Sitting of 7 November 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

DYE INDUSTRY (STATE ASSISTANCE).
Copy presented of Memorandum, by the Board of Trade on the Scheme for the allocation of the Funds provided by Parliament for the development of the Dye Industry by means of financial assistance to Companies and Firms in aid of developments, extensions, and research [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES' REPORTS.
Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 131.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 131.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    NAVAL ARMAMENTS.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to avert an immediate resort to competition in naval armaments after the War, any consideration has been given to the advisability of issuing a declaration by the Allies that would ensure that if Germany or any of the Central Powers should at any time prior to the establishment of a League of Nations, or within a stated number of years, lay down the keel or become possessed of any ship of war, this would be deemed by the Allies a hostile act?
    The ASSISTANT SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): I am afraid I can say no more than that the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion will receive consideration.

  ARMISTICE TERMS.

    TURKEY.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the terms of the armistice with Turkey, any conditions were stipulated with regard to Armenia; and whether any special precautions have been taken to guard against a recrudescence of massacre there?
    Lord R. CECIL: All the terms of the armistice with Turkey have been made public.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the anxiety felt as to Armenia, and the limited purport of Article 24 in the terms of the armistice with Turkey, His Majesty's Government can give an assurance that Armenia, including Lesser Armenia or Cilicia, will not remain under any form of Turkish rule or sovereignty?
    Lord R. CECIL: I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave to questions put to my hon. Friend yesterday on this subject, to which I have nothing to add.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the Turkish troops who have for many months been a menace to our settlement at Aden; and whether our friend and ally, the Sultan of Lahej, is now in peaceful possession of his country?
    Lord R. CECIL: I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 16 of the armistice terms. Some time must, however, necessarily elapse before this Clause can be fully carried out in the Aden district owing to the conditions prevailing there and the state of communications.
    Sir J. JARDINE: Is the settlement at Aden quite safe from menace, and will the Noble Lord answer that part of the question that relates to the Sultan of Lahej?
    Lord R. CECIL: That depends on the difficulty I have alluded to—the difficulty

    2267
    of communication. As to the settlement at Aden, I do not think there is the slightest danger.
    Sir J. JARDINE: Has he gone back?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think so.
    Colonel YATE: Have the Turkish troops in the Lahej district laid down their arms or what has happened?
    Lord R. CECIL: That is really the thing. Some time must elapse before this Clause can be fully carried out in the Aden district owing to conditions prevailing there and the state of the communications.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if the terms of armistice granted to Turkey are those of unconditional surrender; and, if not, what are the conditions and when will they be published?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I would refer the hon. Baronet to the terms of the armistice with Turkey which appeared in the Press on 2nd November.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is it a fact that there are no conditions especially relating to Armenia other than those which have been published?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There are no conditions beyond those which have been published.

    BALKANS (TERRITORIAL DISTRIBUTION).
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an assurance that no pledge will be given by the Allies in regard to the future territorial distribution in the Balkans previous to the decisions of the Peace Conference?
    Lord R. CECIL: In so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, it will certainly be our endeavour not to prejudice by prior commitments the decisions of the Peace Congress in regard to the Balkans.
    Mr. BUXTON: Can the Noble Lord tell the House that no pledge has been given already?
    Lord R. CECIL: No; I cannot say as to that.

    AUSTRO-HUNGARY.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether that Clause in
    2268
    the Austrian armistice terms which authorises our troops in Austro-Hungary to keep order is intended to be used to suppress revolution and to protect the lives and property of the old military caste of Austro-Hungary?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This question is so hypothetical that I cannot answer it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that before the British Army is used as a counter revolutionary Army this House will be consulted?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure my hon. Friend that nothing in the world is less likely than that the British Army should be used for such a purpose.
    Mr. KING: Is not the British Army—[Interruption.]
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Austrian armistice, it might be possible to release Austrian civilians from internment, thus saving money to the country and giving a lead to better relations in future?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I do not think any general release of interned Austrians would be desirable at the present moment either in their own interest or in that of this country. Many of them cannot be released until it is possible to arrange for their repatriation.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that extend to Hungarians and Czechoslovaks?
    Sir G. CAVE: Hungarians, certainly. Czecho-Slovaks are treated as friendly aliens.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is it not better to keep all interned aliens in their present position of security pending peace negotiations?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think generally that would be right.
    Mr. ROCH: Is there any danger in releasing those over sixty?
    Sir G. CAVE: As a matter of fact, nearly all of that age have been repatriated.

    GERMANY.
    Commander BELLAIRS: In view of the new situation created by the Germans suing for an armistice, I feel that the House would prefer that I should not ask a question concerning the U-boat prisoners in Switzerland and Holland of which I gave notice to the Home Secretary.
  CHINA.

    GERMANS (DEPORTATION).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government have made any progress in either interning or deporting Germans who have been resident in China; and whether the Chinese Government have taken any steps towards sequestrating the property of Germans in that country with a view to curtailing their hostile propaganda, which the command of ample funds has so far enabled them to pursue?
    Lord R. CECIL: On China's declaration of war against the Central Powers, the Chinese Government took immediate steps to intern the German and Austro-Hungarian Legation Guards in Peking, and a few months ago informed the Allied Powers that they had decided to intern a certain number of the enemy civilian residents suspected of political intrigues and other dangerous activities. I regret to say, however, that, beyond preparing a suitable place for the reception of these persons, the Chinese Government have not yet proceeded with their actual internment. Similarly, although the Chinese Government have drawn up Regulations against enemy trading and for the sequestration of enemy property and businesses, these measures have, so far, not been rigorously enforced. The Allied Representatives at Peking have recently taken steps to press upon the attention of the Chinese Government this unsatisfactory state of things. They have been assured by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the President has issued a mandate giving instructions that China shall fulfil her duties to her Allies.
    Mr. STEWART: Will the Noble Lord say if due regard will be taken of the little assistance the Chinese Government have given us in this matter, especially having regard to the great help we gave them in holding up the Boxer indemnity, and in other ways?
    Lord R. CECIL: Undoubtedly we shall not forget the events of the case wherever they occur.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Did not the Chinese Government, when Kiao Chau was taken, allow a large number of German officers to escape from China as doctors?

    DEUTSCHE-ASIATISCHE BANK.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Deutsche-Asiatische Bank in China has not been liquidated in accordance with the undertaking given by the Chinese Government in 1917; whether any action has been taken to press the Chinese Government to fulfil its undertaking; if so, what those steps were; and whether he proposes to take any further action with a view to bringing to an end the present financial power that remains in the hands of German financiers interested in China?
    Lord R. CECIL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given yesterday to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Andover Division of Hants (Colonel Faber) on the same subject.

    GREECE (CESSION OF TERRITORY).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the various territorial offers made to Greece, of Southern Albania in November, 1914, of territories in Asia Minor at various dates in 1915 and 1916, of the Doirana district in 1915, and of Cyprus in October, 1915; whether these offers, or any of them, hold good to-day; and whether, before cessions of territory to Greece are finally decided upon, the wishes of the inhabitants will be obtained, preferably by plebiscite?
    Lord R. CECIL: The points raised will not be forgotten.

  RUSSIA.

    PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT (OMSK).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government or the Allies take cognisance of the provisional government of Russia of which Mr. Avksentieff is president and Mr. Maklakoff the ambassador in Paris; where is the present seat of this provisional government; whether

    2271
    Mr. Nabokoff is its representative in this country; and whether this provisional government is recognised or supported with funds, military aid, or otherwise by Great Britain?
    Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government have not recognised the Government referred to, which is, I believe, now at Omsk, and consequently have not recognised M. Nabokoff as its representative here. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. KING: If there is no recognition, are communications passing between the British Government and the Provisional Government at Omsk?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think that arises out of this question.

    CAPTURED GOLD.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to gold treasure said to have been captured by the Czech forces in Russia?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes, Sir; we have been informed that a large quantity of treasure, said to amount to 65,000,000 sterling in gold, was captured by the Czechs at Kazan. It was thence sent eastwards, and is, I believe, now at Omsk.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Am I to understand that the statement made on the subject recently in the "Times" as correct?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes sir; so far as the official information is concerned, it is correct.
    Mr. KING: Is this large sum at the disposal of the Czecho-Slovak Government, or the Provisional Government? In whose hands is it?
    Lord R. CECIL: I think by the Russian authorities at Omsk. I think so; I am not sure.
    Mr. KING: Are the Russian authorities there Bolsheviks?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir.

  MONTENEGRO.

    RELIEF OF DISTRESS.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the starving condition of the
    2272
    people of Montenegro; whether any scheme for the relief of their distress has been submitted to the Government; and what steps are being taken by the Government to relieve our Montenegrin Allies or to support and assist any voluntary efforts for that purpose?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): His Majesty's Government have received reports of the serious position of the people of Montenegro, and schemes for relief are already under consideration.

    NATIONALITY (PRESERVATION).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information as to the position of Montenegro in relation to the changes occurring in the Balkans; whether care is being taken that the preservation of Montenegrin nationality under its own monarchy shall not be prejudiced without the consent of the Montenegrin people; and what steps it is proposed to take to ascertain under what conditions the people of Montenegro may be willing to join a Serbo-Croat federation or other form of political union?
    Lord R. CECIL: The points raised by my hon. Friend will certainly not be lost sight of, but he will understand that it is not possible at present to discuss them by question and answer across the floor of the House.

    BULGARIA.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Bulgarian Government has indicated its readiness to co-operate with the Allies in military action; and, if so, whether he can give the grounds on which such co-operation was not accepted?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have no knowledge of any such offer, but the hon. Member's question is surely one which should be addressed to the representative of the War Office.

  IRELAND.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS (GRANTS).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the total amount given to secondary schools in Ireland last year under the Fisher Grant and on what basis it was distributed?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt):The total amount distributed to secondary schools in Ireland in the financial year ended 31st March, 1918, from the Parliamentary Grant of £50,000 was £49,952 7s. 9d. This sum was distributed in accordance with Rules made by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant on 13th March, 1918, and referred to in Parliamentary Paper Cd. 8929 of 1918.

    POLICE PAY.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will take steps to secure an increase for the Dublin Metropolitan Police and Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners?
    Mr. SHORTT: As I have already stated the matter is having consideration, but there are serious difficulties in the way.

    EVICTED TENANTS (FERMANAGH).
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state the number of evicted tenants in county Fermanagh who have not yet been reinstated or for whom new holdings have not been provided by the Estates Commissioners; and when such people may expect to receive the benefits intended for them by the Evicted Tenants Act?
    Mr. SHORTT: Eleven persons seeking reinstatement as tenants, or the representatives of tenants, evicted from holdings in county Fermanagh, have been provisionally noted by the Estates Commissioners for consideration in the distribution of such untenanted land as they may acquire under the Land Purchase Acts, and their cases will be considered when the Commissioners have lands available for distribution.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: Has not this been going on for many years, and is there not a lot of land held by men who can well spare a large portion of their property, and who are keeping away from it? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that these unfortunate people who have been out for years can get what they require?
    Mr. SHORTT: I really cannot add anything, I am afraid, to the answer I have given.

    MOTOR CYCLES (SEIZURE).
    Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is by his orders that four motor-cycles have been seized from various persons in New Market, county Cork; that the local rate collector is not allowed to use his machine; that on
    2274
    a school teacher living at a distance from his work a like restriction is placed, and also on the Excise and Customs officer, who has a radius of 15 miles to work; whereas he is aware that these restrictions are applied to loyal persons, not Sinn Feiners; and whether the seizure of the Excise officer's machine was made after consulting the Revenue authorities?
    Mr. SHORTT: Three motor bicycles have been seized from persons in New Market, where permits were refused. The local rate collector has not been interfered with. A permit was refused to a school teacher who lives six miles from his school, and his bicycle seized. A permit was also refused to the local Excise and Customs officer, and his bicycle seized. Restrictions are not applied to loyal persons. The Excise authorities were not consulted before seizure of the Excise officer's bicycle. This action is taken in pursuance of powers granted to the police under the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
    Mr. KING: Does not that answer imply that the Excise officer collecting money is not a loyal person?
    Mr SHORTT: It implies what it says.
    Mr. KING: Is he collecting it for the Sinn Feiners or for the Irish Government?

    MOUNTJOY MALE PRISON.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the disciplinary portions of the staff at Mountjoy male prison being very much depleted, and seeing that all special posts are almost daily filled by ordinary unskilled warders when such skilled warders are on leave, also with a view of having an opportunity given to ordinary disciplinary warders to learn the duties of the various posts referred to, and considering that the average number of prisoners at present employed under such skilled warders, or with holders of special posts, is very low, he will consider the advisability of at present ordering that all subordinate officers should share equally in the performance of evening duty, and thereby allay the discontent at present prevailing at this prison?
    Mr. SHORTT: In view of the prevailing epidemic and the consequent strain on the prisons staffs generally, the General Prisons Board consider the present an inopportune time to interfere with the governor's arrangements at Mountjoy Prison.

