy phrase, and it is a good thing to-
  626
  day that the Noble Lord and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who preceded him, have made it abundantly clear that the mind of the British Government is always open to approaches from belligerent Powers that are likely to be of an acceptable character. Of course, we must be continuously on our guard against propositions which are calculated to divide one Ally from another. Just as Hindenburg and Ludendorff are endeavouring to thrust a military wedge between the French and British Armies, so may we expect that it will be sought to thrust a diplomatic wedge between the British and the French Councils. It is an absolute truism that the more Allies you have, the easier it is to make war, and the more difficult it is to make peace. They necessarily have to some extent divergent views, which it is a task of extreme difficulty and delicacy to reconcile. They can only be reconciled if we proceed on one-great clear principle, plainly expressed, unswervingly followed, and that can only be that we are fighting, not on mere questions of territory, but for the establishment of a new world-order.
  That, I venture to say, has been the keynote, at any rate, of the speeches in the later part of the Debate. One after another Members, and chief of all the noble Lord who has just sat down, have emphasised that aspect of the present world struggle. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), asked whether my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) was content to limit himself, in his declaration of our war aims, to a specific list of territorial changes which the hon. Member enumerated. Let me remind him that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife has laid down, as the chief of our war aims, the attainment of security. Security cannot be attained without the establishment of a new world-order. That world-order must be based upon justice, and how are you to define international justice? It can only be defined in this way: Wherever you have a people which possesses national characteristics, which is capable of forming and declaring its national will, that people must be conceded the right to be governed according to its own ideas, and not according to an outside authority, imposed upon it by force. That is the principle which must be adopted in regard to Eastern, as much as to Western, Europe. It must be in Poland as well as. Alsace-Lorraine and the Trentino, and,

  627
  if I may improve the hour, I would suggest that it must be applied in Ireland -as much as in Bohemia. This world of -order, if it is to be secure, must be guaranteed by the League of Nations of which, like the noble Lord, I declare myself to be an adherent. Our enemy must know that in no circumstances will we accept a peace based on anything else than that. Our Allies already know that neither for ourselves nor for them, are we willing to fight for any more than that. I venture to suggest to my hon. Friends below the Gangway that they are really the truest friends of peace who are determined not to lay down their arms until that object has at last been attained. Otherwise, the old conditions will continue and increase, and war following upon war, until, it may be, that the world will at last fall back into the chaos of the Dark Ages. This great struggle must be settled now, and once and for all. We have repeated these declarations again and again in order that there may be a clear and perfect understanding.

  HOME SITUATION.
  There are some observations which I wish to make on the present political situation in this country, and in this House, and in its bearing to the war position. It is contended that the criticisms which have been directed against certain authorities in the Government indicates a weakening of the determination of those who are responsible for those criticisms to carry the War to a successful issue. It has been suggested in many quarters that the controversy of last Thursday was really an issue for or against the vigorous prosecution of the War. One would be inclined to ignore assertion of that kind, if they did not come from authoritative quarters, and have recently apparently received, at all events, to some extent, the endorsement of so distinguished a statesman as Lord Curzon. There have been criticisms of the Government. They have been mainly on three lines. In the first place, it has been said there have been several defects in their administration of domestic affairs; that the problem of man-power was, in effect, neglected all through the critical year 1917; that there has been a comparative failure, which still continues, in the shipbuilding programme—a most vital matter; that there is frequently conflict and com-
  628
  petition between the various Departments of the State; that our expenditure has increased from £2,000,000,000 to £3,000,000,000 per year within a period of eighteen months; that there are prolonged delays in dealing with many of the problems relating to food control, and other matters.
  Those of us who have made these criticisms have gone on to point out what we regard as their cause, and the possible remedy for these defects. We consider that the War Cabinet has assumed a burden of work that is beyond the capacity of any so small a group of men to carry, not through any lack of capacity or application on the part of those Members, but because they have undertaken a burden which is in itself too heavy to bear. Engaged as they are in supervising the whole operations of the War by sea and land, our relations with our Allies and our Dominions, with India, with neutrals, attending, as many of them have to do frequently, international conferences, busy with the immense volume of work that attaches to these large matters that come before them, they have, nevertheless, undertaken to deal with all domestic problems as well —labour problems, Ireland, food, manpower, domestic legislation of every kind. Is it to be wondered at that there is a continual and extreme congestion of business? Only last week we were told, in answer to a question in this House, that there had been submitted to this body the question of whether or not a limited amount of flour should be released for the purpose of making dog biscuits, and, on the same day, we were told that the War Cabinet had not yet given its decision on the matter of whether or not horse-racing should be discontinued. Of course they have not. How could they be expected to divert their attention from these large matters of vital importance to read the papers and come to their conclusions on horse racing or dog biscuits? We have urged that the machinery of government is working badly because it is not complete, that in addition to the War Cabinet you ought to have something in the nature of a Home Cabinet to deal with these comparatively minor matters. Having come to that conclusion, whether right or wrong, I submit it is our duty to state those views to the House, because good administration at home, frugal finance, an effective manage-

  629
  ment of such problems as shipbuilding and man-power, are essential to the effective prosecution of the War.
  The second line of criticism which has developed in recent weeks has relation to Conscription an Ireland. I do not propose to argue that subject now. I have dealt with it before, and I dare say I may have an opportunity of speaking on it again when it comes in concrete and immediate form before the House. We believe the Government, in dealing with this matter, are on wrong lines, that the course they have taken is not likely to add to the number of our Armies available for service at the front, but is calculated, so far as one can at present foresee, to reduce the numbers available. We hold, more important than that, that it injures profoundly our moral position in the face of the world, and that if the Government adopt in Ireland Austrian methods they will find our moral international position tends to be reduced to something approaching the Austrian level. Above all. the action which they seem likely to take in Ireland does run directly counter to the supreme principle on behalf of which we are waging this War, the necessity that people should be governed according to their own desires. Again we may be right, again we may be wrong; but I submit to hon. Members of all shades of political opinion that if we hold sincerely this view we should be doing less than our duty if we did not take such opportunities as are offered to impress it on this House. The third line of criticism relates to the relations of the Government to their military and naval advisers. There have been a series of controversies, misunderstandings, explanations, resignations, dismissals, which have given rise to a widespread uneasiness in very many quarters, and not least among military men. On each of these occasions it may well be that the action of the Government was fully justified, and I should be very far indeed from saying that any distinguished general or admiral has a freehold of his office. Of course changes may often be necessary, and may frequently be very salutary. The fact remains that the way in which these questions have been handled one by one has done something to sap confidence. The matter came prominently before this House a week ago, in consequence of the letter written to the Press by General Maurice. I cannot conceal my own
  630
  opinion that that letter ought never to have been written, but, having been written, the House of Commons was, I think, bound to take cognisance of it. It is exceedingly unfair and unjust to suggest that in bringing the matter before this House those who did so were actuated by any irresolution with regard to the conduct of the War or any desire to weaken its prosecution. The "Times,"' which will not be suspected of tendencies of that kind, speaking of this matter, said:
  "That is a challenge, coming from such a quarter, which no Government can afford to ignore or merely to rebut. Unless and until it is impartially investigated and disproved it will profoundly shake the public confidence in every statement made from the Treasury Bench. What is more, it will revive for that period all those mischievous controversies of last winter, which, whatever their merits, were themselves the greatest stumbling-block in our preparations for the German offensive."
  The same article further down went on:
  "Least of all can they be settled finally by any ex-parte statement, however apparently convincing, from the Prime Minister himself. Mr. Lloyd George should be under no illusions whatever on that point. He has, we believe, an unanswerable case in his instinctive zeal and pressure for what we have called the Allied point of view. For all we know, he may have an equally unanswerable case against General Maurice's specific charges. But the inevitable restrictions of a speech on military dispositions, the growing public distrust of all official statements (whether by generals or by Ministers) "
  I will omit some words which are perhaps unduly critical of the Prime Minister—
  "all this makes it hopeless that there should be any end of this controversy except through an entirely disinterested inquiry."
  What occurred? On Tuesday the Government came to the House and declared that an inquiry was desirable. On Thursday they held that any question of an inquiry was something in the nature of treason to the vigorous prosecution of the War. On Tuesday my right hon. Friend told us all that the matter could only be decided by a reference to documents so secret that they could not be disclosed even to a Select Committee of this House. Two days later the House as a whole was asked to judge the matter without any documents before them at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We had no opportunity of seeing documents. We were told that there could not be found in this House five righteous men—worse even than the City of Sodom—and yet the whole House was asked to judge the issue in open Debate on a Motion which was declared, although

  631
  its movers did not intend it, to be a vote of censure, the Government Whips telling in the Lobby.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): And the Opposition Whips.
  5.0 p.m
  Mr. SAMUEL: The Opposition Whips told also, but we should have been very glad to have taken them off if you had done the same and left it open to the House. Not only that, but one very large section of the House met in. conference on the day previous to the Debate, and decided to support the Government, not only without probing the charges that had been made, but without even waiting to hear what the Government answer might be, and the newspapers on the morning of the Debate declared, quite truly, that the Government majority was assured before any answer had been offered. I have never known a case in which a matter of this gravity and importance has been more unsatisfactorily handled. Those are the three main lines of criticism which have been addressed against the Government in recent weeks. It has been suggested that the Division on Thursday was intended to secure, or might have the effect of securing, the installation in power of a Government less resolute than the present Government in the prosecution of the War, who would hasten to make peace on such terms as the Germans and Austrians might now be likely to offer us. If that had been the outcome of that Debate or Division, or if that had been likely to become the outcome of that Debate or Division, I can assure the House that not one of us would have made one step towards the Lobby in order to secure such a result. If the outcome of it should be that we should make peace with our present enemies on such lines that they who have been guilty of this great aggression against the peace of the world, which has resulted in deluging Europe with blood and bringing agonies of sorrow to millions of homes—if the outcome of it should be that those powers should not be penalised for this aggression, but should be aggrandised and regarded—if the outcome should be that militarism could claim to be justified by its proofs, then, I say, those who were responsible for such as that would be guilty of the greatest crime. For my own part, I am profoundly convinced that no Government of that kind could be formed in this country at the present time, and, if it could be formed,
  632
  this House would eject it from office in a week, and, if this House neglected to perform that clear duty, an indignant public opinion would sweep it aside. Is it a service to the country to represent that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife and his colleagues and the great central body of Liberalism are careless in these matters, and are willing to make a peace of that character? The Germans are carefully watching what we say and do, and I think it is a grave disservice to our State to give their propaganda material of that character and quite falsely to represent that the only unity which has prevailed and, I say, still prevails, in the country on all the essential purposes is now in danger of disappearing.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:
  Workmen's Compensation (Illegal Employment) Act, 1918.
  Post Office Act, 1918.
  Defence of the Realm (Food Profits) Act, 1918.
  Local Government Board Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1918.
  Land Drainage (Lotting Fen) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1918.
  Nitrate Railways Company, Limited, Act, 1918.