    PRISON OFFICERS.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, as a result of his interview with a deputation of Irish prison warders on the 28th ultimo, he is satisfied that those officers made out a reasonable case for an immediate increase of 10s. per week, permanent and pensionable pay, improved pensionable scheme, as has been recently conceded to the English warders, and increased boot and other allowances; whether he is aware that the claims of the English warders were conceded in one week; and, if so, can he now say when he intends to announce his decision to the Irish officers?
    Mr. SHORTT: I received last week a deputation of Irish prison warders as stated, who made a number of representations to me which are now receiving my attention.
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the Prisons Board are desirous that all officers on the staff of every prison should be given an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the working of the different posts in each prison; if so, will he take immediate steps to see that reliefs, consequent on officers appointed to certain posts being off duty through sickness, annual leave, etc., are not supplied by officers holding other posts whereby the duties of two important posts would devolve on the shoulders of one officer; is he aware that, especially in provincial prisons, the clerk warder and store warder are compelled to relieve each other, thereby depriving any other officer from becoming acquainted with those two branches; and will he take immediate steps to rectify this grievance?
    Mr. SHORTT: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the remainder of the question the matter is under consideration.

    COMMISSIONERS OF CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. BRADY:
    29. To ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland who were the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland who recently submitted their resignations to the Government, and which of these Commissioners persisted in resigning in spite of his request to them to retain their office;
    2276
    when these resignations took effect; if they were announced in the "Gazette"; if the vacant posts have yet been filled; if those resigning stated that in so doing they were protesting against as unqualified Treasury refusal to give effect to a carefully considered, reasoned, unanimous, and reiterated opinion of the Board; if he will state whether it is proposed to persist in the reduction by small amounts of the salaries of officials with important, responsible, and constantly increasing duties in face of the fact that this reduction has resulted in the loss of the unpaid public services of Commissioners of such long standing and repute as those Privy Councillors, judges, and prominent commercial and professional men who have lately resigned their office?
    Mr. SHORTT: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone this question. It was only put down on the Paper yesterday, and it has been impossible to get the information from Ireland to enable me to answer it.
    I would take this opportunity of asking hon. Members in future to give at least two or three days' notice of questions in regard to which information has to be obtained from Ireland.
    Mr. BRADY: By way of personal explanation, may I be allowed to inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I put the question down the day before yesterday? Still, I am quite prepared to postpone it till Tuesday.

    BELFAST PRISON.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will make a statement as to the condition of the Irish political prisoners in Belfast Prison; if he will state the diet scale they are now on; and how many are now in hospital, and the steps, if any, the authorities have taken to prevent the influenza epidemic spreading?
    Mr. SHORTT: The medical member of the General Prisons Board, who visited Belfast Prison on Tuesday and yesterday reports that: The condition of the prisoners who are in Belfast Prison is most satisfactory at the present time. There was seventeen of these prisoners under treatment in outside hospitals, nine of whom were transferred to the Mater Infirmorum and eight to the Belfast Union Infirmary. All these cases are progressing satisfactorily, so far.

    2277
    There are twenty-one cases in the prison hospital, all of whom are doing well; their seizures were of a milder type. There are ninety-six cases in the prison whose attacks were of a mild type and who are in the convalescent stage of the disease. All the prisoners affected are on a diet specially framed by the medical officer. It is full, varied, nutritious and most satisfying. The steps taken to prevent the epidemic spreading are—isolation, disinfection, and instant removal to the prison or outside hospitals. Since the epidemic manifested itself no further prisoners have been transferred to the special prison at Belfast. The medical officer, the assistant doctors, and their staff have been unsparing in their attention to all the patients, for whom everything possible has been done. Notwithstanding the very high mortality prevailing amongst influenza patients elsewhere, happily it may be added that out of the present total of 165 officers and prisoners affected in Belfast Prison with the disease no death has occurred.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT.
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the fees allowed to sheriffs as returning officers under the Representation of the People Act in Ireland are inadequate to meet the expense; whether it is a fact that the Sheriff in Limerick City has to send away to absent voters 1,577 ballot papers, identity forms, and three addressed envelopes, and that the amount allowed him for all this is the sum of £3; and whether, seeing that sheriffs and sub-sheriffs will have to pay out of their own pockets sums of money greater than they are allowed by the Act, consideration will be given to any reasonable claim made by them in the carrying out of this Act of Parliament?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this question. The hon. Member is misinformed as to the amount of fees to be allowed to returning officers in Ireland under the Treasury scale, which will be published shortly. On the figures given by the hon. Member, the Sheriff of Limerick would receive for the work in connection with absent voters not £3 as stated but £30 for remuneration and expense. I see no reason to consider the scale inadequate.

    CATHOLIC BENEFIT SOCIETY OF OSSORY.
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he is aware that the Catholic Benefit Society of Ossory, in view of the high increase in the cost of living particularly affecting the insured classes, have urged on the Irish Insurance Commissioners the immediate desirability of legislation authorising approved societies to pay out of invested funds sickness benefits of 15s. per week to males, 10s. per week to females, and 50s. maternity benefit; and whether it is intended to introduce legislation on the subject?
    Sir E. CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): I am aware that the society in question has urged that the rates of benefits under the National Insurance Acts should be increased in view of the increased cost of living, but as I stated in my reply of 30th October to the hon. Member for Leith Burghs, any such general increase would involve a corresponding increase in the contributions, either of the employers or of the employed or of both, and I have no reason to believe that there is any general desire for legislation which would have any of those effects.

  GENERAL ELECTION.

    PRISONERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary whether he proposes to release for the General Election those Irish prisoners, interned without trial, who are Parliamentary candidates or agents; if so whether they will be allowed the same rights as other candidates to prosecute their candidatures; and, if not, whether from their prisons they will be allowed to issue their addresses and conduct their political correspondence without censorship or delay?
    Mr. SHORTT: The matter is under consideration.
    Mr. KING: Will an early announcement be made, as a great number of these prisoners, perhaps all, may wish to become candidates?
    Mr. SHORTT: Many Members of this House wish to become candidates.
    Mr. KING: Can we have a definite date when a decision will be taken, or will it only be taken after the General Election has been held?

    LEAFLETS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has considered and decided what withdrawals of Defence of the Realm Regulations or what modifications in them should be made in view of the coming General Election, especially whether Regulation 27C, which restricts the printing of leaflets, will be withdrawn; whether police Regulations authorising the prohibition of meetings are to be continued; and whether, in any case, he will assure the House that free speech, right of public meeting, and liberty of printing will be allowed?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am not at present aware of any modifications in the Defence of the Realm Regulations which a General Election is likely to make desirable. Leaflets issued by candidates for Parliament are already exempted from the operation of Regulation 27C, and there will certainly be no desire to restrict the right of free speech.
    Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a published statement in a paper very widely circulated and read by hon. Members that a certain number of candidates intend to disregard that regulation?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have not seen it.
    Mr. KING: If they disregard it do they render themselves liable?

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
    Mr. WILESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to withdraw the regulations which prevent soldiers and sailors in uniform from taking an active part in Parliamentary elections; and, if so, whether soldiers and sailors will be able to speak and canvass and join like other citizens in the work of the approaching General Election?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The answer is in the negative.

    EXPENSES.
    Mr. HOLTasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the constitutional position resulting from submitting to the House Estimates for the expenses of General and By-elections; and if he proposes to introduce any legislation on the subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am advised that legislation is required, but it will not be possible to introduce a Bill during this Session, nor is it necessary to do so.
    Mr. HOLT: If the right hon. Gentleman does not introduce a Bill during this Session, what will be the position at the very beginning of next Session when Writs will be issued for by-elections?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This is a legal question, and I am advised that it is not necessary that the Bill should be passed now.

    MEMBERS (BRITISH PARENTAGE).
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the feeling among the people of this country and the Dominions that only people whose father and mother were both British subjects should be allowed to sit in the House of Commons, he will bring in and pass a short Bill to this effect before the next General Election?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the previous answers on this subject.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling throughout the length and breadth of the country on this question, and could he not consider it as the last good act of this Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This very point, when it was raised as an Amendment, was rejected, and I see no reason to suppose that the opinion of the House has changed.

    ELECTORAL REGISTER (CANDIDATES' COPIES).
    Mr. GULLAND (by Private Notice)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board a question of which I have given him private notice: If he can now inform the House whether free copies of the electoral register can be given to candidates at the ensuing election, and whether the high charges fixed for the copies of the register can be reduced?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stephen Walsh): I wish to express my regret that, being accidentally detained

    2281
    yesterday, I was unable to answer similar questions which the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for West Cork had then placed upon the Paper. I am pleased to be able to say that, as a result of representations made to the Treasury by my right hon. Friend the late President of the Local Government Board, and by myself, the Treasury have agreed to reduce the charge to 1d. for each hundred names, and, in addition, that one free copy of the register shall be allowed to each duly nominated candidate.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether that decision will be retrospective?
    Mr. WALSH: Yes. In every case where a candidate has paid for the register that money will be returned—
    Mr. MARRIOTT: And the candidates' agents?
    Mr. WALSH: I ought to say that that question is one for the Treasury, but I am aware that such an arrangement is being made.

    IRISH PRISONERS (FRIENDS' VISITS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Irish prisoners without trial in English or Irish prisons are now allowed one visit in three months from a friend; whether this visit has been accorded in any case; if so, in how many; and is he aware that a majority of prisoners have declined this concession on account of the conditions connected with it?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. He informs me that there are no untried prisoners in Irish prisons, if by "untried" the hon. Member means interned under Regulation 14B. The Irish prisoners interned in England are allowed a visit from not more than two near relations once in three months, and a few such visits have been paid. I am aware that some of the prisoners have declined to receive visits on account of the conditions attached thereto.
    Mr. KING: Is it not the fact that this offer was made many weeks ago, and that only two have availed themselves of it; does not that mean they reject it altogether because of the conditions, that were
    2282
    intentionally, according to their view, onerous?
    Sir G. CAVE: Not intentionally; in fact I believe more than two visits have been paid.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.

    HOLLAND (SHORT LEAVE).
    Mr. PETOasked the Home Secretary whether officers and non-commissioned officers interned in Holland are allowed in special circumstances to return to this country on parole on short leave; whether, in the case of Quartermaster-Sergeant Wheeler, of the 2nd Wiltshire Regiment, now interned at Scheveningen, who has been a prisoner of war for four years in Germany, permission has been refused, although, according to the doctor's certificate, his mother is not expected to live more than two months; whether this is due to the refusal of the Government to grant similar concessions to German prisoners of war interned in neutral countries; and, if so, whether it is proposed to change this policy?
    Sir G. CAVE: Prisoners who have been interned in Holland by order of the Dutch Government (such as those interned after the Antwerp retreat in 1914) are permitted to return to this country on parole for short leave, but those who have been transferred to Holland under the Hague Agreement of 1917 are not allowed to leave Holland unless their physical condition is such as to bring them within the medical categories entitling them to repatriation. The same rule, of course, applies to German prisoners transferred to Holland.
    Mr. PETO: In the event of any arrangement being come to early which will involve complete repatriation of these prisoners of war, will the right hon. Gentleman take into favourable consideration such cases as the one quoted in the question where the matter of a few days makes all the difference between seeing a parent alive or not?
    Sir G. CAVE: I will pay special attention to this case and any others of which I may be informed.

    TURKEY.
    Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary how soon the British prisoners in Turkey will be

    2283
    assembled in Constantinople; who is to make the necessary arrangements in Turkey, and who is detailed for the necessary duty of seeing that the arrangements are carried out; and whether all English prisoners in Turkey can be brought to this country on the ship due to arrive there this month, and originally intended to bring the 1,000 agreed to be exchanged under the Berne Agreement?
    Major CHAPPLEasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) what provision has been made for the immediate supply of necessities and comforts to Kut prisoners of war released by Turkey?
    Sir G. CAVE: The prisoners of war in Turkey will not necessarily assemble at Constantinople, but will return by the quickest route that can be arranged. The arrangements for their return are in the hands of the British Admiral in the Eastern Mediterranean who has been put into communication with the British military commanders for this purpose, and has at his disposal the stores of food and clothing already provided for the prisoners.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Have any active steps already been taken to get these prisoners to a place from which they can sail for England?
    Sir G. CAVE: Certainly; I believe a number are already assembled at or near Smyrna.

    INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE (CHAIRMAN).
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPSasked the Home Secretary the date on which he took over the duties of Chairman of the Inter-departmental Committee on Prisoners of War and the date on which he dispatched telegrams to General Milne and, through Paris, to General Franchet d'Esperey to include the release of our prisoners as one of the conditions of an armistice with Bulgaria?
    Sir G. CAVE: I took over the duties of Chairman on the 30th September, and on the following day I asked that these telegrams should be dispatched. I understand that telegrams were dispatched to General Milne on the 1st October and to General Franchet d'Esperey on the 2nd October.

    CAPTIVE MERCHANT OFFICERS.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is
    2284
    aware that captive officers of the Merchant Service interned in Germany and Austria were prior to the 1st September, 1917, threatened by their captors that, failing their paying two marks per diem for their keep, these prisoners would be transferred from officers' camps to men's camps and made to work in the mines; whether on condition of these prisoners being retained in officers' camps the Government decided that as from 1st September, 1917, this subsistence allowance should be borne out of public funds; and, if so, whether, having regard to the services of the officers of the Mercantile Marine during the War, he will now consider the justice of refunding the subsistence allowances which have been paid prior to the 1st September, 1917, by these officers in order that they might remain in officers' internment camps?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): I am aware that Merchant Service officers who were prisoners in Germany were threatened last year with removal to men's camps if allowances to cover officer treatment were not paid. In order to ensure the retention in, or transfer to, officer camps of Mercantile Marine officers, His Majesty's Government guaranteed from the 1st September, 1917, the payment of 100 or sixty marks per month, according to rank, for this privilege of "officer" treatment. Where officers have themselves paid this allowance since that date the amount will be refunded by the Board of Trade upon application, and if the hon. Member will inform me of any cases of payment by the officers themselves prior to that date, which have not been recovered from other sources, I will see whether a refund cannot be made in these cases also.

    REPATRIATION TO SWITZERLAND OR HOLLAND.
    Mr. STEWART (by Private Notice)asked the hon. Member for Central Sheffield if he will state the total numbers of British and Indian combatant prisoners of war who have been repatriated or transferred to Switzerland or Holland?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I am informed by the military authorities that the numbers of British prisoners of war who have been repatriated or transferred to Switzerland or Holland, according to reports received to 22nd October, 1918, are:

    —

    Repatriated.

    In Switzerland.

    In Holland.

    Officers.

    Other Ranks.

    Officers.

    Other Ranks.

    Officers.

    Other Ranks.

    Western Front—

    British Troops and Royal Navy

    487

    6,160

    106

    1,972

    660

    4,405

    Indian Natives

    10

    29

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Total

    497

    6,189

    106

    1,972

    660

    4,405

    East Africa—

    British Troops and Royal Navy

    17

    111

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Indian Natives

    11

    275

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Total

    28

    386

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Turkey—

    British Troops and Royal Navy

    29

    347

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Indian Natives

    7

    1,170

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Total

    36

    1,517

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Bulgaria—

    British Troops

    5

    106

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Totals—

    British Troops and Royal Navy

    538

    6,724

    106

    1,972

    660

    4,405

    Indian Natives

    28

    1,474

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Grand Total

    566

    8,198

    106

    1,972

    660

    4,405

  DEMOBILISATION.

    "OUR WORKERS' OUTLOOK" (LEAFLET).
    34. Major HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a leaflet, entitled "Our Workers' Outlook," in which statements are made as to the prospects of soldiers on their return; is he aware that this leaflet was distributed freely at Tower Hill and other places, and sent to many people through the post; and, seeing that under the Defence of the Realm Act power is given to stop such leaflets in the post or otherwise, if he can say who is responsible for preventing the Censor from stopping this leaflet in the post?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am having inquiry made as to this leaflet.

    STREET LIGHTING.
    Mr. CAREWasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the waste of electric light that is caused by the shading of the street lamps, the risks that it inflicts on foot passengers and vehicular traffic, and if he can say when this obstruction will be removed?
    Sir G. CAVE: The shading of the street lamps is necessary to secure the uniformity
    2286
    of effect which is desired by the military authorities charged with the defence of London against air raids. I hope the time is near when the restrictions may be relaxed.

    DISCHARGED MEN.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked whether, in view of the necessity of encouraging discharged men to settle down in civil life, he will grant additional facilities to those who may wish to set up a tobacco and matches business to obtain adequate supplies, even though they may not have been in the trade previous to the War or as late as the year 1916?
    Mr. WARDLE: arrangements have been been made for discharged soldiers who were in the tobacco trade before joining His Majesty's Forces to obtain their proportion of the supplies of the tobacco available. Owing, however, to the increasing demands of His Majesty's Forces, and the restricted imports of tobacco into the country, it is not possible even for existing retailers to obtain the same quantity of supplies as in 1916, and I regret that it is accordingly impossible to grant supplies to all discharged soldiers who desire to open new tobacco businesses. The quantity

    2287
    of matches available for distribution is even less in proportion than tobacco, and although every effort has been made to come to the assistance of individual cases, the same difficulties arise as in the case of tobacco.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I did not hear the reply distinctly. Will the hon. Gentleman give consideration to every case that comes up?
    Mr. WARDLE: Certainly.

    WAR LOAN POLICIES.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the dealings of insurance companies in War Loan policies; if his attention has been called to the treatment of the purchaser of War Loan policy, No. 343154b; if he is aware that this purchaser being unable to continue the quarterly payments to an insurance company for this policy was offered £6 13s. 9d. which she refused to accept, having paid five quarterly premiums, being £10 18s. 9d. in all; and will he state what steps the Government propose to take to protect the public from future dealings of this sort?
    Mr. WARDLE: My attention has been called to the case referred to by my hon. Friend, in which the policy holder had taken out an instalment purchase policy for £100 5 per Cent. War Loan. The amount deducted from the premiums in respect of expenses on the cancellation of contract by the policy holder was within the limit provided for by the contract.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to provide for the surrender value being paid for these policies?
    Mr. WARDLE: I will consider that question, but I am afraid that it involves legislation.

    RAILWAY CHARGES.
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if and when he will take steps to have the present railway charges reduced?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am afraid that I can hold out no prospect of any reduction in railway charges at present.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the
    2288
    fact that the Irish people are unable to pay these heavy charges, while the people in this country are earning plenty of money?
    Mr. WARDLE: I would remind the hon. Member that there has been a very large increase of wages in Ireland.

    IMPORTS (PREFERENTIAL RATES).
    Mr. FIELDasked whether the preferential rates given to imports by the railway companies under private management are still in force under unified Government control as a State aid to foreign producers and manufacturers?
    Mr. WARDLE: The rates charged for the conveyance of goods by rail have not been altered in any important respect since the Government took possession of the railways. My hon. Friend will be aware that railway companies are prohibited by Statute from making any difference in the rates and charges for home and foreign merchandise in respect of the same or similar services, and I have no reason to suppose that this law is being disregarded.
    Mr. FIELD: Is it not a fact that at the present time the continuation of the policy of subsidising imports is practised under Government control?
    Mr. WARDLE: I think not.
    Mr. FIELD: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries and find out the facts?
    Mr. WARDLE: Will the hon. Gentleman give me the facts?
    Mr. FIELD: I think it is your business to find out.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    FEEDING-STUFFS.
    Sir R. COOPERasked if any feeding-stuffs have been exported from this country during the first nine months of this year; and, if so, will he state the total quantity and value which was exported?
    Mr. WARDLE: The exports (including re-exports) of feeding-stuffs from the United Kingdom during the first nine months of 1918 amounted to 96,141 cwts. of a total value of £65,011. Some corn and corn offals included in this total may have been used for purposes other than the feeding of animals.
    Captain Sir B. STANIER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what these feeding-stuffs were?
    Mr. WARDLE: It is rather a long list.
    Sir B. STANIER: Will you publish it?
    Mr. WARDLE: If my hon. Friend wishes it.
    Sir R. COOPER: Are we to understand that there has been no export of feeding stuffs suitable for the feeding of cattle sent to Holland during the first nine months of this year?
    Mr. WARDLE: I believe nothing has been sent to Holland.

    PROSECUTIONS.
    Mr. TURTONasked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to the abortive prosecution of the Easingwold Roller Flour Mill Company, who were charged with the alleged offence of grinding wheat at a mill in respect of which the particulars had not been furnished, when a Government inspector stated on oath that the grain in question was wheat it was proved beyond doubt to be rye; and whether he will in future take precautions that unnecessary prosecutions are not launched on the testimony of experts who are unable to differentiate between wheat and rye?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The witness in question was not a grain officer, nor was he put forward by the prosecution as an expert witness. He was merely called to prove the taking and identity of the sample of grain used, and he expressly stated that he knew nothing about cereals. The percentage of convictions shows that unnecessary prosecutions are not made.

    PROSECUTIONS.

      FLOUR AND GRAIN (IMPORTED).
      Colonel YATEasked the Minister of Food the proportion of flour imported into this country in comparison with the import of grain?
      Mr. CLYNES: The proportion of flour imported in September in comparison with the import of grain was as 1 is to 5, and in the five weeks ended 2nd November as 1 is to 20.

      MEAT.
      Mr. THOMASasked the Minister of Food the prices at which the Ministry and
      2290
      the War Office, respectively, are purchasing and importing frozen and preserved meats from the various markets?
      Mr. CLYNES: The answer is in the negative. I may, however, repeat the written statement made in answer to the hon. Member for East Grinstead on Monday last that the f.o.b. prices paid in the United States of America for meat purchased on behalf of the Ministry have ranged up to 26 cents per pound.
      Mr. THOMAS: I do not quite understand the answer. I am simply asking is there any difference between the price paid by the War Office and that paid by the Food Controller, and, if so, what is the difference?
      Mr. CLYNES: I am not able to answer for the War Office, nor am I authorised to do so. I am only able to give the price paid for food purchased by the Ministry of Food.
      Mr. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say that there is no difference, and whether the civilian population is suffering owing to the competition in buying between the two Departments?
      Mr. CLYNES: I am able to say that the civilian population is not suffering. I have not the information from the War Office to answer the other part of the question.
      Mr. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries, and if competitive buying results in the Food Controller paying more than the War Office, will arrangements be made for pooling?
      Mr. CLYNES: I know, without making further inquiries, that no evil result of that kind is duo to any competitive buying.
      Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Has there been no consultation between these two Departments on so important a matter?
      Mr. CLYNES: Yes, there is, in fact, co-operative buying.
      Mr. ROCH: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman state whether the War Office or his Department buys cheapest?
      Mr. CLYNES: I have not the information from the War Office, and am not authorised to make any statement on their behalf.
      Colonel WEIGALL: Is it or is it not the fact that it has been the War Office who have purchased without consultation with the Food Controller?
      Mr. CLYNES: I am sorry I did not catch the terms of the question.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better give notice of that question.
      Viscount WOLMERasked the Minister of Food whether it is the fact that Mr. S. J. Chilcott, butcher, of Tiverton, recently informed him that he had been supplied with cancerous meat which he had refused to accept; if so, what action he took in the matter; whether he was subsequently informed that the local food committee had closed Mr. Chilcott's shop on their own authority; if he can state under what Statute or Regulation this action was taken; and whether he has investigated the action of the local food committee in the matter?
      Mr. CLYNES: I understand that legal proceedings have been instituted by Mr. Chilcott in respect of the matters referred to in the question. I can, therefore, add nothing to the answer given to the Noble Lord on 30th October.
      Viscount WOLMER: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has taken no action in the matter at all?
      Mr. CLYNES: It will be impossible for me to take action in view of the legal proceedings taken by the gentleman in question.
      Viscount WOLMER: Are we to understand that the Ministry of Food is not going to support butchers who refuse to take meat which is not fit for human consumption, and is prepared to allow the local food committee to close a butcher's shop on that ground, without sending down anyone to investigate the matter?
      Mr. CLYNES: That conclusion must not be drawn. But legal proceedings having been taken by the man in question, I cannot make any further statement.
      Viscount WOLMER: Why should the cost of the legal proceedings be thrown on the butchers; why cannot the Ministry of Food see to the matter?
      Mr. CLYNES: Even the Ministry of Food is not above the Courts of law.
      Mr. LOUGH: Is not the Ministry of Food in this matter in the position of the wholesale supplier, and should they not take at once the risk incurred in selling the article which they have supplied?
      Mr. CLYNES: It ought not to be assumed that the Ministry of Food is not in sympathy with the man in question, but the legal proceedings having been taken, I cannot at present make any further statement.
      Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that legal proceedings were taken only because Mr. Chilcott has been informed that he cannot get redress in any other way?
      Mr. CLYNES: I do not know the considerations which have prompted his action.
      Sir E. CARSON: Will anybody be prosecuted who handed over to this butcher the cancerous meat?
      Mr. CLYNES: That is an element in the case which I, with my narrow legal understanding of these things, cannot go into now.

      MILK.
      Mr. WRIGHTasked the Minister of Food what progress has been made in making appointments for the purpose of carrying out the Government's scheme of temporary control of the wholesale milk trade; if the chairman of the United Dairies, Limited, has been appointed Chief Milk Commissioner with control of the central milk pool; and, if so, what are the terms of his appointment?
      Mr. CLYNES: An Assistant Commissioner for Milk has been appointed in each of six of the Food Commissioners' Divisions, and progress is being made with the appointment for the remaining divisions. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative; the last part does not, therefore, arise.
      Mr. WRIGHT: As the right hon. Gentleman has indicated his desire to encourage the formation of farmers' co-operative societies, before proceeding with the intended appointment referred to in the second part of the question, will he ask the opinion of the Central Advisory Agricultural Board?
      Mr. CLYNES: I have already arranged to do that.