  WHITSUNTIDE RECESS (ADJOURNMENT).
  Question again proposed, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, the 28th May."
  Mr. SAMUEL: When the House was interrupted I was drawing my remarks to a close. I have a few more sentences which I should like to address, if I may, to the House. I was suggesting that they are doing no real service to this country who exaggerate the points of difference between us, and do not rather emphasise the essential unity which still exists. We may be quite sure that the Germans are very carefully watching the movements of public opinion in the country, and of politics in this House, and

  633
  that their propaganda will eagerly seize -upon any statements which tend to show that there is a weakening in our purposes, and that our endurance is approaching its limit. I venture to suggest that the articles which have appeared in some of the ultra-patriotic papers of this country have been likely to furnish German propagandist agencies with the best material they have had for some time past. It would be better in the interests of the country to emphasise—as recently did my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham—the fact that in all essentials we all stand together at this time as we did at the beginning of the War, rather than falsely to assert that such criticisms as there have been indicate a weakening of our purposes.
  I am led to make these observations because of the anxiety that must to some extent, be caused by this situation on the Army. If the Army is led to feel that some turn of the political wheel may result in a Government being installed in office which would surrender the main purposes for which we are fighting—nothing, I conceive, would be more likely to take the heart out of them than that. We are so accustomed to regard the valour of our soldiers as a matter of course: we are so accustomed to read the story of their heroism, that we have almost come to assume that their steadfastness can be taken for granted. I have no doubt that that steadfastness will remain unimpaired in all circumstances. But our Armies may be subjected in the very near future—next week, this week—to the severest of all tests, and it is not a light thing for men remaining in their trenches under, first a deluge of shells, then drenched with poisonous invisible gas, and, at last, having to stand up against great bodies of Germans skilfully led and armed with bombs, flame-throwers, and all the rest of it, with machine guns sweeping every bit of the open ground—it is not, I say, a light thing, as we all know, for them to face that readily. How can they do it: how can we expect them to do it, if they are led to think that the people at home may in some eventuality let them down; that the people at home may give away everything, or much, of that for which they are fighting, and for which they are undergoing these extreme sacrifices? It is the duty of this House, and of all persons of responsibility in it, to enable our Armies, so far as they can, to feel that this country and this House will never let them down.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I listened to the first part of the speech of my right hon. Friend with pleasure and with complete agreement. In what he said about the aims with which we are carrying on this War I entirely agree. He expressed them in the way in which I have always thought they can be most simply expressed, by saying that, as far as this country is concerned, what we are fighting for is peace now and security for peace in the time to come. That is our main object. I agree also with what he said about a League of Nations. I agree, at all events, to this extent, that if, as the result of this horrible War, we do not arrive at some means which by a universal concensus of sensible people throughout the world will prevent a repetition of it, then indeed this War will have been waged in vain. So far I am in agreement with my right hon. Friend. But as regards the rest of his speech I am at a loss to account for its delivery, and I can only explain it on the principle of the French proverb with which he is not doubt familiar, "Quis'excuse, s'accuse "—who excuses himself accuses himself.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Have you read Lord Curzon's speech?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, yes. I can see no other object in it. He has dealt with the criticism of the way in which this Government is working. I am not going to deal now with that in detail. The restrictions which the necessities of the case have imposed upon our food supply have made it necessary at home to see the same dish over and over again in different forms. If my right hon. Friend thinks it necessary to give constantly réchauffês of his speech, I hope he will not expect me to give réchauffês of my replies. Look for a moment at the matter. If my right hon. Friend were comparing the existing state of things with some ideal state, I can understand his criticism, but he has had experience, and what I would like him to compare is the way in which things are being done now with the way in which they were done in the Government of which he and I were members. That comparison I would never be afraid to face.
  He gave, as an illustration of the absurdity of our system, that the Cabinet has to deal with dog biscuits and horse-racing. My right hon. Friend has had some experience, and he knows perfectly well that the question whether dogs are to be destroyed

  635
  or kept alive, and whether or not there is to be horse-racing are questions which influence the House of Commons, and is it possible that they should be decided without those who are responsible in this House—first of all the Prime Minister, and secondly, under present circumstances, myself—is it possible that they can be discussed without our having some voice in the decision? What happens? When these questions, and other similar questions, have been remitted to a Committee of the Departments concerned, they report to the War Cabinet, and make recommendations. We consider them and give our decision; and I know no better means than that by which questions of that kind can be settled. Now I come to the main point of my right hon. Friend's speech. What happened last Thursday? His speech is rather interesting. He tells us, in the first place, that at a meeting upstairs—I presume he refers to the meeting of the Unionist War Committee— they passed a resolution to support the Government before they knew what was the Government case. I was not present, but I received a report of it, and unless my right hon. Friend has means of obtaining information different from mine, his report is quite inaccurate. It is perfectly true, and I should be sorry to think it were otherwise, that members of that party start with the desire to support the Government, but, as I was told, the meeting ended leaving every member free to take whatever course he thought proper.
  As regards last Thursday, my right hon. Friend referred again to the five just men who cannot be found in the House of Commons. I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) is not present, for I should like to make a claim upon his gratitude which I am sure he would have been the first to recognise. In an interruption, I gave him an opportunity for the display of that particular kind of forensic eloquence in which he does not often indulge, but of which, when he pleases, he is a past master, but for which in his heart nobody in the House has a greater contempt than my right hon. Friend. I do not pretend that my interruption was intended to help him, but in the circumstances, in the very trying circumstances, for right hon. Gentlemen who sit on that bench, I did not grudge him the advantage my interruption gave him. As regards this question, what happened was that the letter
  636
  to which my right hon. Friend referred appeared in the papers. We had the same day to take a decision as to what we were to do about it. I was personally rather interested in it, and this applies to everyone engaged in politics. I am not thin-skinned about criticism, and I do not object to being accused constantly of incompetence and of weakness, and I have got used to being told that I am staying in office against my convictions for the sake of office. But it was a new experience for me to be told that I was a liar, and I did not like it, neither did the Prime Minister. We therefore proposed that the subject should be left to be decided by what we thought was an impartial Court, and we made that proposal, and we are asked why we altered the decision in twenty-four hours. The Member for East Fife altered it. We made the proposal, and now my right hon. Friend tells us that they never intended a Vote of Censure. If that were so, then not only I, but the Whole House, was under a misapprehension at the time.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife has had more Parliamentary experience than anybody, except perhaps, the Foreign Secretary, but I have had a great deal too, and when I was in Opposition, over and over again I asked that time should be given for the discussion of something I wished to discuss. It was always refused unless it was accepted as a Vote of Censure. It was in that sense and that sense only that I agreed to the discussion, and it was in that sense that every Member of the House understood it. What happened? It is quite true, if it worth arguing, that we preferred another tribunal to a Select Committee of this House. I am quite unrepentant as to what I said as to the suitableness of that tribunal for this purpose. During the time that I have been Leader of the House I have carried out my functions in my own way. I have acted on the assumption that what I thought reasonable was reasonable, and that if I said to the House what I thought, they would think it reasonable also. I have got into trouble that way often, but I am certain I would have got into greater difficulties if I had tried any other method.
  Does anyone pretend that, as a tribunal to try the conduct of Ministers, a Select Committee of the House is an impartial body. The thing is utterly absurd. We have had experience. Election petitions used to be decided by Committees.