      HOUSE OF COMMONS (CLERGYMEN).
      Colonel BURGOYNEasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the right of clergymen of the Church of England to sit in the House of Commons; and, if so, whether the Government will make themselves responsible for a Clause in the Bill which is presented permitting women to sit there extending this privilege to clergymen?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. and gallant Member's proposal is outside the scope of the Bill, and I have received no indication that there is any desire for this change on the part of those interested.
      Colonel YATE: Is it not a fact that the clergy thoroughly understand the people, and are they not well qualified to assist in the deliberations of this House?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not question that. My answer is that I have received from the great mass of the clergy no indication of a desire for a change.
      Mr. KILBRIDE: Have not the clergy special representation in another place?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, and it is also a fact that some hon. Members of this House do not attach very much importance to it.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Have the clergy of the Church of England any superiority over the Nonconformists and ministers of other denominations?

      ENEMY ALIENS.
      General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce a Bill making it impossible for any person of enemy alien birth, whether naturalised or unnaturalised, to vote at the coming election?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for the Ealing Division on 24th October last.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Minister the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the repatriation of interned enemy aliens in this country?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the statement made in this House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on the 11th July last.
      Sir R. COOPER: Was any statement made on that occasion which would inform the country as well as this House what is going to be done with these enemy aliens when we come to the close of the War?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That question has often been put in the House and I have answered it, and I refer my hon. Friend to it.

      TRADE UNIONS (GOVERNMENT BILL).
      Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Prime Minister, whether the War Cabinet have had an opportunity of considering the Bill for securing the redemption of the pledges given to the trades unions; and whether he can state the policy the Government are going to adopt regarding this matter and when the Bill will be introduced?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the intention of the Government to introduce such a Bill, but conversations as to its terms are being initiated between members of the Government and the parties interested, and I fear that it will not be possible to proceed with the Bill this Session.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be introduced this Session?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already stated in my answer that the terms of it are being considered.
      Mr. ROWNTREE: If it is found impossible to proceed with the Bill, will a statement be made to the House stating what are the intentions of the Government with regard to this very important matter?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite realise the importance of it. The statement I have already made is that it is the intention of the Government to introduce such a Bill. All that is in doubt is whether it can be done this Session.
      Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: Will all the principal employers' organisations be consulted as well as the trades unions?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I said that the parties interested are in process of being consulted, and, of course, that includes some representatives of the employers.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that this was a pledge given to the trades union leaders, and if any relaxation is to be given it can only be given by the representatives of the trades unions?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is perfectly true that the Government to the fullest extent recognise that fact, but that does not make it unwise to try to reach an agreement.

      MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether a successor has been or will be appointed to the post of Minister of Information; whether, in view of the expected end of the War, arrangements are being made to reduce the expenditure and staff of this Ministry; and whether it is part of the reconstruction plans of the Government to continue indefinitely this Ministry?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for East Finsbury yesterday. As regards the second part the matter is under consideration. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

      NATURALISED BRITISH SUBJECTS.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation at an early date to provide for the denaturalisation of naturalised British subjects who have been interned during the War with a view to their subsequent repatriation?
      Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Act passed in August last gives power to revoke naturalisation certificates on a number of grounds set out therein; and full use of this power will be made in the cases referred to. I do not think that any further legislation is necessary.

      ENEMY PROPERTY.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Minister the policy of the Government in regard to enemy-owned trade marks, patents, and similar property in this country; and can he say that they will be confiscated, and whether with or without compensation to the former owners?
      Mr. WARDLE: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. An
      2296
      Order has been made by the Board of Trade vesting enemy-owned patents, and the benefit of enemy patent applications, in the Public Trustee, and under the Trading With the Enemy (Copyright) Act the copyright in any works first made or published in an enemy country during the War also vests in the Public Trustee, who will hold the enemy property vested in him until the termination of the War. The ultimate treatment of this property, as well as of enemy-owned trade marks, is a matter which is engaging the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
      Sir R. COOPER: Can we expect any declaration before the House is dissolved at to the general lines of policy which will be adopted by the Government?
      Mr. WARDLE: I am afraid not.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      RECRUITING INSTRUCTIONS.
      Mr. WILESasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the improved military situation, he will now consider the suspension of the calling up of men over forty-one years of age under the last Military Service Act so that the commerce and manufactures of the country may be carried on more efficiently?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I am not in a position at the moment to add anything to the numerous answers which have lately been given on this subject, but the matter is engaging the urgent attention of the Government. I can assure my right hon. Friend, however, that the moment the military situation justifies a modification of the existing recruiting instructions the recruiting of the older men will be stopped.
      Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Gentleman cannot do this with regard to the men over forty-one, will he do it with regard to the men over forty-five?
      Mr. BECK: I really think the House will see that it will be better for me not to add to the answer that I have given. We are most sympathetic towards this question.

      AIR RAIDS AND BOMBARDMENT (INSURANCE).
      Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Prime Minister if, under the present cir-

      2297
      cumstances, he will now relieve householders and owners of property from the necessity of insuring their houses against damage by air raids and bombardment, having regard to the fact that the insurance under the present scheme has to be paid for twelve months, whilst the risk may be for a short period only, and to the fact that the Government already undertakes the liability up to £500?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The question whether the existing aircraft insurance scheme should be modified, either as regards rates or conditions, is being considered and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

      IRON AND STEEL.
      Mr. HOLTasked the Prime Minister whether any Grants or subsidies are being given to manufacturers of iron or steel in Great Britain so as to enable them to sell their products at controlled prices; and, if so, what is the scale and total amount of such Grants or subsidies?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): As was stated by the late Financial Secretary to the Ministry on 29th May last in answer to the hon. Member for Windsor, subsidies are granted to manufacturers of iron and steel to compensate for the increased cost of production. It would be impossible within the limits of a Parliamentary answer to give the scales, but it was estimated in July last that subsidies amounting to £47,000,000 had been approved. Recent increases have had to be given owing to the further rise in the cost of coal and rates of wages.
      Mr. HOLT: Am I to understand that when any person is allowed to buy iron or steel he gets a very handsome present from the Exchequer?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: The Government is practically the only buyer, being the purchaser of 98 per cent. of the iron and steel.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does this arrangement come to an end at the conclusion of hostilities?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: A Committee is now sitting with a view to seeing how soon the arrangement can come to an end in the event of the cessation of hostilities.

      RUSSIAN ALIENS (DISEASE).
      Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister, whether his attention has been called to the statement of the chairman of the London Special Tribunal last week, that a large percentage of our Russians were suffering from disease; that aliens were apparently allowed to land here with no restrictions as to their state of health; that we have been harbouring the lowest dregs of humanity; that drastic measures should be taken to prevent any but the healthy alien from landing; and that the Government should deport all those who are a serious menace to the health of the community; and whether the Government will take any steps in the matter?
      Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I think the statement in question must be taken as relating to Russians who have been here for a number of years, as during the War there has been practically no immigration from Russia. On the other hand, a number of undesirable Russians have been deported, although a general deportation is at the present time not practicable owing to the absence of shipping facilities. The exclusion from the United Kingdom after the War of aliens suffering from disease, is one of the matters which will be dealt with in the measure which, as already stated, the Government propose shortly to introduce.
      Major HUNT: Are we to understand that the Government do not allow diseased aliens to come into this country, and, if that is the case, will the Government prosecute this gentleman for stating what is not true, and will the right hon. Gentleman take care that no diseased aliens are ever again allowed to come into this country?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have stated that I interpret the statement as referring to Russians who have been here for a long time, and in that sense it was not an untrue statement.
      Major HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman prosecute this man for saying what apparently is not true?
      Sir G. CAVE: I can only repeat that, as I understand the statement, it is not untrue.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Would it not be in the public interest to restrain the loquacity of this particular gentleman?
      Colonel YATE: Is it the intention of the Government to rest content with the present Aliens Act or will fresh legislation be introduced?
      Sir G. CAVE: Fresh legislation will be introduced to extend our powers after the War.
      General CROFT: Will it be introduced this Session?
      Sir G. CAVE: I hope so.

      SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
      Major Sir HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Prime Minister whether a central organisation known as the Surplus Government Property Disposal Authority was established by decision of the War Cabinet in 1917 and by Order in Council, March 1918, and has since been effecting sales; and whether this is the only channel through which surplus Government property is to be disposed of both now and after the War?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the scope of the authority, I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member to his question on this subject on 29th October.
      Colonel WEIGALL: May I ask how soon the House will have a reply, in view of the urgency of creating an authority to deal with all this surplus stock, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no provision has been made by the Army in any theatre of war?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government fully realise the importance of this matter, and nobody more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that hundreds of millions are included. We are proceeding as quickly as we possibly can.
      Mr. LOUGH: Can my right hon. Friend say whether public notice will be given of these sales and whether they will be conducted by auction?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: They are not taking place yet to any considerable extent. The whole question will depend upon the view taken by the authorities.
      Colonel WEIGALL: Is it not a fact that the Board has sat every single Thursday
      2300
      ever since it was set up, and that hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of property changes hands each week?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware of the fact. When I said that it was not in operation, I meant that after the War it would not be a question of hundreds of thousands, but of many millions. I can add nothing to what I have said. The Government fully realise the importance of the matter and are doing their best to get the best possible scheme.

      NEWSPAPERS (PAPER SUPPLIES).
      General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that journals have recently tended to pass into the hands of few individuals, most of whom are definitely associated with one or other of the two largest political parties, he will grant facilities for sufficient paper to establish an independent organ representing public opinion which is not included in that of either of the great political parties?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) on the 15th of October last.
      General CROFT: Is the Leader of the House aware of the fact that applications have been made for supplies of paper for independent organs, and in view of the coming election, in order to show that the Government is anxious that all views should be expressed, will he consider whether, if only for the purpose of an election, paper can be supplied?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think there is a fair number of opportunities for the expression of opinion. As I said, every application will be considered by the Paper Controller on its merits, and certainly with regard to the views of one party or another.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can my right hon. Friend mention any opportunity for an expression of independent views on Sundays?

      PROPAGANDA (PARIS).
      General CROFTasked the Prime Minister if he will say what is the salary of the Minister of Propaganda in Paris, and what are his duties?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no Ministry of Propaganda in Paris. The Earl of Lytton has been appointed British Commissioner for Propaganda, at a salary of £2,000 a year, under the Ministry of Information.

      INCREASE OF RENT ACT.
      Colonel BURNasked the Prime Minister if he will give the necessary time this Session for the introduction of a Bill to amend the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restriction) Act, 1915, in order that a number of householders may be provided with security of tenancy?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I do not think it will be possible to introduce legislation on this subject during this Session.
      Colonel BURN: Cannot something be done, if only temporarily, to relieve this anxiety felt by people, until the very much needed new Housing Bill is introduced?
      Sir E. CARSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the number of cases in which people are purchasing houses and then driving out the widows and dependants of those who have been unable to come and assist them, by reason of the fact that they are fighting for their country?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have said in answer to the previous question, I believe there is a strong case for something being done. It is a question of time, and I doubt if it could be carried this Session.
      Sir E. CARSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it an outrage that while people are fighting for their country their dependants should be driven from houses, because they have not got the support of those who cannot be present to assist them?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is a very hard case, but it is a question of time. I know the House feels strongly about it, and I shall consider again whether it is possible to do something.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time could be better spent on this and similar subjects than on a General Election?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I dare say there may be differences of opinion about that, and it has no connection whatever with the General Election. It certainly was my intention—and I believe the wish of the
      2302
      House—that the Session should not be a long one, and apart from that, I should endeavour to end it soon.
      Sir E. CARSON: I give notice that I shall call attention to this matter at the earliest opportunity.

      MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the constitution of a Ministry of Public Health and as to the various existing Departments which will be embraced under the new Ministry; and whether it is intended to set up a separate Ministry of Health for Scotland?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: A Bill setting up a Ministry of Health will be introduced this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Reconstruction under the Ten Minutes' Rule.
      Mr. SHERWELL: Is it intended to pass all stages of this Bill in the present Session?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; I am afraid that will not be possible.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state if he has yet selected a Committee to consider the proposal to increase the weekly payments to old age pensioners; if he will state their names; and if he will see that Ireland has representatives on the Committee, and that there shall be the least possible delay in dealing with the matter?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. If such a committee should be appointed, I shall consider the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.
      Mr. BYRNE: Arising out of the unsatisfactory answer, I will raise the question on the Adjournment.

      PARLIAMENT (DISSOLUTION).
      Mr. DILLONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the near approach of the General Election, the Government can now state when the

      2303
      present Session will be brought to a close, and what business they propose to take before the close of the Session?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government propose to take only the legislation which has been already announced, and possibly some small emergency Bills which are now under consideration. We hope that the Session may be prorogued early in the week after next, but we do not consider it desirable to name a definite date until we know whether or not the terms of an armistice agreed upon by the Allies are accepted by the enemy.
      Mr. DILLON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman even now tell us definitely if there is to be a General Election before Christmas and name the date of the election?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I can certainly make no statement whatever on that subject, and, what is more, I do not think there has ever been a case where a statement that a. Dissolution would take place has been made before it has happened.
      Mr. DILLON: I beg to give notice that I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
      Mr. KING: If the armistice terms are accepted very shortly, will there then be a General Election?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said I shall make no statement whatever on that subject now.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is not the present position unprecedented, and is it not necessary for the Government to give early notice?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It is in many respects unprecedented, but, as the House knows, there is an obligation to give notice at least a week before the Proclamation. That gives some notice, at any rate.

      GERMAN BANKS.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to make a statement as to the proposals of the Government in regard to the financial penetration of German state-assisted banks in this country?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the provisions of Section 2 of the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1918.

      LAND FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS (LOANS).
      Mr. WRIGHTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to make a statement as to the removal of the embargo upon loans to county councils for the purpose of purchasing land for small holdings for occupation by discharged sailors and soldiers and other suitable persons?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: This matter is under consideration, and I fear that I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
      Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that up to the present, after four years of War, there are over 600,000 discharged sailors and soldiers and fewer than thirty have yet been settled on the land?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of that, and I am sorry if it is so.
      Major HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the discharged soldier who has been an agriculturist cannot get a holding whatever he does, and what is going to be done about it?

      RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
      Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can ascertain from the committee of general managers of railways the present number of season-ticket holders between London and Brighton, the number of applications for renewal they have received this year, and the number of aliens holding tickets, together with their qualification for so doing, as against the number of British-born subjects who have been refused, and their status and qualifications?
      Mr. WARDLE: As regards the first part of this question, I am informed by the Railway Executive Committee that the figures asked for could not be given without the expenditure of a considerable amount of time and labour, and I do not think that, in existing circumstances this would be justifiable. As regards the latter part of the question applicants for season tickets are not required to furnish particulars of their origin and such particulars are not on record?
      Major HUNT: How is it aliens are able to get relief and not British subjects?
      Mr. WARDLE: I do not think it is so.

    MERCANTILE MARINE.

      WAR RISKS COMPENSATION SCHEME.
      Mr. PETOasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state what provision the Government propose to make for officers and men of the Merchant Service and their wives and children in the case of total or partial disablement and incapacitation from earning a livelihood due to the hardships of internment during the War in enemy country?
      Mr. WARDLE: These men are already entitled to compensation under the War Risks Compensation Scheme for the Mercantile Marine.

      BELGIAN LABOUR.
      Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he has had under consideration, since March, 1918, proposals from responsible persons for the employment of a large number of Belgian shipwrights and engineers in the production in this country of additional British tonnage during the present stress of war and for the establishment of a going concern which would give a large amount of employment in shipbuilding after the War for British workmen who otherwise might then become unemployed through stoppage of the manufacture of munitions; and whether he will endeavour, without further delay, to come to such arrangements as will enable those offers to be accepted under conditions which will benefit British and Allied interests by the supply of new shipping during the War and which will be of advantage to British industrial interests both during the War and afterwards?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I will answer this question, if I may. It is true that proposals, as indicated in the question, have been under consideration. As I have stated on several occasions, it has not been the policy of the Government to sanction or assist in the establishment of new shipyards during the period of the War. The reasons which have led the Government to arrive at this decision I may perhaps be allowed to repeat, namely, that the shortage of labour did not permit of such new works being undertaken, and also that even could the labour for construction be provided, the shortage of plant and material necessary to equip the yards after completion was very acute, and it was accordingly decided to concen-
      2306
      trate upon existing yards and such extensions thereto as would be productive in the near future. For these reasons it was decided that the proposal to which my hon. and learned Friend refers could not be acceded to, nor do I hold out any hope of the previous decision being reversed in the near future.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the urgent necessity for the production of British tonnage now and after the War, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his proposals and, if necessary, hand some of the Government yards which are not particularly active as yet to the persons who put forward this proposal?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: That proposal has been made before—the handing over of the national shipyards—and it has already been set aside. I shall be prepared to give my hon. and learned Friend all the details and he can see what has been considered. The matter is not absolutely closed. I am ready to consider matters still further.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman send me the same?

      PARLIAMENT (DISSOLUTION).
      Mr. DILLON: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the continued refusal of the Government to give the House any definite information as to the duration of the present Parliament and the date of the General Election, and the great public uncertainty and inconvenience arising from this refusal."
      The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not fewer than forty Members having accordingly risen—
      The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter-past Eight this evening.

      NEW MEMBER SWORN.
      Hugh Morrison, Esquire, for the County of Wilts (Southern or Wilton Division).
    BILL PRESENTED.
      SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL,—
      "to amend the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908," presented by Mr. PROTHERO; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

      MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
      That they have agreed to,
      Burghs Gas Supply (Scotland) Amendment Bill,
      Portsea Island Gas Bill, without Amendment.
      London United Tramways Bill, without Amendments.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. ASQUITH: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will tell us the business for next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday we shall take the Vote of Credit (Committee stage).
  On Tuesday, the Report stage.
  On Wednesday, the Appropriation Bill (Second Reading).
  On Thursday, the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill and further stages of unfinished Bills.
  I propose on Friday next week to take the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill. It will, perhaps, be for the convenience of the House if I say that, in view of the changing circumstances each day, after discussing the matter with the Prime Minister, we think it better to defer any general statement till the latest of these stages, and, therefore, on Monday next I propose to deal with the financial situation.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the discussion be under the Conditions of an ordinary Friday sitting when this general statement is made?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is my proposal. I know the House does not like to sit on Fridays, but my view was that it would be willing to do so on an occasion so important.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will a day be given for a Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of the Army and Navy Pensions Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; we hope to be able to do that.
  Mr. BRADY: When will the Irish Police Bill be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is included in the unfinished Bills to which I referred.
  Mr. BRADY: On what day next week does the right hon. Gentleman hope to take it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We are taking the stages of each Bill as we can.
  Mr. MOONEY: Would it not be more convenient to follow the usual practice and tell us the Bills which it is intended to drop? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to drop the Irish Land Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I said, in answer to the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), as I could not name the exact date at which we suggested the House should Prorogue, I am not in a position to say what Bills it will be necessary to drop and what we can carry through.
  Mr. HOGGE: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Report stage of the outstanding Supplementary Estimates?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We are taking the Supplementary Estimates to-day. We will take the Report stage next week.

  MINISTRIES OF HEALTH.
  The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Ministry of Health and a Board of Health to exercise in England and Wales and in Scotland, respectively, powers with respect to health and local government; and for purposes connected therewith."
  The War has revealed in a very striking manner what a good many of us have been calling attention to for many years, namely, the need for improvement in the health of our people. After the War the need will be even greater almost than during the War for making the best use of all our powers and resources; and it is very certain that in the time of reconstruction we shall not be able to afford any waste either of material or of human power. The late Lord Rhondda, when he was President of the Local Government Board, invited me to take charge of an inquiry into this matter, and during recent months I have had very many consultations with the local authorities of this country, with medical men, and with representatives of the great insurance organisations, and the measure which I ask leave to introduce represents, except in some unimportant particulars, a common measure of agreement.
  Mr. BOOTH: No.
  Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member, not having seen the measure, is not in a position to say. There is unanimity on the part of all who have examined this topic that steps are necessary, and that it is impossible in this country either to prosecute a vigorous health policy or to

  2339
  secure efficient administration of it until we have brought about, in the first place, the consolidation of those Government authorities which have charge of it. For example, with respect to woman and her child, the Local Government Board, the Insurance Commission, the Board of Education, the Home Office, and the Privy Council are all involved in various matters concerning the health of the mother and the child. I could, of course, furnish many further illustrations; but it is manifest to anyone who has knowledge of public administration in this country that it is impossible to expect any progressive and continuous development of improved services whilst you have this overlapping in the central Departments; and the main purpose of the Bill is to bring together under one body of men and one Minister the chief Government Departments concerned in matters affecting the health of the people. Until that is achieved I am convinced that it is hopeless to expect any real and substantial improvement. This Bill does not provide medical treatment for any individual. It does not affect the functions of any local authority of any kind. It is purely concerned with bringing together the responsibilities of the different Government Departments, both in England and in Scotland, which are concerned with health matters. The Bill brings together under one Minister the powers and duties of the Local Government Board and the Health Insurance Commissions of England and Wales. It brings in, also, the powers and duties of the President of the Board of Education with regard to the health of mothers and infants, the duties of the Privy Council with regard to midwives, and of the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to the protection of infant life.
  Sir E. CARSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend does the Bill apply to Ireland?
  4.0 P.M.
  Dr. ADDISON: I will deal with that presently. It unites these in one Health Department, and then we take power in the Bill to bring in as and when it is possible other considerable health duties, namely, the medical inspection and treatment of school children at the present time under the charge of the Board of Education, further, all the health duties of the Ministry of Pensions as regards the
  2340
  treatment of sick soldiers, and, finally, the powers of the Secretary of State with regard to lunacy and mental deficiency. It is not proposed to consolidate these latter powers at this stage, because some parts of them would have to be left where they are. They are involved in various administrative arrangements which it would take some years, at least, to disentangle. A good deal of misapprehension exists with respect to this Bill, owing, perhaps, to the fact that we have not been able to bring it forward earlier in consequence of the association of these services with the present Poor Law duties discharged by boards of guardians, who are responsible to the Local Government Board. I may say that the bringing together of the different services which I have mentioned in no way fixes to these services any Poor Law taint whatever. It is separate from them hereafter as it is now, for example, from the sanitary services of the local authorities. But we have had a Royal Commission—we have had an important Committee, presided over by the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, and I am authorised to say that the Report of the Local Government Committee presided over by Sir Donald Maclean on the transfer of functions of Poor Law authorities in England and Wales has been carefully considered by the Government, and that the Government accept the recommendations of the Committee, that all services relating to the care and treatment of the sick and infirm should not be administered as part of the Poor Law but should be made a part of the general health services of the country and that the Government regard it as a matter of urgency that effect should be given to these recommendations as soon as possible. The Government accept the principle that the remaining functions of the Poor Law authorities should also be transferred to other bodies, but are not in a position to formulate precise proposals at the present time. Any approach to the complete application of the scheme recommended by the Committee will involve a considerable length of time and must be preceded by further inquiries into certain questions with regard to detailed matters. The Government recognises its responsibilities for making proposals on these subjects as soon as the exigencies of the Parliamentary situation permit of their doing so. I should like to say here that those enthusiasts for a Health Ministry who say

  2341
  we must wait until we have reformed the Poor Law are thoroughly impracticable people. The Poor Law will require many years of steady effort both in this House and in connection with administration to wholly disentangle and to bring about the reforms which many of us desire, but we are not prepared to postpone until that is achieved the necessary consolidation of these important health services. With regard to Scotland, the Bill brings together in precisely the same way as in England these different health services under a Board—a Board of Health—which is to be responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who himself has had charge of this part of the Bill in the course of its formation.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: Which Secretary of State?
  Dr. ADDISON: The Secretary for Scotland. With regard to Ireland we have not extended our proposals there in view of the possibility, as we hope soon, that Ireland may administer her affairs herself. But it is proposed to leave the position of the Irish Insurance Commissioners as far as possible unchanged. We do provide, however, for the continuance of a Joint Committee similar to that which is now in existence representing the four countries with regard to financial matters in health insurance.
  Sir E. CARSON: Is that all there is about Ireland in it?
  Dr. ADDISON: Another important feature of the Bill is that we provide advisory or consultative councils as part of the machinery of the Ministry. This proposal has been a good deal criticised in many quarters, and I, for one, thoroughly believe in having at my elbow expert critics. I believe it will have a very wholesome effect on administrative work in the development of the health services of this country if we have live, active bodies of this kind in existence.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are they to be empowered to go over the heads of the Ministry?
  Dr. ADDISON: Certainly not; the Minister must be responsible. In order that it may be made clear what the functions of these advisory councils are, I propose to lay on the Table of the House a draft Order in Council which sets out their functions, and has been agreed to by all concerned. They are to deal with
  2342
  matters referred to them by the Minister. They are to be able to make suggestions to the Minister as to subjects that may be referred to them. They are, also, on their own initiative, to make recommendations to him. We bring together, therefore, under this Bill all the important Government services which are concerned with health, and we also thereby bring under one Minister the surveillance of all the local health services of the country; and if this is achieved we believe it will be possible to expect real progress with respect to the improvement of the health of the people. It is essential to take this step first, because the legislation necessary to provide for the full development of the health services of the country may be controversial, and certainly will be difficult and involved. Therefore, it is necessary to take it in these two stages. I believe if we acquire the powers sought in this Bill we may, for the first time in this country, be able to develop and ultimately to apply scientific, well thought out, and thorough health measures for the benefit of our people.
  Mr. HOGGE: In asking the House not to agree to the introduction of this Bill, I want to make a few observations. In the first place, I should like to say, of course, that every one of us wants to see a new arrangement whereby all the functions which deal with the health of the community may be co-ordinated into a separate Ministry. But that is a very different proposal to that which is now adumbrated to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Reconstruction. Briefly, the reasons why I oppose the introduction of this Bill are as follows: In the first place, this Bill attempts to take away from the Commissioners dealing with National Health Insurance in three of the separate parts of this kingdom their existing rights to deal with questions of disease and ill-health. In the fourth case, it leaves that to the Commissioners of National Health Insurance in Ireland, and I wish to say that it is surely an act of hypocrisy to suggest that that question shall be left until the Irish question is determined by the grant of Home Rule. My right hon. Friend will find that the Irish Members, both from the North and other parts of Ireland, will strongly oppose the exclusion of the National Health Commissioners for Ireland from the duties which are associated with this particular Bill. The second reason why I oppose this—and I oppose it