  637
  of this class. These Committees were supposed to act as judges. It was found that they acted from party motives, and the system was abolished. We had an experience more recently, and I am sure the Prime Minister would not in the least object to my referring to it. A Select Committee was set up to try the conduct of Ministers absolutely impartially. Yet by the strangest of coincidences, on every Division of any importance every Conservative voted in one way, and every Liberal voted in another. That is what happens. What we offered was a tribunal which we thought would look at the facts fairly, and at nothing else; and when my right hon. Friend refused to accept that offer and, instead, took the course of asking, as I thought, for a Vote of Censure, the position was changed, and we asked the House of Commons to decide themselves. They did decide, and we are quite pleased with the decision.
  My right hon. Friend made some remarks which are very much to the point about criticisms at a time like this. Nobody, I think, is a better judge of the difficulties of that than I am. For ten months I was Leader of an Opposition during the War, and it was a very poor position under those circumstances. I had a good many advantages over my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith), and my right hon. Friend will not object to my saying it. None of my colleagues were quite so critical, and were willing to give me greater freedom than he is prepared to give in the matter of criticism. It is very difficult, and we do not in the least contend that there ought not to be criticism. What I have said before I say now. In each particular case the man who makes the criticism, and the House itself, must judge as to what is the nature of that criticism. If the criticism is of such a kind as to imply that it is a Government which ought not to have the confidence of the House of Commons, and that it is not fit to carry on its functions, then instead of thinking the position is made better because speeches of that kind are made and are not followed by a Division, I say at once that it would be infinitely better that we should have a Division, and know where we are, and realise that we have a real opposition and are prepared to face it. In such circumstances the House knows where it is. Under conditions such as have existed since the War there is a great deal of latitude in the minds of Members. At
  638
  ordinary tunes, when there is a party Government, the leaders of that party have one advantage which is of the greatest value They can always count on the support of their followers when they most need it, and that is when they are partly wrong or altogether wrong. In the present circumstances, they cannot do that. There is an amount of freedom which does not exist at ordinary times.
  Therefore I say, from the point of view of the Government, there is a real advantage sometimes in having parties clearly defined, and knowing exactly where we are. But I do not wish it. It would be a very great misfortune if there should be any appearance of any weakening in the main motive which I am sure actuates my right hon. Friend as much as it actuates me, and I welcome his assurance, not that he is as earnest in the War as we are—I do not doubt that—but I welcome his speech to-day if it means that he does not intend, and that his party do not intend, to lend themselves to criticism which is not helpful and which is mainly intended to discredit and weaken a Government which has as great a responsibility as any Government has ever had in this country. Very few things can be more foolish than for a member of a Government to say anything in praise, or approaching praise, of the head of that Government. At a time like this, anyone in a responsible position who was influenced in his support of opposition to a, Government by feelings of friendship would be guilty of something like a crime towards his country. We have got to try to have the Government which is best calculated to secure the result that we want—an honourable peace in this conflict. I say to the House as a whole, and I can say it when one of his own supporters could not, that as long as this House believes that the present Prime Minister is the man best fitted for his post, it is the duty of everyone to give him support, and not to go about seeking grounds for finding fault.
  Mr. DENNISS: I rise merely for the purpose of corroborating the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to what occurred at the War Unionist Committee. It was absolutely correct in every particular. No resolution of any kind was-passed to back up the present Government right or wrong, black or white, but every Member was left to vote perfectly freely according to his own conscience after hearing the Prime Minister's statement.
  Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I cannot help entering an emphatic protest against what I consider to be the very unfair treatment to which General Maurice has been subjected by the Censor I do not propose to enter into the general controversy, because that would be out of place at the present moment. Neither do I propose to refer, except in passing, to the action of the military authorities in punishing General Maurice for a breach of discipline. It is quite within their rights, upon evidence, to inflict upon a general whatever punishment they consider right and proper for violations of military discipline. They can degrade him from his rank, they can reduce his pay, they can ruin his career, and they are entitled to do it if they think fit; but I venture to say that neither the military authority, nor any other Department of the Government, is ) entitled to rob General Maurice of his personal honour or to refuse him the opportunity of establishing his bona fides and his credibility in the statements that he has made in the letters that he has written. This letter that appeared in the "Daily Chronicle" yesterday was submitted to the Censor and, in answer to a question, the Home Secretary stated portions of it were deleted. In answer to a supplementary question, he stated that it was because of some reference to secret documents which might create a false impression. That letter was a very moderate and modest and patriotic letter. It did not renew the controversy in any shape or form. It simply attempted to answer what the General thought were unfair reflections upon himself and statements that undermined his reliability, his credibility, and the bona fides of his previous letter. On one point only, the most important point, the Censor deleted material statements that General Maurice made. I do not want to take any advantage of the privileges of this House by quoting the words that were deleted by the Censor—that would be improper and in bad taste—but on one particular point the Prime Minister laid great stress and certainly implied that General Maurice had not the information that would entitle him to express opinions; that, in fact, he was not present on occasions when he alleged that he was present, and that, therefore, he could have nothing but indirect or second hand knowledge of the statements that he made—indeed, that the phrasing of his original letter
  640
  was deceptive and intended to convey an impression that he was present at a certain place when, in fact, he was not present. The words that were deleted from General Maurice's letter made it perfectly plain that he was in direct access to all the information which enabled him to express a true and correct opinion upon what took place. Those words were deleted. It is grotesquely unfair to deprive a man of an opportunity of justifying the statements he has made.
  As to the answer made by the Home Secretary, although I have very great respect for the Home Secretary, I am more afraid of him than I am of any other man who sits on the Front Bench, because his fine Parliamentary manner, his amiability and affability usually succeed in completely out-manœuvring and putting an extinguisher on his opponent. His reply, which suggested that in some way these secret documents, if referred to, would make a false impression on the public mind, was a polite Parliamentary evasion of the real point at issue. It would have been perfectly simple, even if there were any words in the part deleted, if the Censor had desired to treat General Maurice fairly, to have made a slight alteration in the words that would not have given away any secrets, and which would have established the bona fides, credibility, and reliability of General Maurice's statement. I venture to protest against the action of the Censor in this respect. I protest not only because I think that General Maurice has been treated unfairly. I have not the honour of General Maurice's personal acquaintance, and I know nothing about the controversy except what I have read in the papers. But I feel he has been treated badly, and that it is a profound mistake, to put it no higher, to create in the minds of our great and distinguished generals the idea that they are likely to be treated unfairly, that they are not to have treatment which is honourable and fair and which gives them a chance to establish any case they think it is reasonable and proper and in accordance with Army discipline to make. The action of the Censor goes beyond the question of General Maurice. It means that we are. in danger of a great Government Department exercising its mere discretion, not on points of public interest, but its mere discretion from its own standpoint, in regard to public statements that may be

  641
  made or written by distinguished people who may happen to differ from themselves. It is quite right that the Censor should delete from a statement anything which might give information to the enemy, and if any opinions any of us choose to express are opinions that would hearten or encourage the enemy and diminish the confidence of our own people in the prosecution of the War, it is quite right that they should be deleted. The Censor goes beyond that. The time may come when anybody who ventures to disagree with the opinions of the Leader of the House—there may be misguided, foolish mortals who may sometimes disagree with him—will not be allowed to express those opinions in a newspaper. That position is an intolerable one, and we ought not to be so limited, circumscribed, and tyrannised over by Government Departments.
  This unfortunate general was tried last week in his absence. A brilliant counsel held the brief for the prosecution; no one was retained for the defence, and he was condemned unheard. I do not want to reopen that controversy again, but surely, having condemned him unheard, having ruined his career, having driven him from the Army, you might at least allow him to make a plain, patriotic, honest statement to rehabilitate himself and to re-establish his credibility in the mind of
  642
  the public at large. It is kicking a man when he is down, and I dislike that. Let us at least practice fair play, even with those who are opposed to us. Even a British general is entitled to be treated with some consideration and respect. I desire to enter my emphatic protest against this proceeding, and I hope the Government will restrain the enthusiastic loyalty of their Censorship Department, and will try to play the game with generals and with their political opponents.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, the 28th May."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  The remaining Orders were road, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes before Six o'clock till Tuesday, the 28th May, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.

WAR.
  MERCANTILE PORTS (CONTROL).
  MERCANTILE PORTS (CONTROL).
  LAND DUTIES.
  LAND DUTIES.
INCOME TAX.
  SCHEDULE B.
  SCHEDULE B.
  PAPER SHORTAGE (COMPANY MEETINGS REPORTS).
  PAPER SHORTAGE (COMPANY MEETINGS REPORTS).
  LICHNOWSKY MEMORANDA (PAMPHLETS).
  LICHNOWSKY MEMORANDA (PAMPHLETS).
  WAR AIMS.
  WAR AIMS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  WHITE FLOUR.
  WHITE FLOUR.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  TEA.
  TEA.
  MEAT.
  MEAT.
  RATIONS (DISPOSAL).
  RATIONS (DISPOSAL).
  SALMON AND SEA TROUT (IRELAND).
  SALMON AND SEA TROUT (IRELAND).
  MINISTRY OF FOOD (OFFICIALS).
  MINISTRY OF FOOD (OFFICIALS).
  NATIONAL SCHOOL, KILKEEL, COUNTY DOWN.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL, KILKEEL, COUNTY DOWN.
  TROOPSHIPS (SUPERVISION).
  TROOPSHIPS (SUPERVISION).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (APPRENTICESHIP).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (APPRENTICESHIP).
  ROYAL ARTILLERY OFFICERS.
  ROYAL ARTILLERY OFFICERS.
  KING'S OWN SCOTTISH BORDERERS.
  KING'S OWN SCOTTISH BORDERERS.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  WAR BOUNTY ORDER.
  WAR BOUNTY ORDER.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SHAMROCK FUND.
  SHAMROCK FUND.
  EAST AFRICA (GERMAN COINAGE).
  EAST AFRICA (GERMAN COINAGE).
  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (CONGESTION).
  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (CONGESTION).
  TEANSPORT (INQUIRY).
  TEANSPORT (INQUIRY).
  PETROL LICENCES.
  PETROL LICENCES.
  SEASON TICKETS.
  SEASON TICKETS.
  POSTAL RATES (ARMY WOMEN).
  POSTAL RATES (ARMY WOMEN).
  EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA'S LETTER.
  EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA'S LETTER.
  Prison Officials, Ireland (Promotion).
  Prison Officials, Ireland (Promotion).
  Civil Service Examinations.
  Civil Service Examinations.
  State Medical Service.
  State Medical Service.
  Ministry of Health.
  Ministry of Health.
HAMILTON ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