  2343
  rootedly—is that you associate by the arrangement which the Ministry of Re-construction has suggested this new arrangement with the administration of the Local Government Board which administers the Poor Law in this kingdom. If my right hon. Friend had taken the trouble, as apparently he has not done, to acquaint himself with the views held by the large bodies of approved societies in England, in Wales, and in Scotland, with regard to the inclusion of the functions of the National Health Insurance under any Government Department associated with the Poor Law, he would have known the strength of the opposition to it. I know he has not taken the trouble.
  Dr. ADDISON: That is entirely incorrect. I have consulted scores of representatives of authorities and of approved societies.
  Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman is somewhat premature; he did not let me finish my sentence. I do know, as a matter of personal knowledge, that as far as the National Health Insurance Commissioners in Scotland are concerned they have never been asked their views at all on the question of the Ministry of Health Bill, and how far their functions shall be roped in under the new arrangement. My right hon. Friend, therefore, will agree with the statement I make that so far as Scotland is concerned no one from the Ministry of Reconstruction has taken the trouble to ascertain what views are held in Scotland with regard to this matter. My third reason is this: There is in the Bill a proposal which my right hon. Friend has not explained to the House, and I suggest that the House may concentrate its attention on this for a single moment that you have inside this Bill a provision to set up an entirely new arrangement for Scotland with regard to the relationship of the Secretary for Scotland to this House. There is a proposal in this Bill for the creation of a new Minister who will act as Under-Secretary to the Secretary for Scotland and who will not be responsible even to this Board which you have set up. The Secretary for Scotland will be responsible for these Boards. If my right hon. Friend had taken the trouble for one moment to ascertain public opinion in Scotland from the National Health Insurance Commis-
  2344
  sioners, from the large municipalities, and from the county councils he would have known that the demand in Scotland is perfectly unanimous for a separate Bill dealing with a Ministry of Health for Scotland. We are not going to let in a Bill which applies principally to England and Wales the creation of a separate Ministry and Board for Scotland, which is the proposal of this Bill. We are not going to permit that. We insist as Scottish Members, if the Government do propose to deal with this question, that, as far as Scotland is concerned, they must introduce a separate Bill for Scotland, and not mix up the affairs of health in Scotland with a Government measure of this kind. The fourth reason is that my right hon. Friend must allow the great friendly societies and the great approved societies to express their opinion upon whether or not their functions are to be rearranged under this new measure. My final reason is that these are the declining days of the present Parliament, and it is absurd to bring in what is nothing more or less than electioneering Acts of Parliament. This is window dressing by the Government. They are going to suggest to the country that they have a great scheme for dealing with the question of health, when as a matter of fact their scheme does not meet with any approval at all in quarters where approval ought to be expected and ought to be received before it is introduced. Principally as a Scottish Member I object entirely to the introduction into an English Bill of a Board of Health for Scotland and I oppose the Bill now, and will oppose it in the Division Lobbies, on account of the fact that no separate Bill for Scotland, for Wales, and for Ireland is introduced by the Minister of Reconstruction.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Addison, Sir George Cave, Sir Auckland Geddes, Mr. Munro, and Sir Edwin Cornwall.
  MINISTRIES OF HEALTH BILL,—"to establish a Ministry of Health and a Board of Health to exercise in England and Wales and in Scotland, respectively, powers with respect to health and local government; and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Information."
  Mr. PRINGLE: When this Vote was put down originally I objected to its being taken. I thought that inadequate time would be given to the Committee to consider the proceedings and the machinery of the Ministry of Information in the light of the Report of the Committee on Expenditure. It was with a view to discussing the Ministry of Information in these aspects that the Vote on that occasion was postponed. Since then, however, the situation has been completely altered. Lord Beaverbrook, who was then Minister of Information, has resigned his office, and I am sure that all the members of the Committee deeply sympathise with Lord Beaverbrook in respect of the illness which caused his resignation. Under these circumstances, the Government have announced that no new appointment is to be made; and it has further been intimated that at the end of the War the Ministry of Information will itself come to an end. I have, therefore, decided to take this opportunity to call the attention of the Committee to a different matter which has arisen in the course of the last few days. On Monday there appeared in certain newspapers an article written by an officer of the Ministry of Information, the head of a particular Department of that Ministry, entitled "From War to Peace." It appeared in extenso in Lord Northcliffe's newspapers, the "Times" and the "Daily Mail," and in one or two other newspapers it appeared in a somewhat shortened form. In the "Daily Mail" and the "Times" it was accompanied with this intimation:
  "This article is appearing to-day in the leading papers in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, India, the British Dependencies, the United States, South America, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, and elsewhere."
  2346
  There is a further intimation that the article will be circulated in Germany during the present week. This very compendious announcement naturally excited some curiosity, and the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) put a Private Notice question to the Leader of the House in these terms:
  "Whether Lord Northcliffe is at present in Paris; whether he is there in his private capacity or in his official capacity as Director of Foreign Propaganda; whether the statement of peace terms published to-day over Lord Northcliffe's name in all the chief newspapers of the world is part of his official foreign propaganda; and, if so, whether the terms stated may be accepted as the official view of the British Government?"
  The reply of the Leader of the House was:
  "I have not received any notice of that question, but I think I can answer it. Lord Nortlicliffe, so far as I know, is in Paris in his private capacity, though very likely he may be there in connection with the business of propaganda. With reference to the peace terms to which the hon. Gentleman referred, they are the expression of the views of Lord Northcliffe only."
  The hon. Member for East Mayo:
  "Not the Government! I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that Lord Northcliffe is in charge of the foreign propaganda of the Government, is it not natural to expect that this statement, published by him, as he boasts to-day, in all the chief newspapers of the world, will be taken as a statement on behalf of the British Government?"
  The Leader of the House replied:
  "I think it would be a very wrong inference. I do not think it is likely to be made."
  The hon. Member for East Mayo:
  "I am sure of it!"
  The hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) then asked:
  "Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the terms announced this morning in the article published by Lord Northcliffe in the 'Times' are going to be published in the enemy countries as part of the propaganda?"
  I put a similar supplementary question, to which the Leader of the House replied:
  "I had not noticed that especial statement in the 'Times,' but the article is in every sense the work of Lord Northcliffe. The British Government were unaware of it, and in no sense responsible for it."
  The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt):
  "Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this article will not be circulated in Germany at the public expense?"
  The Leader of the House:
  "I cannot give that assurance. The question of what is and what is not good enemy propaganda is not one to which I could give an answer offhand and without consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1918, cols. 1799–1800.

  2347
  It seems to me that the mere reading of these official answers proves conclusively that there is an ambiguity in Lord Northcliffe's position which it is desirable in the public interest to have cleared up. I do not desire, nor would it be in order to enter to-day into any discussion of the subject-matter of that article. My own personal view is that it is, on the whole, a reasonable and moderate article, and a fair statement of what may be put forward in respect of concrete terms on behalf of the Allies and of this country in particular. The question as to Lord Northcliffe's views does not therefore arise. Probably many of us would have altered the statement in some individual respects. I think it is extremely important that when a statement of terms is put forth in this way we should know whether it is authorised or unauthorised, and whether it is official or unofficial. We are in a very extraordinary position in relation to this matter—the discussion of peace terms. I may remind the Committee that on several occasions in the last fortnight efforts have been made to elicit a statement from the Government in this House, but on every one of these occasions the attitude of the Leader of the House has been one of blank negation. He clearly let it be known that the one place in which questions relating to the conclusion of peace could not be discussed was on the floor of the House of Commons, and that, even though another interview had appeared, an interview with a member of the Government, formerly a member of the War Cabinet, who now holds the position of Minister for War. So after this continued policy of silence an official of this Department of Information has rushed into print, and done it in such a way as to give the impression that what he says is really official. I hoped that somebody in a more responsible position than the Secretary to the Treasury would have been here to deal with the question, because I think that it is a matter of sufficient importance to have a statement on it from the Government. The effect of the answer by the Leader of the House was, very roughly, that the article expressed the personal views of Lord Northcliffe, but that it was being circulated by the Government. I know that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baldwin) always does his best, and when he is dealing with Treasury matters his best is usually very satisfactory to the House.
  2348
  But he is called on to-day to deal with a matter which is not a Treasury matter, and therefore I may be pardoned if I somewhat distrust his best on this occasion.
  What we want to know is, is this really a private document, and how did it come from the Ministry of Information? I have some reason to believe that this article is founded on a Government document, headed "Private and Confidential," which was in the Ministry of Information, and I assert on authority which, of course, I cannot disclose, that if you take the most important proposals in this article, they are all extracted from the document in the Ministry of Information, a document representing the views of the Government—that every one of what are called the Thirteen Points is taken textually from that document. Take the first, dealing with the concrete terms of peace:
  "The complete restoration, territorial, economic and political, of Belgium. In this there can be no reservation."
  That is taken from the document to which I refer. The second is
  "the freeing of French territory, reconstruction of the invaded provinces, compensation for all civilian losses and injuries—"
  another textual quotation. The third is
  "the restoration to France of Alsace-Lorraine, not as a territorial acquisition or part of a war indemnity, but as reparation for the wrong done in 1871…."
  "No 4. Readjustment of the northern frontiers of Italy as nearly as possible along the lines of nationality"
  That, again, is quoted verbally from the official document.
  "5. The assurance to all the peoples of Austria-Hungary of their place among the free nations of the world and of their right to enter into union with their kindred beyond the present boundaries of Austria-Hungary."
  Again a quotation.
  "6. The evacuation of all territory formerly included in the boundaries of the Russian Empire, the annulment of all Russian treaties, contracts or agreements made with subjects, agents, or representatives of enemy Powers since the Revolution and affecting territory or interests formerly Russian, and the unimpeded co-operation of the Associated Powers in securing conditions under which the various nationalities of the former Empire of Russia shall determine their own forms of government.
  That is, again, quoted verbally.
  "8. The abrogation of the Treaty of Bukarest, the evacuation and restoration of Roumania, Serbia, and Montenegro.
  9. The removal, as far as is practicable, of Turkish dominion over all non-Turkish peoples."