ST. OLAVES CHURCH, SOUTHWARK, BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 7:
Power of sale.
7.—(1) From and after the appointed date the old church and the ornaments fittings and furniture thereof (subject as hereinafter mentioned) including any pictures in the vestry thereof and the site thereof including the vaults churchyard and other lands and any rights attached or belonging thereto as well as the rectory or parsonage house provided under the Act of 1817 together with the outbuildings garden and premises thereto belonging and the site of the rectory or parsonage house and any rights attached or belonging thereto existing at the date of the passing of the Act of 1817 shall be respectively subject to an absolute power of sale (but subject to any leases or tenancies subsisting at the time of such sale in any such lands rights rectory house outbuildings garden or premises) to be exercised by the trustees as in this Act provided.
(2) From and after the appointed date the trustees shall until the sale of the site of the old church as hereinafter mentioned have (subject as in this Act provided) all such rights of entry and control over the same and over all other things in connection therewith made by the immediately preceding section subject to a power of sale as if they were the owners thereof.
(3) As soon as conveniently may be after the appointed date the trustees with the consent of the Commissioners shall sell the old church or shall demolish the same and sell the materials thereof and shall sell the site thereof and the vaults churchyard and other land (if any) belonging thereto (including the site of the rectory or parsonage house referred to in the Preamble of the Act of 1817 but subject to any leases or tenancies of the said sites or lands then existing) and the ornaments fittings and furniture of the old church (subject as in this Act provided) either together or in lots and in such manner at such times and on such terms and conditions as they shall think fit freed and discharged from all ecclesiastical and subject as is by this Act provided from all other trusts uses purposes obligations disabilities and restrictions whatsoever and from all rights or interests of the owners of any seats or pews or of any other person and may and shall execute and do all assurances acts and things necessary or proper for effecting the purposes aforesaid.
(4) The sale of the old church shall be subject to any terms and conditions relating thereto set out in this Act and shall be taken to be upon the condition that the purchaser shall within three months from the completion of the sale wholly demolish such church if then existing on the present site thereof and on breach of such condi
1118
tion such sale shall be void and any moneys paid in respect thereof shall be forfeited to the trustees.
(5) Every assurance of land executed by the trustees under this section shall be registered in the Episcopal Registry of the diocese of Southwark and shall be effectual without the concurrence or consent of any other person.
(6) The trustees shall after the sale of the old church pay over to the Commissioners out of the proceeds of such sale any capital moneys required by the Commissioners for the purpose of meeting the annual payment referred to in subsection (2) of the section of this Act of which the marginal note is "Commissioners may form funds to meet annual payments."
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to amend subsection (3) of Clause 7, after the words "As soon as conveniently may be after the appointed date the trustees with the consent of the Commissioners shall," by inserting "subject as provided in section nine of this Act". The noble Lord said: I have an Amendment on the Paper which comes before the one in which I think your Lordships will take some interest. It really is a verbal Amendment which can do no harm if it is inserted, whatever may be the ultimate position of the Bill, but which I admit would be necessary if either my Motion or the Motion of the noble Earl is carried. It is a drafting Amendment, and I would suggest to your Lordships to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 7, line 24, after ("shall") insert ("(subject as provided in section nine of this Act)").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
clause 9:
Churchyard of old church not to be built upon.
9. Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to allow any building to be erected contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 on the disused burial ground forming the churchyard attached to the old church and in the event of such burial ground being acquired by any public authority with a view to its enjoyment by the public as an open space under the provisions of the Open Spaces Act 1906 the owners for the time being of and all other necessary parties having any interest in the site of the old church shall vest in such public authority a strip of land not exceeding nine feet in width (for the purpose of affording an access from Tooley Street to such open space) on such terms as may be agreed between such owners and such other parties (if any) respectively and such public authority or as failing such agreement may be determined subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts with reference to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to leave out Clause 9 with a view to inserting a new clause in its place. The noble Lord said: The explanation of my Amendment is clearly expressed in a special Report from the Select Committee which your Lordships appointed to consider the Bill, and I think the most convenient course, if your Lordships will allow me, will be to read that Report, which is in very plain and concise terms. The Report is as follows—
"The Committee have been through the Bill, and recommend that it should proceed.
"The members of the Committee have visited St. Olave's, and are strongly of opinion (1) that, in the existing state of things, the church is useless, and the churchyard derelict and disreputable; and (2) that, independently of the positive objects to be gained by the Bill, the discontinuance of the present objectionable features is desirable in itself.
"In accordance with the Instruction passed by the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Committee have inserted a clause reserving out of the power to sell the premises an obligation to I retain the existing churchyard as an open space; but they feel it their duty to represent to the House that the result must be the dropping of the Bill and the loss not only of the benefits which were in view for the diocese, but also of the abatement of the sad conditions now prevailing.
"The Committee had before them some suggestions for dealing with the subject which would have enabled substantial parts of the scheme to be realised, and at the same time made part of the land available for an open space, somewhat less in area than the churchyard, but also less unfavourably situated. The Committee were precluded by the Instruction from entertaining any proposal of this kind; and, indeed, neither the County Council nor the Open Spaces Society was favourable to it. The Committee, however, though preferring the original Bill in its entirety, desire to bring before the House their strong feeling that such an arrangement would be in accordance with the views which actuated the majority on the Second Beading, and might have been embodied in the Bill if the House had instructed the Committee to provide in the best manner practicable for an open space out of the premises affected by the Bill.
"The Committee beg leave to recommend to the House that on Third Reading either (1) the new clause be simply left out—"
that is the clause carrying out the Instruction—
"or (2), in lieu thereof, a clause to the following effect be inserted:
"That the tower of the old church, and a portion of the site of the old church and of the churchyard, to be delineated on a plan signed by the Chairman of the Committee on the Bill, shall be vested in the Metropolitan Gardens Association for the purpose of an open space and a public approach thereto.
"Note.—The area would be about half the churchyard, together with a space for approach
1120
from Tooley Street through the tower; the space would be about 3 feet wider than the tower itself, so as to prevent the tower actually touching any new building."
That was the Report of the Committee. I think I need not add anything, but I dare say your Lordships would allow me to make a few remarks later on if anything should arise in the discussion that scents to show that I have omitted something that might be useful for your Lordships to know. There, is, of course, the other Motion on the Paper to the same effect as mine—namely, to leave out Clause 9; and I submit to the House that it would be convenient in the first instance simply to move to leave out Clause 9. The House will understand that the object of deleting this clause is in order to substitute for it a clause containing the recommendation of the Committee which I have already mentioned to your Lordships, the only difference being that the space proposed to be delineated on the plan will represent not less than one half of the whole area that is dealt with by the Bill. This means a space as large as that which was the subject of the Instruction which your Lordships passed on the Second Reading. On the simple Motion to leave out Clause 9 I think there is no difference between myself and the noble Marquess opposite.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Hear, hear.
LoRD MUIR MACKENZIE: Such differences as there may be between us will arise when I move the substitution of the clause which is on the Paper. I now move that Clause 9 do not form part of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"That Clause 9 be omitted."—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the House will have noticed, as the noble and learned Lord opposite has stated, that he has an Amendment on the Paper as a sequel to the Motion to omit Clause 9. I also have an Amendment, but in a somewhat different sense. If, therefore, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will first simply put the Motion for the omission of Clause 9, I will follow the course suggested by my noble friend opposite and defer until the Amendments come to be considered any further observations on the particular merits. So far as the retention of Clause 9 is concerned—

1121
speaking on that point alone, without any question of the substitute—it is, I think, evident that if Clause 9 remains as it stands the Bill cannot proceed. It would be impossible for the promoters, I take it, to agree to Clause 9 in its present form—that is to say, the demolition of the church and the conversion of the whole of the site into an open space. That is not a course, as I understand, which would be desired by anybody, and therefore the retention of Clause 9 would involve the dropping of the whole Bill and the continuance of the unsatisfactory state of things which exists at present. For this reason I hope that your Lordships, whatever course you may prepared to take later, will consent to strike out Clause 9.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, now rise to move that a new clause be inserted in lieu of Clause 9. Your Lordships will notice that in form the new clause follows Clause 9; that is to say, it begins in the same wily by saying—
"Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to allow any building to be erected on—"
and so on. That is a point at which the clause now proposed differs from the one which was in the Bill, because it goes on to stay this —
"so much of the disused burial ground forming the churchyard attached to the old church and of the site of the old church as is delineated on a plan signed in duplicate by the Lord Muir Mackenzie, Chairman of the Committee to whom the Bill was referred —"
Here I propose to insert the words which stand in the name of Lord Meath immediately below on the Paper—
"being not less than one-half of the whole area of tile existing churchyard and church site."
Then my proposed new clause proceeds—
"but the area so excepted from building shall be available for enjoyment by the public as an open space under the provisions of the Open Spaces Act, 1906, and shall include the old church tower which shall not be demolished but shall remain both as a memorial and for the purpose of affording an access from Tooley-street to such open space."
The importance of these last words is that they also formed part of the Instruction. I need not trouble your Lordships with any further observations at present, but will move the Amendment, which I understand now meets the view of those who were the
1122
authors of the Instruction on the Second Reading.
Amendment moved.—
To insert the following new clause:
"Part of sites of old church and old churchyard not to be built upon."
9. Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to allow any building to be erected on so much of the disused burial ground forming the churchyard attached to the church and of the site of the old church as is delineated on a plan signed in duplicate by the Lord Muir Mackenzie, Chairman of the Committee to whom the Bill was referred, being not less than one-half of time whole area of the existing churchyard and church site, one copy to be deposited in the Parliament Office and the other in. the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, but the area so excepted from building shall be available for enjoyment by the public as an open space under the provisions of the Open Spaces Act, 1906, and shall include the old church tower which shall not be demolished but shall remain both as a memorial and for the purpose of affording an access from Tooley-street to such open space."—( Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, you will have heard from the noble and. learned Lord that he has included in his proposed new Clause 9 the words which the Open Spaces Society of London desire to have inserted in order to make it perfectly clear that we shall have no reduction in the superficies of the disused burial ground, which, by your instruction, you desired to be preserved intact from building. It is a matter of great satisfaction to me individually, and I am sure to all who are interested in open spaces, that we have been able to come to an agreement with the noble Lord upon this point. The matter was a little complicated. We had really very little choice the other day when the Division took place in regard to what action should be taken, and we thought it wiser to support the words which made it impossible for the Act of 1884 to be overridden. At the same time, we were not blind to the fact that we were not obtaining exactly what we wanted. Since then we have had negotiations, and I am thankful to say we are agreed. The noble and learned Lord has accepted the Amendment standing in my name; he has proposed it to your Lordships' House, and the Open Spaces Society have agreed to support him and his Amendment with these additions. The Instructions of your Lordships' House to the Committee will thus be in spirit upheld.
The clause, as drawn up by the noble and learned Lord with the Amendment

1123
which I suggested, assures that the existing general law of 1884 for the protection of disused burial ground as regards building shall not be overridden, as was proposed originally by the promoters of the Bill; it preserves for the use of the public the full half of the combined sites of the churchyard and church site; and it obviates the very serious danger mentioned by the noble Lord and his Committee in their Report—namely, that the promoters, being unable to sell the most valuable portion of the site abutting on the river, should be induced to drop the Bill altogether, and thus throw the disused burial ground back again into the hands of the Church authorities, who have always been unwilling to allow the site to be maintained as an open space.
I may say that the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association over and over again offered to lay out the ground, and the Bermondsey Borough Council has under- taken to maintain it, but the former rector and also the present rector have both declined and refuse to allow us to do so. I hold a letter now from the Borough Council of Bermondsey informing me that on May 5 they passed a resolution to the effect that they would undertake to maintain as an open space for the use of the public one-half of the churchyard and church site, and the extra area equivalent to' the former entrance to the churchyard from Tooley Street. In other words, if our Amendment is included in Lord Muir Mackenzie's new clause they will maintain this ground for the use of the public per- manently. I may also add that a resolution has been passed by the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, of which I am chairman, by which they undertake to assist towards the laying out of this ground. Therefore, my Lords, I think we have really attained all that we can desire in the interests of open spaces if your Lordships will approve of this clause. There is no reason that I can see why, if this Bill is passed, we should not commence operations at once, and why during the summer we should not take steps to do what we can to make the ground a spot of beauty rather than what it is now, the reverse of that, and enable it really to be of service as an open space to the people of Bermondsey.
The MARQUESS OF CREWE The MARQUESS OF CREWE had given notice of an Amendment to insert the following new clause 9—
Removal of old church and re-erection elsewhere and provision as to open space.
9. The following provisions shall, unless otherwise agreed between the London County Council (in this section referred to as "the Council") and the Trustees, apply and have effect (that is to say):—

(1) The Trustees shall, out of the proceeds of the sale of the site of the old church and the churchyard attached or belonging thereto, by this Act authorised to pay to the Council the sum of five thousand pounds which shall be applied by the Council in or towards the acquisition of a public open space within the diocese of Southwark as near to the site of the said church as the Council, having regard to the cost of acquisition, may consider reasonably practicable.

(2) The Trustees shall make provision for the removal of the old church and the re-erection of the same to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council as far as practicable in its present form within that part of the diocese of Southwark which is within the county of London.

(3) The Trustees shall, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council, make provision for the erection and maintenance on the site of the old church or on any new building erected thereon of a suitable memorial of the old church and the site thereof.

(4) For the purpose of widening Tooley Street the Trustees shall vest in the Bermondsey Metropolitan Borough Council the strip of land fronting on Tooley Street and forming part of the site of the old church which is coloured pink on the plan, dated the day of, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, and signed for identification by on behalf of the Council, and such strip of land shall when added to Tooley Street be deemed for all purposes to form part thereof.

(5) The Trustees or the person in whom the site of the old church and churchyard is for the time being vested shalls—

(a) Carefully preserve and remove all objects of geological or antiquarian interest discovered by them in the excavation of the said site and subject to the rights of the Crown, and, except so far as the same may be proved to be the property of any other person, place any such objects at the disposal of the Council:

(b) Give sufficient notice in writing to the Council of the time when any excavations in the said site are to be made:

(c) Give to the Council facilities for the inspection and making drawings of any ancient foundations that may be discovered in the said site; and

1125

(d) Make provision by any deed by which they may sell or otherwise dispose of the said site for securing compliance with the provisions of this subsection.

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will not agree to accept the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie. It seems to me to he a specimen of the most unfortunate sort of compromise which is sometimes arrived at in the rooms upstairs—a compromise which, in fact, satisfies the views of nobody, although the noble Earl who spoke last has endeavoured to put the best face on the matter, and implied that a magnificent open space is about to be provided under this clause, into which would teem the myriads of children and old people of Bermondsey who would be able to enjoy the beautiful breezes of the Thames. The facts are, surely, very different from such a picture as that. If this particular compromise is arrived at, a certain church will be removed except for the tower, and a certain portion of ground, valuable building land, will be available for sale and the money obtained will be devoted to ecclesiastical uses. The remainder, that is to say the disused burial ground, will be devoted to an open space.
Originally the open space proposed by the Committee was of the magnificent dimensions of sixty feet by fifty—four feet—that is to say, considerably smaller than some of the rooms which many of your Lordships possess in your country houses. A slight addition might be made to that sluice by the Amendment which has been accepted——namely, that half the entire area should be available—but it would be a very slight addition, and to speak of this cramped area, surrounded on every side by high warehouses, as affording an open space of the slightest value to the people of Bermondsey, or to any others, is, I venture to think, a travesty of the facts.
I cannot help thinking that in passing the Instruction which your Lordships adopted you exhibited an almost pedantic adherence to a rule which is excellent in itself, but, like all rules, is subject to occasional exceptions. It is an admirable rule that disused burial grounds should not usually be built over. Upon that we all agree. We do not yield at all to the noble Earl himself in our enthusiasm for the provision of open spaces. We all agree that, particularly in the crowded areas of London, lungs and playgrounds and resting places
1126
are needed, but we say that this particular attempt to turn part of the precincts of an old church into a public space is a mistake which can only be justified by what I venture to call the pedantic adherence to the letter of a law which in certain cases may advantageously be broken through.
The noble Earl, when speaking rather confidently of the agreement arrived at between himself and his friends on the one hand and the Committee on the other, omitted to notice that the Committee preferred the original Bill in its entirety, though as I understand— and my noble and learned friend opposite has not contradicted it —they accepted these terms because they felt bound to accept terms of some kind rather than adhere to the Instruction which your Lordships forced on them on the Second Reading, which quite obviously and by common consent involved the failure of the Bill altogether. That being so, I ask the House whether it would not be wiser to revert to the original proposal. Of course, I am not in a position to press my Amendment upon the House; that is quite evident; but I ask your Lordships whether, rather than agree to this very unsatisfactory Amendment, it would not be better to revert to the original proposal which is emboded in the Amendment that I have on the Paper. It involves the handing over of a certain part of the proceeds of the entire sale to the London County Council to be devoted to the provision of an open space as near the site of the church as is possible, having regard to the character of the district, and, of course, to the high price of land in that particular area. It is true that it might be difficult to supply that space within the actual bounds of the borough of Bermondsey, and very naturally, therefore, the municipal authorities of Bermondsey prefer even a little area of about the dimensions of a lawn tennis court, with which the noble Earl is prepared to supply them, to nothing at all, and support his proposals. On the other hand, the kind of open space which would be provided under the original proposal would undoubtedly serve a great number of the inhabitants of Bermondsey, even though it were not actually within the borough boundary. I do not think, therefore, that Bermondsey, generally speaking, would have much to complain of.
The original proposal had this further advantage, that it involved the careful demolition stone by stone of this interest—

1127
ing church and its re—erection on an appropriate site where it would be of real service once more to the community. I cannot feel that the mere leaving of the tower on the existing site as an ancient monument really meets the case. I do not think that an archæologist would regard that as a satisfactory solution, although he might prefer it to the complete disappearance of the whole building and its associations. I venture, therefore, to ask your Lordships whether the House would not reconsider its former opinion, arrived at, as I think, in a spirit of most laudable but mistaken enthusiasm for one particular application of an excellent principle, and accept the Amendment which I have on the Paper. My noble friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Meath) spoke as if nothing remained to be done but for your Lordships to pass the Bill, upon which the gardeners from to-morrow would proceed to plant flowers in this somewhat forlorn area. The Bill has to go to another place, and your Lordships may be sure that the whole of this controversy will be repeated and renewed there, and the views which I have ventured to put forward will be undoubtedly pressed there by those who are probably far more competent to express them than I am. In these circumstances I question whether it is worth the while of Your Lordships to send the Bill down representing what I cannot think my noble and learned friend opposite believes to be a completely satisfactory compromise, of which he is the somewhat unwilling godfather.
LoRD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I support very cordially the views which have been expressed by the noble Marquess. I very much regret that on the occasion when the Instruction was passed by a majority of this House I was not present, because had I been I should have taken the liberty, as an old Member for West Southwark for twenty-two years, of entering my protest on the ground that I cannot conceive of a more unsuitable site for an open space than that which has been selected and approved. I am quite certain that the Instruction was passed under a misapprehension. With respect to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Meath, we all have the greatest respect for him and for the great work that he has done. As an old London Member, there is no one in the House more anxious than I am to preserve the open spaces in the metropolis, and, wherever possible, to increase them; while as to ancient
1128
monuments I had the honour of sitting under the Chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, and I think that I actually moved the Second Reading of the Ancient Monuments Bill in this House. This shows, I think, that I have much sympathy both for ancient monuments amid for open spaces; but when you come to practical common sense business principles, and to apply them to this case, I do not think that your Lordships will agree to this proposal.
This is only a very small open space, and a wharf there would be of the greatest possible value to commerce, while the money obtained by the sale of this land would provide a fund for a new church, or to remove the present church to a new site, and would also in addition probably provide enough money to pay a suitable stipend to a clergyman. Moreover, there would be a balance in hand for the purchase of an open space in a suitable position. I cannot, therefore, conceive of any argument that can weigh against this practical common sense view of the matter.
The noble Earl just now spoke about a spot of beauty. I read the speech of my noble friend Lord Bryce in moving the Instruction—a most delightful speech. I almost fancied that he considered himself at the Riviera or the Italian Lakes, or amid some of the splendid Swiss scenery that we all so much admire. If you were to see this site and imagine what it would be if you had it as an open space you would realise that it is a misapprehension to think it is a suitable site for that purpose, or that it would be of any benefit either to grown-up people or to children, As regards children, I cannot conceive a more dangerous position for an open space for them right in the midst of heavy traffic to and from the wharves.
I can quite appreciate the difficulty that the Committee had in dealing with the Instruction which Your Lordships sent to them, and I know that when you do send an Instruction you expect it to be kept. But there are occasions when rules of this sort might be broken. I should very much like to hear from the members of the Committee, if they could rise and say "We have visited the site; it is a splendid place, and. it would be a great sacrifice for the public to lose the advantage of such a site." I am sure they could not say that. From a little practical experience of the locality, I am obliged to say, looking at it from a business point of view, that it would be a