  2349
  It seems to me to be somewhat sinister to find the words "as far as practicable."
  "10. The people of Schleswig to be free to determine their own allegiance.
  11. As reparation for the illegal submarine warfare waged by Germany and Austria-Hungary these Powers shall be held liable to replace the merchant tonnage belonging to the associated and neutral nations illegally damaged or destroyed.
  12. The appointment of tribunals before which there shall be brought for impartial justice, as soon as possible, individuals of any of the belligerents accused of offences against the laws of war or of humanity.
  13. The former colonial possessions of Germany, lost in consequence of her illegal oppression against Belgium, shall in no case be returned to Germany."
  If it be the case that all these passages which I have quoted, which are the main foundation of the article—indeed, the article would be nothing without these passages—are taken textually from an official document, surely it is absurd to say that this article has no official character. It is obviously official. If it is desirable for the British Government to place its views not only before our own country but before Allied countries and neutral countries and the people of enemy countries, the Government might well take the traditional and normal method of stating its views on these questions in a public way. It seems to me that if it is necessary to depart from that procedure and to take other means of putting the British view before the world it is somewhat unfortunate that the channel selected should be a great newspaper proprietor. We have heard a great deal of the relations of the Government and the Press. On a previous occasion, indeed, there was a full-dress attack by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), in which he said nothing against the Government which was inconsistent with returning to its ranks, but we should have expected an improvement in the procedure of the Government in view of the fact that he is now a member of the War Cabinet. The main feature in respect of the selection of this individual is that this selection is equivalent to a very considerable endowment of the papers with which he is associated. If you give this special importance to statements made by a man who is at the head of a very strong Press combination, you are adding an enhanced value to the whole of the Press which he controls. He is given a special preferential and privileged position in relation to the whole of the journalism of the country, and I think it is unfortunate
  2350
  that the Government, if it is going to make a semi-official statement, should take this particular method of doing it. That, however, is a minor aspect of the matter. My main object in raising this question has been not to criticise anything that is said in this article, but to ascertain clearly and unequivocally what is the Government attitude towards it. It is of the utmost importance that we should know definitely what that attitude is. I have made the statement, and I have conclusive evidence for it, that this article is really based on an official statement of the British terms. In these circumstances it seems to me that the Committee is entitled to expect from the Government full information as to whether this is an authorised statement on behalf of the country or not.
  Sir E. CARSON: I do not intend to pursue the subject, though I recognise the importance of it, which has been raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) who has just addressed the Committee. There is one matter on which I should like to say a word, and I am sorry to say that it also has something to say to Lord Northcliffe, who, I understand, is the propagandist in foreign countries under the Ministry of Information. I am quite alive to the fact that it is almost high treason to say a word against Lord Northcliffe. I know his power and that he does not hesitate to exercise it to try to drive anybody out of any office or a public position if they incur his royal displeasure. But as at my time of life neither office nor its emoluments nor anything connected with Governments, or indeed public life, makes the slightest difference, and the only thing I care about is really the interests of decent administration, I venture to incur even the possibility of the odium of this great trust owner, who monopolises in his own person so great a part of the Press of this country, and has always for himself a ready-made claque to flatter him and to run any policies for him that he thinks best in his own interests.
  Within the last few days there has been an attack made by this Noble Lord's papers upon Lord Milner. Lord Milner is Secretary of State for War, and if Lord Northcliffe is not a Minister—as I believe he says he is not a Minister—he is at least an official of one of the Government Ministers. Lord Milner seems to have given an interview to a rival paper, or another paper, with the merits or demerits

  2351
  of which I would not be in order in dealing, except so far as to say this, that, having read it and having read the criticism of some of Lord Northcliffe's papers upon it, I believe that it has been purposely and intentionally misrepresented and misunderstood. But whether that be so or not, all I can say is that it seems to me to be nothing but indecent that the gentleman engaged in foreign propaganda on behalf of His Majesty's Government should make part of his propaganda an attack upon the Secretary of State for War in the Government, under which he purports to serve. But it is really worse than that, because he professes to do it upon the ground that Lord Milner's interview was an indiscretion which was likely to do harm in France, and yet day after day he repeats Lord Milner's words in order that the indiscretion may be more and more rubbed into the French people. I noticed yesterday, or the day before—indeed, I would not have seen it, only somebody brought it to my attention, because I do not read those papers—that he quoted, or that the paper quoted in its leading article, what purported to be a telegram from the French correspondent who, I have no doubt, is either Lord Northcliffe himself, who happens to be there, or is somebody with whom he was in immediate contact, calling attention to the great damage that had been done, now many days ago, by this interview of Lord Milner's.
  I think it is really time to put an end to this kind of thing. The Government may imagine that they gain power and support, but I do not believe it for a moment. I believe that all the best elements in the country resent this kind of thing. Everybody knows who has been in public life or in public office that the moment Lord Northcliffe's displeasure is incurred from that moment onwards a kind of man-hunt commences until he drives anybody whom he looks upon as an adversary out of office. I have a strong suspicion myself in this case that he is anxious to drive Lord Milner out of office, and, indeed, he does not cloak it because he heads his articles "Will he resign?" "What is the way out?" and all those other, I suppose we will call them popular, headlines in the midst of a crisis like this, when every moment of Lord Milner's time and his brains must be concentrated upon events of the greatest
  2352
  magnitude in this world—he does not cloak it that he wants to drive him out of office, and for what purpose? Is it because he has been inefficient? Not at all, Sir, because I think everybody will admit that since Lord Milner went to the War Office there has been an immense improvement in the whole management and organisation of the War Office. No, Sir; at the present moment, when Lord Milner is in France, and has been in France, I am told, as I have not seen him for a long time, dealing with these matters at the Versailles Conference and everything of that kind and with matters of vital importance to this country, to which he is devoting his whole time day after day, come these attacks from an official of the Government upon Lord Milner to drive him out of his office. For what? In order that Lord Northcliife may get it or may get into the War Cabinet, so that he may be present at the Peace Conference, whenever it comes. The whole thing is a disgrace to public life in England and a disgrace of journalism. I know perfectly well how difficult it is to ever criticise the Press. I know perfectly well the reward you reap for it. Thank God, I never cared what they said about me. I have never cared, but I do hope that Members of this House, whether they agree with Lord Milner or whether they agree with any other Minister, will see that, at all events, at a crisis like this fair-play, fair criticism, honest dealing, and decent life are necessary.
  Mr. DILLON: I never listened with greater interest or admiration to a speech in this House than to the eloquent speech vibrating with indignation and honest feeling to which we have just listened. I have never heard the well-known proceedings of the syndicate Press of this country so ably described and so powerfully condemned as it has just been described and condemned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College. But when did he find salvation? Is this a new method of Lord Northcliffe's?
  Sir E. CARSON: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have condemned it on more than one occasion, and in public too.
  Mr. DILLON: I have never heard of it.
  Sir E. CARSON: I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my speeches.
  Mr. DILLON: That is no new method of Lord Northcliffe. It was used with far greater, infinitely greater, lack of scruple,

  2353
  and far more cruel misrepresentation at an infinitely worse crisis in this War when the Ministers of the first War Government were pursued to their destruction. I myself pointed out on more than one occasion in this House the shameless manner of those attacks instituted in those days, I regret to say, with the hearty approval and co-operation of a great number of Members of this House. Although it may be true that Lord Northcliffe is now pursuing Lord Milner with something of his old ferocity and something of his old lack of scruple in these matters, that, as I have just said, is nothing new. When I put it beside the methods which he used against the present Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister his attack on Lord Milner pales into insignificance.
  Sir E. CARSON: He was not a member of the Government then.
  Mr. DILLON: No, but he was pursuing exactly the same methods, and does anybody suppose that Lord Northcliffe is going to be curbed by being a member of the Government. He denies he is a member of the Government. He draws no salary so far as I know, and he is perfectly free. That is his theory. There is no doubt he denies it, and says he is a volunteer and a patriot who is carrying on this Government propaganda out of love of his country. That may be quite true for all I know, but the methods are exactly the same and they are unquestionably a menace to the public life of this country. He is not the only one engaged in it. There are others who undertake to follow his example. But he is the Napoleon of journalism in this country, and he is the man who has invented this whole system of collaring the Press and turning it into a great machine of power. That is his real purpose. I acquit Lord Northcliffe of any corrupt motive or, according to his own lights, of any evil motive.
  We must remember that we are living in days of absolute change, when all the old traditions of public life as I knew them when I first entered it are rooted up and destroyed. Lord Northcliffe saw long ago that under the system which was being pursued this House was ceasing to govern the country. I have been a very patient and constant watcher of the proceedings of this House for over forty years, and I have seen it for twenty-five years past losing its grip bit by bit of the control of the power of this House. Lord Northcliffe saw that about ten years ago, and
  2354
  with the true instinct of a man of real genius said, now that the House of Commons, partly on account of new rules and changes of procedure and for a variety of things, which it would not now be in order to enter upon, is losing its power, that power must reside somewhere. In a democratic country like this you cannot divorce power altogether from the people, you cannot have an absolute bureaucracy like Russia, because the people have a certain amount of power, and where is the power going to reside if it departs from the House of Commons? His great conception was that the power must reside in the Press, and accordingly he determined to prepare for the new era that was dawning, and he had the foresight and insight of genius to devote all his great capacity to the capture of vast quantities of the Press. I may tell you to my own knowledge that Lord Northcliffe told a friend of mine six or seven years before he got the "Times" newspaper, and when he was comparatively an obscure man, that he never would rest until he got hold of the "Times." People laughed at it, for the matter was talked about amongst a few men who knew what was going on. In six years he had control of the "Times." His policy to get control of the "Times" was not to make money, because at that time the "Times" was not making money and had never recovered from the effect of the Parnell Commission. It tried to crush us for fifteen years. There was a Homeric struggle between the Irish party and the "Times." We beat the "Times," and it never recovered, and became a more or less bankrupt concern and a money-losing concern.
  Therefore it was not for money Lord Northcliffe was anxious to get the "Times." He realised that the "Times" newspaper was one of the great powers of Europe, with great traditions, and that it makes or unmakes wars and makes peace when it likes, and that it has more than once overthrown Governments in European capitals in the last fifty or sixty years. That tradition appealed to his imagination, and he said I will own the "Times," and will have a great syndicate of newspapers, with one paper for the man in the omnibus and the street, the "Daily Mail," and another for the financial world and the clubs, and between those two and the various surrounding papers I will control the public through the means by which the people are now

  2355
  controlled—that is, by the Press. That is by keeping on telling them every day the news cooked up in the way in which he can cook it. Lord Northcliffe is a man of genius and of judgment. He does not pay any attention, or very little attention, to his leading articles. He knows perfectly well that the leading articles of foreign newspapers have very little effect on the people. What he knows is that you can mould and control the public just as the potter moulds the clay into what shape he likes by giving them day after day as their daily pabulum the news he wishes them to hear. They breathe it in and it colours their minds, and the busy man of the world has no other means of information. I pointed that out here, and now the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken appears to realise it, whether it is because he is now in a position of less responsibility and more freedom than he was some time ago, I pointed out several times here that the real power in England was not the Cabinet, not this House, but Lord Northcliffe and certain other gentlemen who have a syndicate Press. That is the greatest danger in this country and in other countries. It is one of the greatest problems we will have to face after the War, which now, thank God, is almost at an end — one of the greatest and most terrible problems! A man said to me the other day, "Take care, Mr. Dillon, that we do not find after the War is over that we will Liberalise Germany and Prussianise England." That sounds like a paradox, but it may turn out to be true.
  5.0 P.M.
  What is Germany's present condition due to? It was due to the fact that she had sold her soul to the devil of military triumph and military success. There was a time, and we all remember reading in our youth about a Germany which was the most idealistic country in Europe. The last thing she thought of at that time was military domination over the world. She was then rather a defenceless country. Her writers and her poets and her men of literature were idealists, and idealism was the prevailing faith in Germany. But Prussia and the statesmanship of Prussian kings, whom you admired, and whom you took so great a part in building up—but here I am going out of order, and I must try to keep myself in order—brought this curse on Germany. Take care that, having fought this good fight for liberty, and having broken for ever—or, at least,
  2356
  for generations—the faith of the German people in the military machine and the hideous military gospel, that we do not set up in this country a system which will Prussianise us and hand us over, unknowingly and unaware of what is happening, to the same horrible philosophy and horrible fate which the German people have suffered. What makes this Vote of such importance is that in this Vote and the present organisation of the Information Ministry, the Government have taken under their patronage this very system of the syndication of the Press, which the Government ought to be the very first to discourage. The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle) pointed out that this document, published in the "Times" newspaper, has been circulated in every great newspaper in the world, and has been specially circulated through official channels, and, I assume, therefore, with the £1,000,000 which we voted the other day. Now you have published in this morning's "Times" the comments of the German newspapers on this document as an official document—comments on the fact that it is circulated by Lord Northcliffe, who has been commissioned by the Government to take charge of enemy propaganda. All the German newspapers are taking it as, at all events, a semi-official forecast of the terms of peace. And yet, when I asked in the House of Commons—and this is part of the process by which the House of Commons has been deliberately snubbed. You constantly see in the newspapers now, statements to the effect that the House of Commons is a contemptible institution, and I read the other day in one of the leading newspapers, a statement by a leading and distinguished man, that the sooner another Cromwell appeared on the scene, kicked the mace away and locked the doors, the better it would be. I do not wonder, seeing how the House of Commons has been treated—I put a question, as I say, the other day to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking him whether this document was in any sense official, or did it reflect the views of the Government, and, if not, why it was allowed to be published by the Government agent of propaganda? His reply was that it in no way reflected the views of the Government. I am afraid I should go very nearly to the limit of Parliamentary language if I characterised that reply in blunt language, and called it camouflage. It certainly did not