1129
horrible waste of money to carry out my noble friend Lord Mackenzie's Report. I think he himself, as Chairman of the Committee, must have felt some difficulty in meeting the views of your Lordships and trying to have a compromise that would satisfy the noble Earl and his friends.
I do not rise as an opponent of open spaces in London; indeed I should like to see more and more. I know the hardship it is to the people in these crowded. districts not to have more open spaces. But it is impossible to call this a desirable open space. I have spoken to a great many important people in the area as to whether they thought it a suitable site, and I could not find anybody who thought it was. Of course, the work which is being done by the noble Earl, Lord Meath, and his Association is of the greatest value to London, and we all appreciate it. Therefore I very much regret that I should have to express anything like disapproval of his action, but I am sure that he will appreciate what I am saying. It is not that I am opposed to open spaces, or to his action. I know that he is so enthusiastic about his work that he would not give up an inch of anything if he could help it. That is the principle upon which he is working. On the other hand, some of us ought to try and guide him on some occasions, and I think this is one. It would be more practical to allow this site to be used for some commercial purpose and produce money. That would be beneficial both to commerce and to the Church.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I am sorry to find my noble friend Lord Southwark acting in opposition to the sentiment of the Borough Council of Bermondsey. He says he does not know any one in that part of London in favour of this proposal, but I am in receipt of repeated communications from the Borough Council of Bermondsey dwelling on the great importance that they attach to this open space, and earnestly hoping that your Lordships will preserve it. It is of no great importance whether one particular company is able to get more space for building in a place like that, but it makes a great difference to a crowded area like Bermondsey that the people should have in their midst an open space to which they may go. Some one said—I think it was Miss Octavia hill—that an acre or two of open space in London is worth thousands of acres in Scotland, because an open space may make
1130
all the difference to people who want to get a little rest and open air, especially in the middle of the day, when they have a short intermission from their work.
I have made a visit to this place; I am under no misapprehension on the subject. It is a spot rather unique on the side of the Thames. It has the most interesting historical associations in connection with the famous battle which was fought at London Bridge, and which is probably commemorated by the dedication of the church to St. Olave, because St. Olave was the king who commanded the Norwegian fleet on that occasion. It also commands a view of the Custom House Office and down nearly as far as the Tower. It is one of the very few places on the river front in London where there is an open space from which people can see the river to advantage, and I can fancy an artist wishing to paint this part of London choosing that particular spot as one where he would get a characteristic view, because not only does the bridge come in but there is a beautiful group of spires on the north side of the river which add distinction to that particular prospect.
As regards the remarks of Lord Crewe, I should like to assure hint that this compromise is by no means an unsatisfactory one. It has been arrived at by the Committee after a great deal of consideration, and it meets the views of those who supported the Instruction. That Instruction was intended to defend and maintain unimpaired the principle which Parliament adopted in 1884, and which it has reasserted on two subsequent occasions—that open spaces occupied by churchyards should not be built upon, but should be kept open and, if possible, turned to account for the benefit of the people by being preserved as open spaces.
The Committee have taken a great deal of pains in this matter. I should like, on behalf of those who moved in the matter in this House some few weeks ago, to acknowledge the pains and care which the Committee have taken; and it seems to me that they have arrived at a quite satisfactory arrangement by which this open space—which is by no means so small as your Lordships would have gathered from the observations of my noble friend Lord Southwark—would be preserved for the enjoyment of the people and access given to it through the tower. The tower, which is an interesting little monument,

1131
especially in its historical associations, would be preserved, and at the same time there would be quite enough land left to enable buildings to be erected, the proceeds of the sale going to the objects enumerated in the Bill, the residue being applied to purposes in the diocese of Southwark which are desired by the Bishop, whose wishes, of course, the Committee and those who moved the Instruction were most anxious to meet as far as possible.
I think, therefore, that this is one of those rather unusual compromises which satisfy every one, excepting the London County Council. My noble friend, Lord Crewe, is here to move his clause on behalf, as I understand, of the London County Council. I am sorry to say that I cannot at all agree with them about the extreme smallness of the area. There are many areas much smaller than this, as your Lordships might find if you walked through the City of London, which nevertheless are greatly valued and prized by the people—open spaces where the public resort, especially in the midday hours. And I do not think it is at all pedantic that we should adhere to the principle of an Act which was passed so many years ago, which has been repeatedly observed, and which has worked for the benefit of the people of London.
My noble friend Lord Crewe suggests that we passed the Instruction in a moment of enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is the last thing with which this House is generally charged, and I rather hope that if it did show its enthusiasm for the interests of the people and for the preservation of historical monuments on that particular occasion, it will not go back upon the principle which it then asserted. I should like to observe also that the suggestion made by the noble Marquess that the money to be obtained from the sale of this church should be applied in finding some open space at a considerable distance would by no means meet the wishes of the people of Bermondsey. To provide an open space away beyond Camberwell would not be of the same use as giving the inhabitants of Bermondsey one in their own midst.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I interrupt my noble friend for one moment? If he looks at the terms of my Amendment he will see that the open space is to be "as near the site of the said church as the Council, having regard to the cost of
1132
acquisition, may consider reasonably practicable." Therefore its acquisition at Hampstead or at Eelbrook Common obviously would not meet the case.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I was not suggesting that it would be at a distance like that, but that it would be too far off to be of any particular value to the people of Bermondsey, and I think it was admitted that it cannot be there. I suggested that if it were three or four miles away even it would not be of much service. If they wanted an open space at that distance the people might as well get on to a tram and go out to Dulwich.
With regard to taking down and rebuilding the church, from what little judgment I could form about the church, and from what I have heard from those who know more about this sort of thing than I do, it does not appear to be a work of such exceptional value as to be worth our while to charge the promoters of the Bill with the heavy cost of taking down the church and rebuilding it, stone by stone, somewhere else where its associations with the present site will have disappeared. I therefore submit to your Lordships that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Crewe would be, in the first place, against the principle of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, which has been repeatedly reaffirmed; that it would be against the Instruction which was passed by your Lordships' House; that it would be against the wishes of the Bermondsey Borough Council, who are the people most directly interested; and that it would be against the Report of the Committee who have taken great pains over this matter.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I want to say a few words to supplement what the noble Viscount has said. I very much hope that the House will not completely reverse the decision to which it came a few weeks ago, but that it will accept the present Amendment moved by the Chairman of the Committee which was in charge of the Bill upstairs—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie—which Amendment has been accepted by those who supported the Instruction moved in the House on the former occasion, and which is to my mind, considering all the circumstances of the case—and they are difficult—really a very reasonable one.

1133
The noble Marquess (Lord Crewe) is no doubt very anxious to obtain a decision and to persuade the House to accept his view of what ought to be done, but I want to remind the House that one of the chief objections taken at the Second Reading of the Bill was that it was overriding an Act of Parliament, and that a very strong case ought to be made out in favour of a particular Bill of this sort if it absolutely contradicted an Act of Parliament deliberately passed by both Houses of Parliament. The noble Marquess now not only wants to persuade the House to override this Act of Parliament—which the House decided not to do a few weeks ago—but he also asks us to override an Instruction which was given by this House on that occasion, and to sweep away our own decision of a few weeks ago. I hope that the House will accept the proposal of the Committee made by its Chairman.
One word upon an argument used by the noble Marquess—namely, the clause in his Amendment, which was mentioned by the noble Viscount below the gangway, providing that the church should be carefully taken down, stone by stone, and removed to be erected elsewhere. I am not impressed with that; and I must say that those on whose judgment I would rely—architects and others—in no single case have said a word in favour of this proposal. To take down a building stone by stone is a very costly proceeding, if properly done. When you rehandle and re-build a building it is a new one; it has nothing left but the old design and a certain number of old stones which belonged to the original edifice. It really ceases to have any great architectural interest; it is probably re-erected on a site for which it was not designed, and it will in all probability be out of place. With regard to the tower, the value of leaving it is that, from London Bridge and from anywhere else from where you can see this site, the tower stands out as a rather remarkable piece of architecture of the early eighteenth century. By leaving the tower you will, so long as it exists, have a monument on the very site of the old St. Olave's Church, which is the thing you want to commemorate from an historical point of view. There is the site where the old St. Olave's Church of 1730 (or whenever it was) was erected, and there remains part of the eighteenth century building. Therefore, not only from the open space point of view but also from the point of view of the historic value of the
1134
position of old St. Olave's Church, I sincerely hope that the House will accept the Amendment moved by Lord Muir Mackenzie and will not agree to the Amendment standing in the name of the noble. Marquess.
Loan LAMINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken referred to the objection which the House might possibly entertain to reversing a decision arrived at three or four weeks ago. Lord Bryce also alluded to that aspect of the question, and I think he said that the noble Marquess (Lord Crewe) indicated. that, owing to the enthusiasm of three or four weeks ago, an Instruction was inserted for the consideration of the Committee. I think that it was the result of the natural enthusiasm entertained by your Lordships for the principle of preserving open spaces in London, re-inforced very much by the remarkable speech of the noble Viscount (Lord Bryce), who delivered a most interesting and historical disquisition upon the site and area in question. The noble Viscount gave us a very long account of the past records associated with that locality. I was myself so unprejudiced in the matter that I cannot exactly remember which way I voted; but since that time, on one Sunday afternoon, I thought it would be better, in order to arrive at a more certain knowledge, to inspect this site, so, accompanied by two friends (one of them a member of your Lordships' House) I went to see it. We unanimously came to the conclusion that it would be a ludicrous thing to retain such a spot of ground as an open space, hemmed in, as the noble Marquess said, by the high walls of warehouses.
There is one other point I wish to mention which I do not think has been touched upon. This is not a residential or a crowded area; and I think the recommendation in favour of having an open space at a spot indicated by the noble Marquess would be of tenfold value compared with this little spot of ground. It is a pity that we have not had plans furnished of this site and. of the whole parish of Bermondsey in order to enable us to see whether a position might not be found for a larger and more useful open space elsewhere. At any rate, I am convinced that to retain the site in question as an open space would result in obtaining a minimum of advantage at a maximum cost.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, if the comparison were not too flattering to myself I should be inclined to claim that sympathy which is produced by the spectacle of the good man struggling with adversity. The adversity in this case is the difficulty of reconciling what would appear to be widely divergent interests. If each and all of these interests are converted into some principle which we cannot under any circumstances abandon, then I am afraid we shall drift to the dismal conclusion to do nothing to put an end to a situation which every one admits to be highly unsatisfactory. We have been perilously near coming to the point of having the church permanently closed; that could not possibly satisfy the desire of those who wish to preserve unimpaired architectural beauties and the work of an architect of the eighteenth century, or the desire of those who are anxious to secure an Open space, because there is no access to that open space.
THE EARL OF MEATH: There is a right of access, but it is a narrow one.
THE LORD BISHOP or SOUTHWARK: In the third place, the Bishop would be prevented from carrying out what is his first duty; his primary duty is not to provide open spaces or museums, or to adapt a church to secular purposes, but to convert a church which can no longer be used in the circumstances of the parish into another church somewhere else, in circumstances where it would be highly useful in the best interest of his fellow-citizens. I should deplore very much arriving at a conclusion of that kind, because it would show that we are unable, owing either to a lack of good will or practical intelligence, or a sense of cooperation, to solve this puzzle, and we should leave an unsatisfactory state of things unremedied and we should all feel disappointment.
I entirely respect all the interests which have been represented. I consider that these interests ought to be most fully represented and most scrupulously weighed, and I respect very much indeed the scruples and difficulties which are felt by the Open Spaces Association. I wish to do nothing in this scheme which would be likely to impair in the future the usefulness of their
1136
work in other localities, or make it more difficult for them. It is for the Houses of Parliament to decide, I suppose, whether by going back upon the Act of 1884 they would be likely to undermine the principle for which the Open Spaces Association stands. I would only say this for myself, that I should prefer to accept the Amendment moved by Lord Muir Mackenzie, on the ground that it would safeguard the spirit and principle for which the Open Spaces Association stands. I should dislike very much to do anything which would seem to weaken their work or impair the efforts which they make for the benefit of our people.
If I might be allowed to add one word it is this, by way of apology to the noble Marquess. I trust I shall not seem to go back upon anything that I might have suggested on previous occasions with regard to the arrangement for carrying out our scheme. I should have been fully prepared to accept the Amendment that he has moved with all the limitations and conditions there attached, if we had the whole space at our disposal to deal with. But after the course of procedure in this House over this Bill the circumstances, as far as that is concerned, have been completely altered. Therefore it would be obviously impossible, with the limitation that has been imposed by the procedure of the House, to carry out the suggestions which were made and the conditions attached. I confess it seems strange to me if after an Instruction has been moved and the matter has been carefully considered in Committee, and after an arrangement has been arrived at by which the spirit of the Instruction is observed, the House should go back entirely upon that. It is for that reason, as well as my desire to support the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association generally, that I should prefer to accept Lord Muir Mackenzie's Amendment.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I hope that it will not be regarded as great impertinence on my part if I intervene in this debate. I have been detained by public duties elsewhere until the last few minutes, and I have therefore unfortunately missed most of the speeches which have been delivered in the earlier part of this debate, but I was present on the last occasion and listened

1137
most attentively to the speeches then made, and notably to that delivered by the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce. I am sure that the noble Viscount will agree that my own prepossession, or prejudice if you like, would be entirely in favour of the course which he there recommended.
Nobody is a more ardent advocate of, or has fought more violent battles for, the preservation of open spaces, and there are few people in this country who take a more passionate interest in the preservation of ancient monuments than I do. Some of your Lordships may recollect that when the Ancient Monuments Bill was brought before your Lordships' House by Earl Beauchamp, I was one of its most enthusiastic advocates, and I trust that I have been able in one or two other ways to do something for the country and for the cause which I have so much at heart. Therefore my own instincts and convictions would have been entirely in favour of the course recommended by the noble Viscount. But, like Lord Lamington, I put my own a priori impressions and inclinations to the lest of actual fact. Before going down to see this place I gave myself the pleasure of once again reading the picturesque language of the noble Viscount, which reminded me of some of the best-known passages in some of his well-known works. He told us that it was a spot of historic interest and the site of a famous battle. It must have been a very small battle having regard to the size of this space.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: It was a battle fought on the river.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: If fought on the river it cannot be very useful as an argument for preserving the churchyard.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: It was fought on the river opposite this very spot.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Then if the battle is to be commemorated it would seem to require not so much a disused churchyard as a floating pontoon. I understood that the argument of the battlefield was used as an argument for keeping an open space. Quite apart from that, he told us that it was a spot of singular interest with a unique and charming view, and that it was a kind of spot where people liked to sit and have a little quiet. On a busy afternoon I sought a moment's holiday and contemplated having a siesta
1138
myself. What did I find? I crossed the bridge and arrived with the greatest difficulty at this picturesque site, where the bones of ancient warriors rested in the river mud below, and I found that it was surrounded by tall and forbidding warehouses, which gave almost repulsive evidence of a vigorous and successful trade. With the utmost difficulty I clambered to the top of the wall. Looking over this wall I discovered what the Committee have described as an "unsightly and disreputable" churchyard, or something to that effect. There was a small space which was now, or had been, a churchyard. There was no access to it. You had to look over the wall in order to see it, and when you looked inside there was a slatternly space encumbered with a few tombstones, most of them on the ground, one I think standing, and this space on the land side was blocked by a church. I sought to penetrate to the church, but experienced the utmost difficulty. Though I got at least six keys, and though I went to the proper custodian of the church, I found that not only did none of them fit the door nor was entrance possible, but that nobody wanted to enter it or had entered it for some time. Now as regards the architectural features of this church, I myself am a great admirer of the later Renaissance architecture, and its greatest exponent in this country was undoubtedly Sir Christopher Wren, but if I were drawing up a list of the examples of the genius of Sir Christopher Wren I should not include the church of St. Olave's among them. As a matter of fact, I believe it was not the product of his genius, but, as I think the noble Marquess told us, of a pupil of his.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Fliteroft.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: And I should say myself that it was a bad example of a decadent and uninteresting style. But that is a matter of opinion. That is what I saw; and then I find that your Lordships' House is being invited to conserve this space, with or without the church—people differ about that—as an open space for the excellent inhabitants of Bermondsey, really, it is the most ridiculous thing you ever heard of—absolutely fantastic—and when I am told by the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken (whose conversion or perversion. I most deeply regret) that because of the verdict of the House

1139
on a previous occasion he is prepared to accept the compromise proposed by the Committee, I can only say that I think the House was absolutely wrong on the previous occasion, and that anything I can do by vote or voice to reverse what I think was a most untimely and unfortunate decision, I would gladly do. That is my excuse for venturing on the impertinence of speaking in a debate where I have not heard the previous speakers.
Will any noble Lord tell me what object, artistic or archæological or hygienic, is to be attained by the preservation of this space? I understood—my information may have been corrected by what has passed this afternoon—that the principal parties concerned were agreed upon the removal of what I myself can only think is an eyesore. We were told, I think, on the last occasion that the assent of the Crown had been procured, the Crown being the patron of the living; that the Bishop of the diocese was in favour—I think perhaps, if he will allow me to say so, he is still in favour; that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were in favour; that the rector of the parish was in favour and that the principal local parishioners and business men concerned in the locality were all in favour of this change. And not only ought great weight, in my view, to be attached to that concurrence of opinion, but as I listened to the debate I thought that here were the elements of a most admirable bargain. On the one hand you were to get a new church, I understand, elsewhere. I am not myself much interested in the proposition as to whether the old church should be moved stone by stone. My personal opinion is that it would be entirely unworthy of the expense; but still, if local opinion or local prejudice was in favour of taking away the church, and if the money was forthcoming and people liked to erect it elsewhere, by all means let them do so. Nor, again, am I very much interested in the preservation of the tower alone. The tower has no beauty apart from the church; it has uncommon little with it, and apart from the church it will have absolutely none at all. To take down the church and invite the people of Bermondsey to sit, with the wharf on one side and a few tombstones on the other, to enjoy a quiet summer afternoon with this unhappy relic looming in the air behind—I would not condemn anybody to a penalty so extreme. Not only that, but, as I understand from what we were told the other day, from the monetary point of
1140
view the bargain was to be a very good one. From the sale of this site endowments were to be procured for the new church; there was to be an increase of the emoluments for the rectors of the parishes concerned; and a substantial sum of £5,000 was to be granted, I think, to the Open Spaces Fund.
THE EARL or MEATH: I beg your pardon. To the London County Council.
EARL CURZON or KEDLESTON: They were to expend it—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: For the purpose of providing an open space as near as possible.
EARL CURZON or KEDLESTON: I do not know that I would trust the London County Council quite as much as I would the noble Earl, but still it was to be devoted to the object of securing an open space. In these circumstances I think that that was a very excellent bargain. I do not really quite know which way I am to vote or what I am going to vote for, because I came in too late to catch what is called the "hang" of the debate; but I want to vote to reverse the decision of the House on the last occasion. If the noble Marquess offers me an opportunity to do so, I will vote with him. If the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, is endeavouring to confirm the decision, I must vote against him.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I could not hear what he last said.
EARL CURZON. OF KEDLESTON: What I was saying was that if the Motion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition enables me in any degree to reverse what I think was the mistaken decision of the House on the last occasion, I will vote for him. If, as I understand, the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, is a kind of feeble, and as I think useless, compromise which will not reverse but will in its essence confirm the decision of the House, I must vote against him. I am still waiting for guidance on the matter, but I implore your Lordships to get away from the idea that there is either archæology or genuine bona fide sentiment or anything of the kind involved. It is a matter of practical business and utility; and if your Lordships turn down the scheme, with all respect I venture to say that you are doing an injury and not an advantage to the people of that part of London.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): MY Lords, I should be extremely sorry if my noble friend left upon the House the impression that as a House we are agreed that because an open space is small it is therefore negligible. It is quite a mistake, as Lord Lamington said, to look upon this as a ludicrous scheme because the area involved is insignificant. It is because Bermondsey is a congested area, and because, so far as I know, at the present moment a person who walks through the streets of Bermondsey cannot ever see the river Thames, that this little site has an extraordinary value to Bermondsey. And. if anybody would care to make a round of the open spaces that have been acquired and fitted up in London during the past twenty years he would agree with me, I think, in saying that the transformation of a sordid and disgusting patch of ground into a charming, beautiful, and restful garden is something which is simply phenomenal. I could secure from the Earl, Lord Meath, photographs of what were disgustingly dirty places which are now charming gardens, crowded by people—the very crowds testifying to the value which the people set upon them—as a proof in this case that although the site is small it is far from being negligible in consequence. The County Council offered, in return for the sum of £5,000, to provide an alternative site. It will not be in Bermondsey. If the site that the County Council finds in Bermondsey is not going to cost more than £5,000 it certainly will not be materially larger than the old burial ground of St. Olave's. Therefore, I rule out any possibility of securing a site in this parish.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? The promoters agreed to contribute £5,000 towards the provision of an open space, but it by no means follows that the open space would cost £5,000 only. It is quite possible that it might cost a great deal more. And. may I remind the noble Earl, when he says that the open space would not be in Bermondsey, that the boundaries of the borough of Bermondsey, like those of all London boroughs, are not clearly defined in a way which a stranger would appreciate.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No; and of course the noble Marquess and the County Council have taken good care in
1142
their clause to guard themselves against any misapprehension of that kind, So far from promising an open space in Bermondsey, it is promised in the Diocese of Southwark, which extends, I believe, some ten miles; and when I say that £5,000 is to be spent, the bigger the sum the County Council is prepared to add to this £5,000 contributed by the churchwardens the more remote is this open space going to be from the centre of Bermondsey. It is going to be some great and ambitious scheme, perhaps four or five miles away. A small and indeed insignificant open space in Bermondsey is worth a dozen acres at Greenwich or Dulwich. The great asset and feature of London is the little groups, so far as acres are concerned, of central London parks—Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park, the Green Park, St. James's Park, and to the north Regents Park. In area they are utterly insignificant compared with the great parks of Paris or Vienna, but the difference is that here we have them in the centre of the metropolis whilst in Paris and Vienna they have them along the banlieur Therefore, I say that a few yards, a tennis court, in Bermondsey is worth two or three acres in Dulwich, and I am in favour of maintaining what open spaces we can in Bermondsey, one of the most unfortunate places of all the Lnodon boroughs so far as open spaces are concerned. There is one other point about which I should like to inform your Lordships—and I am in cordial agreement with my leader, Earl Curzon of Kedleston—and that is the proposal of the County Council to re-erect the church. I notice that they do not propose to re-erect the tower.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Oh, yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The clause does not say so. The tower is not the church, and the church is not the tower. And as the word "tower" is not included, the Bill would not apply to it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I ought to explain. The intention is to revert to the original proposal by which the whole site would be cleared and the entire church removed.
THE EARL, of CRAWFORD: And it is to be re-erected within the diocese? Where? Who wants it? Is there a parish that is waiting for this church to be re-erected within it? I do not think so.