  2357
  represent the truth. Everyone knows now that the Government circulated this document to a certain big set of editors and agents—a confidential document marked "strictly private"—and the Napoleon of journalism, desiring to keep up the reputation of the "Times" and his journals published it in full, and the Government dare not touch him.
  If I had done that, or somebody else had done it, we should have been brought up under the Defence of the Realm Act, but they dare not touch Lord Northcliffe, because he is their master, and any man who dares touch him, be it the Prime Minister himself, he will be pulled down, and they know it. This is not the first or the second time that he has impudently defied all the regulations to which citizens of His Majesty are subject. He has invited the Government to prosecute and imprison him, but every Minister trembles before him. No Minister, after the fate of the Leader of the Opposition, dare cross the path of Lord Northcliffe. Lord Milner, in his attempt to save the German Empire, which he greatly admires—he is an able man, but he has German blood in his veins, and a German education, and he has been all his life a, great admirer of the bureaucratic system of Germany, of which I am myself a great admirer, if it were not such a curse. That sounds paradoxical, but it is absolutely sound sense. It is the finest nation of the kind the world has ever seen, and it very nearly knocked us into a cocked hat. Anybody who has travelled in Germany and seen the condition of the German people knows that they have efficient and sound, honest government. I do not suppose any nation had more honest or efficient government or cleaner officials than the German people, and Lord Milner, of course, was a great admirer of it. The trouble about Lord Milner is that he is not a democrat; he showed that in South Africa. He hates and dreads democracy, and when he saw that the Germans were beaten—
  The CHAIRMAN: This is going a great deal beyond the present Vote. The only question under the present Vote is how far the Director of Foreign Propaganda comes under the control of the Minister of Information.
  Mr. DILLON: I am very sorry if I have wandered, and I thought I had on the previous occasion; but surely on the present occasion I am strictly following the path marked out by the right hon. Member for
  2358
  Trinity College. He introduced this question of Lord Milner, and you sat silent and allowed him to denounce Lord Northcliffe, not at all in relation to this document, but for his attack on Lord Milner.
  The CHAIRMAN: For the employment of this gentleman by the Ministry of Information. That was the line, I understand, of the attack.
  Mr. DILLON: He attacked Lord Northcliffe certainly in very unmeasured language for having attacked Lord Milner, and he went on to defend Lord Milner, and to explain how unjust the attack was. I thought I was only following on exactly the same ground. However, I have said all I meant to say, except that it seems to me quite easily to explain both why Lord Milner gave this interview, and why Lord Northcliffe attacked him. Lord Northcliffe treats anybody who dares to trespass upon the question of making peace terms as an interloper, for he thinks no one has any right, be he Minister or anybody else, to trespass upon his ground. He is the great leader of the propaganda of the Government, and he has taken the matter into his own hands. As he said the other day at Washington Inn, in addressing American officers, "As nobody seems to have the courage to announce the British peace terms, I shall do it," and he went on to give the terms from a document which he had in his pocket—a strictly secret document which was not to be revealed. What I object to in all this is—and this is certainly strictly in order—that the whole of this business means that the Government are using the Propaganda Department, using one and a quarter millions of money which we voted, and using the whole system for the purpose of nursing, strengthening, and perpetuating this system of syndicated journalism, and this system of domination of the Press by unscrupulous methods, which have been denounced by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Therefore, I say, the whole system has increased enormously in its danger to the public by the fact that it has now got the patronage of the Coalition Government, and no intelligent politician can take up the newspapers now without seeing that it runs through dozens of journals, and that the Government are going to this election manipulating the whole situation in respect of the Coalition, as they call it, preparing for the election through these

  2359
  syndicated journals, which are all subsidised and fed, not only by our money, for so-called patriotic propaganda, but also by the fact that it is equally, or more important to the journals that they are supplied with this special and secret information from the Government. This constant supply and constant stream of a special monopoly of secret information, going to Lord Northcliffe, Lord Beaver-brook, and other gentlemen connected with propaganda, is a perfect outrage, and it amounts to this: Ministers are selling their souls to these men and becoming their servants, because if you strengthen that power—God knows it is too strong already!—and if the Government go on strengthening it, they will have created a Frankenstein they cannot resist, and if they attempt to assert their own inclinations those whom they have put in such a position of power will very shortly bring them to heel or drive them out of office. I was just now reminding the Committee of the answer given to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other evening, I then asked him whether Lord Northcliffe was in Paris in his official capacity or in his capacity as a private citizen. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not know, but he thought in his private capacity. Is not that foolish? A friend of mine in Paris sends me a marked copy of Clemenceau's own paper, "L'homme Libre," and here is the note:
  "Lord Northcliffe, accompanied by Lieutenant-Colonel Campbell Stewart, has arrived in Paris."
  Who is Lieutenant-Colonel Campbell Stewart? He is an extremely nice fellow. I met him once; he is a very charming Canadian officer, but he is a high official of the Department, and so clear is it that Lord Northcliffe has gone over in his official capacity that he takes over with him one of the chief officers of the Department. And yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks so little of the duty of a Minister to deal fairly and squarely with the House of Commons that he says to me he really does not know, but he thinks he is over there in his private capacity. He knows perfectly well he was over there in his public capacity as the Director of Propaganda, and that he was acting in that capacity in Paris. What brings him over there at all? What does he want in Paris at this moment? He wants to be there so that the Ministers will be within sound of the crack of his whip, and if he
  2360
  finds when he is on the watch outside the Versailles Conference that they have begun to depart from the 0"Times" conditions he may be in a position to say, "Now, mind what you are doing; I know the whole story, and I will let it out!" And he can do it, because, as I say, for Lord Northcliffe the law does not exist. No Minister dare put the law in operation against him. Some Members will recollect the famous Debate when a Member of this House, then Home Secretary, moved a vote of censure on Lord Northcliffe. The result was that the vote of censure was duly passed and Lord Northcliffe next time simply pointed out that the House of Commons had now reached such a state of imbecility that the sooner it closed its operations the better, and on that occasion the Home Secretary admitted to this House that Lord Northcliffe had frequently infringed the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Who stopped it?
  Mr. DILLON: He was not stopped!
  Mr. PRINGLE: The Home Secretary was stopped.
  Mr. DILLON: By the terror of his colleagues. Many of us were innocent enough to think the system was at an end when the Home Secretary advanced to the Table and moved a vote of Censure. It was not of the slightest effect unless the Government backed it up. But they dared not back it up. Lord Northcliffe did not go to gaol; the Government went out of office. For it was he who broke the late Government undoubtedly, and that is an example which the present Government is not likely to forget. I complain of three things in connection with this Vote. First of all, I complain of the fact that Lord Northcliffe is allowed to strut about the scene as a Napoleon of this Empire, and a Napoleon of the world, to lay down the terms, to go across to Paris and to declare that he is not a Minister, when there is an attempt to fix responsibility. When the present Prime Minister begged him to come into the Ministry he published a letter saying, "I prefer the liberty of Printing House Square." Of course he does, because he can turn head over heels, change his principles as often as he likes and disclaim responsibility. He knows that he is above the law, and he is relieved of the necessity of facing the imbecile and decayed House of Commons for which he has an unmeasured contempt.

  2361
  I think it is deplorable and a thing that this House ought to condemn that the great office—and it is a very great office; at present a more important office than the War Office, or that of most of the Ministers of the War Cabinet—should be put into the hands of this irresponsible man who is not responsible to this House in any way, but treats this House with studied contempt. He dominates Ministers and terrifies them. He ignores and absolutely defies the law and does what he likes. He has his hands firmly on the sources of public information and misrepresents it and misleads the public, and he is rewarded by the Government in spite of many complaints by being placed in that most influential post which a citizen could possibly hold and a position which means an enormous increase to his power, with the result as I have said already that you take up your "Times" every morning and see the secrets of the Government. They are in the "Times" this morning, things that the public outside can obtain from no other source. I confess I am a rather careful student of the "Times," because I have admired Lord Northcliffe all the time. I have a great and growing admiration for Lord Northcliffe. He occupies the position Bismarck held when I was young. He dominates Europe at the present time. He and another great journalist, Clemenceau, are the two biggest men in Europe at this time, apart, of course, from the military men. It is intolerable—or it ought to be intolerable, but it seems that in this House everything is tolerated—that this man should be elevated to enormous power, and he and his fellows in the Press should be more and more the masters of this country, of this House, and of the so-called Government of Great Britain.
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I think it might be to the interest of the Committee if, very briefly, I were to say a few words about the subject of the Vote which is on the Paper to-day—that of the Ministry of Information; and I hope, before I sit down, to refer to the discussion which has taken place, and to be able to relieve some of the apprehensions of the hon. Member who has just spoken. I do not want unduly to trespass on the time of the Committee; but I have a vivid recollection of the discussion which took place before the Adjournment, either at the end of July or the beginning of August. I think it may
  2362
  be of interest to the Committee to hear of one or two of the activities of the Department which were not gone into on that day, and I should like to say a word or two about some of the criticisms levelled against the Department at that time, to which, owing to the shortness of the notice given, sufficient answers could not be returned. I am very pleased to say that, as a result of a good deal of hard work on the part of my Department, and a great deal of hard work and willing co-operation of the new Department—the Ministry of Information—the finances have been got into very good order. A system is now being worked into, returns of expenditure have been submitted to us, and I have had the satisfaction of seeing quite recently the estimated and also the actual expenditure for the last six months. I have seen for myself it has been kept in very close relation to the estimate, and I have had great pleasure in having prepared a White Paper, which will be circulated almost immediately, going through the various points raised in the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on that Department. This will be of a great deal of interest to Members when they study it. Two of the activities of the Ministry of Information will, I think, commend themselves even to those who are most prone to criticise, because they are activities about which there can be no question.
  There is, first, the entertainment of American troops which they have supervised in this country. The Minister of Information, with very keen insight, saw at once that no action taken by his Department would have a wider effect in bringing closer together the peoples of the United States and of these Islands than to set on foot some organisation which would look after the entertainment of the soldiers and officers of the United States in transit through these Islands, and the movement that was inaugurated by the Ministry has had a most gratifying success. It has given the greatest satisfaction to the Americans in this country. The report of what has been done has been spread throughout the United States, and has been no small factor in causing that wonderful improvement in the feeling between the two peoples which has been more and more manifest on the other side of the water.
  There are, further, the visits which have been organised of overseas and foreign journalists to this country. When these parties of journalists have come over they

  2363
  have been invited to go about, and make their own inquiries—to see everything, to talk to everybody, to form their own impressions, and then to relate to their own Press, and very often with their own voices, what they have seen and the impressions they have formed. I am sure the Committee will readily see that the impression which has been made on these visitors has been everything that we could have hoped, and the benefit which will result to this country and to the world at large from the improved feeling is evident from the tone of the Press in many of the countries of the Overseas Dominions and of America will, I think, be a permanent benefit.
  I was very glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) said about the Minister of Information, and the regret he expressed at the illness which has resulted in his resignation. I should like to say, what I am sure the Committee will endorse, that the combination of rare vision he has shown, with ability to master details, has enabled that Department, in spite of much criticism it has received, to form itself in the short time it has had and to become an engine this year that has really done most valuable work for the Allied cause and done it at a reasonable expense. It has been announced that no successor will be appointed to Lord Beaverbrook. The Committee may like to know, if it is not aware of the fact, that his work is being carried on by Mr. Arnold Bennett, who acted as his deputy. Although it is impossible, as the Committee will realise, to give here and now the date when that Committee will come to an end, it is obvious that its life cannot be a long one; and it is the intention of the Government, as soon as this work of information may safely be dispensed with, to do without it.
  Mr. DILLON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question? Will he consider the desirability of suspending absolutely the work of the Ministry of Information during the election?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of the Leader of the House. Possibly he will consider that question.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will he promise there shall be no films during the election?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I think, having said these few words about the Ministry of Information, I must refer to the subject which has been the sole subject of discussion since this Vote was introduced. I cannot help thinking it is a most remarkable tribute to an individual that the whole time of the Committee should have been taken up in discussing Lord Northcliffe, whose connection with this Vote is a very slender one. The Minister of Propaganda in Enemy Countries was dependent on this Vote for the first four or five months of the financial year, but it is entirely separate now, and has been so for the last two or three months.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: On which Vote is it now?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The expenses are a separate entry under the Vote of Credit. I would merely observe, in passing, that while the Ministry of Information itself is moribund, the work of propaganda in enemy countries must from the very nature of the case be not only moribund, but in articulo mortis, and so far as Lord Northcliffe and this Vote are concerned, is defunct.
  Mr. DILLON: Lord Northcliffe defunct?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I said, so far as this Vote is concerned at the present moment. While apologising to my hon. Friend for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) for inadequacy in answering the questions on this Vote, I will do my best to reply to the questions he has put. I am at the same time answering the few points raised, I think, by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), about which he was very much concerned None of the money of the Ministry of Information, or none of the money that might be wanted for enemy propaganda, has been used, or will be used, in reference to the publication of the letter or article to which he took exception, and which appeared in Paris.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No public money at all?
  Mr. BALDWIN: No public money at all! The whole of the expenses connected with the publication of that article were defrayed by Lord Northcliffe himself.
  Mr. COTTON: Including the circulation in Germany?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Including the circulation in Germany. I must, however, confess

  2365
  to a great deal of ignorance as to how matters get circulated in the Press. My own impression is, or was, that an article of that nature would only have to be printed in Paris to be reproduced free of charge in Germany. That, I thought, would be the most likely thing to happen. I remember a friend of mine, a very distinguished literary personage, who was approached on one occasion by the owner of a proprietary article. This proprietor inquired, "Will you write me a poem in praise of my proprietary article?" My friend replied, "No!" The owner of the proprietary article, an American, wrote back to my friend and said, "I am sorry you have not done this for me, because, in my simple way, I thought