1143
A new parish wants a new parish church, adapted to modern needs and to the requirements of the parish. This is a poor building at best. The noble Earl, Lord Curzon, said it is decadent, and if you pull this building down and re-erect it at the far end of the Lord Bishop's diocese you will have what we are all familiar with in our lives—a patched up and sophisticated old personage. It is not preservation of ancient monuments to pull a church down and re-erect it elsewhere. In the process it would lose all its character and would become a mere pasticcio The building itself must suffer, its character and personality is gone, and when you have moved it you have done an injustice to the old church and inflicted an injustice on the new parish as well. There is a great principle involved in this Bill. The site is small and insignificant; the values involved are trifling compared with the big issue of open spaces we have had to deal with in this House and in the other House; and I hope your Lordships, although the case is in itself rather small, will maintain the large principle of keeping open spaces wherever possible in London.
Loan STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have been referred to I wish to have a word in this debate. It should be understood that the Commissioners deal mainly with mundane and prosaic matters of temporalities, though they do very often find themselves faced with questions of public policy, and even of;æsthetics. I voted against the Instruction in this matter in the first Division in your Lordships' House on the ground—and I should have said so had I taken part in that debate—that this House would do well to trust its Committees in the first instance, and that it was a mistake to say, as the House said on that occasion, that at no time and in no circumstances should any exception be made in the provisions of a public Act of Parliament.
It has been said by the noble Earl that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were in favour of this Bill as it was brought in, and that was used as an argument for adopting the Amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners approved of the Bill as "an Act for the development of the resources of the Church." They did not approve of paying £5,000 to the London County Council, which is what the noble Marquess is going to get
1144
out of the Bill if his Amendment is accepted. Let me support what the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has said by another consideration. It is quite true that the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, when he went there found great difficulty of access. He found tombstones and unsightly things encumbring his path, and the key did not fit the door of the church. What is the relevancy of all these matters? The unsightly things are going to be got rid of, an access is going to be created, and it will be no longer a question of keys or a door to be opened.
Is this space going to be worth anything to anybody? It is very small, it is cooped in on both sides by lofty buildings, not perhaps so lofty as the great hop warehouses a little up the Thames, but the question whether anybody is going to sit there is settled by the vote of the Bermondsey Borough Council, whose spokesman the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, has been to-day. Though the site be small, and though it be cramped, I venture to suggest that if there is one thing that can give it dignity and amenity it is a view of the River Thames below the bridge. It would be going too far to say that such a view would give absolute beauty to any site or any recreation ground—
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord. But will he tell me—perhaps I spoke in ignorance before—how the people in the churchyard are going to see the river when the river is concealed, and how any human being standing or sitting in the churchyard is to have any view of the river?
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I understand that the arrangement made by the Committee to whom this Bill was referred proposed such a readjustment in the divisions of the site as would bring the river within view of what would be the open space for the recreation of the public. I was saying that it would be going too far to assert that a view of the river will add beauty to a site already hideous and cramped by buildings. I do not know whether any of your Lordships ever remember going along Paternoster Row and placing yourselves in a position to enfilade one of the little cross streets which give you a view of St. Paul's, and thereby have become aware of the extraordinary beauty and dignity added even to the great structure of St. Paul's by seeing it through that

1145
narrow space. My Lords, there is a thing which has greater dignity even than St. Paul's Cathedral, and it is the great stream which is the source of the greatness of London and of so much in English history. I submit that it is an entirely mistaken view to suppose that, by closing the access to the river at this particular crowded part of Londen and giving possibly a larger area of ill-growing grass inhabited by discoloured sheep and other things which are the reverse of amenities in some other part of London, you are providing a fit substitute. For my part, as I voted upon the Second Reading of this Bill for supporting the Committees of this House, so I entreat your Lordships not upon this occasion to inflict another rebuff on the Committee which in this case gave so much pains to the consideration of the matter.
LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, I went to this site this morning. The result upon my mind is that if I could possibly restore the original Instruction to the Committee, I would do so; and, as a second best, I certainly should support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. This site is a small one; on three sides it is crowded with buildings, but it gives a most wonderful view of the Thames and of the great buildings of London. You see the whole collection of. Wren's steeples, you see St. Paul's, the Tower Bridge, and the Tower itself. It is a wonderful view. It is said that this site is small and at present bare and ugly. Many of your Lordships may sometimes penetrate into the fastnesses of the city, and may see small spots of ground made beautiful by planting trees, by placing paths, and by introducing the general amenities that come with the re-organisation and re-administration of such open spaces. The small spaces in London, your Lordships will see if you go in the middle of the day, are crowded with people of all clases, of all ages, and both sexes, sitting upon the seats and enjoying the open space which is provided.
When this Bill Was originally introduced it came straight up against the great principle which this House and the other House have always maintained in regard to the metropolis, and I was amazed that for the sake of a few thousand pounds so many great organisations should have put their heads together to deprive the public of Bermondsey of this open space. I only wish that they could get the whole space, but, if they cannot get the whole, that they
1146
may get whatever they can; certainly neither £5,000 nor anything else will make up for the deficiency of this open space if it is closed in and built over with hop warehouses and the like. I did not intend to say anything, but having been to see the site this morning I must state that my view is entirely different from that of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who I think must have been deprived for the moment of that power of foreseeing in his imagination what the ground is capable of which I think he ought to have.
LoRD LAMINGTON: Did the noble and learned Lord get into the churchyard?
LORD COLERIDGE: Yes I did, without difficulty. There is no let or hindrance; and as to the wall, I suppose that it is part of the churchyard and can be taken down or replaced by an iron railing through which you could see.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to say one word before the House goes to a Division. The clause that I am now proposing is undoubtedly in the nature of a compromise. It has been called a very unsatisfactory compromise, and I think it leis also been described by an even more opprobrious word. It is a compromise; but I think that if there is one thing which the debate this afternoon has demonstrated it is that this is a case for compromise, because the most diverse opinions have been expressed in different quarters of the House, and if it is possible to arrive at something that produces a result that will enable the right rev. Prelate to accomplish some of the good objects which he has in view, and which will also enable those who are interested in open spaces to see their wishes gratified, something will have been done. For that reason I still hope that the House will adopt this compromise.
The other observation that I have to make is with reference to what has fallen from the noble Marquess opposite, and from various speakers, with respect to the Amendment that stands in his name. The position of the House at this moment is to say Aye or No—is the douse which I have the honour to move to be carried or not? The question of whether the noble Marquess's Amendment is to he accepted is not before the House. If the noble Marquess should find himself in a position to move his

1147
Amendment hereafter, I should like very much to press upon him and upon the House the view that his Amendment goes into Committee matters that were not discussed before our Committee, and if they are to be discussed at all I trust that they will come before a Committee, by which I mean not that they should be referred back to us but that the noble Marquess should leave it to the County Council to bring the matter forward when the Bill goes into the House of Commons. I suggest to your Lordships that if you accept without full discussion the Committee proposals that are made by the noble Marquess you will again fall into just the
Resolved in the affirmative, and new clause agreed to accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, in the circumstances I feel that it would be almost futile for me to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I therefore will not do so. It is possible, of course, that it may reappear in its present form, or in some other form, in another place, and that your Lordships may hear of it again. That, of course, is a matter about which I cannot venture to prophesy.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, in moving that the Bill do pass I venture, with great respect to the House, to point out that there has been much difficulty in dealing with this Bill, and that it has arisen from a course having been taken which, as the Lord Chairman pointed out on the Second Reading, was without precedent in this House—the course, that is, of
same difficulty, as I venture to call it, which occurred on the Second Reading. Therefore I very much hope that his Amendment, which has been commented upon to some extent already, though somewhat irrelevantly, will not be put before the House. The question now is, I think, whether or not the new clause which stands in my name on the Paper, and which I have moved, shall form part of the Bill.
On Question, whether the new clause shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 35; Not-contents, 6.

CONTENTS

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Colebrooke, L.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. chamberlain.)

Coleridge, L.

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

Bryce, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart)

Haldane, V.

Farrer, L.

Iveagh, V.

Forester, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Knollys, V.

Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)

Leigh, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Lucan, E.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Mayo, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Plymouth, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Stanhope, E.

Balfour, L.

Stanmore, L.

Strafford, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) [Teller.]

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Verulam, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

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

Crewe, M.

Hylton, L.

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Southwark, L.[Teller.]

giving a rigid Instruction to one of your Lordships' Committees as to what they ought to do. I venture to hope that your Lordships will think upon future occasions that this should not be treated as a precedent, but that you should revert to the long-established practice of the House in this respect.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAND DRAINAGE (LOTTING FEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
POST OFFICE (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NORTH CHESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House (yesterday) that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: The Order for the Second Reading discharged: Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (FOOD PROFITS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following six Bills received the Royal Assent—

Workmen's Compensation (Illegal Employment).

1150

Post Office (No. 2).

Defence of the Realm (Food Profits).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Land Drainage (Lotting Fen) Provisional Order.

Nitrate Railways.

THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
THE EARL OF KINTORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn until Tuesday, May 28.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock.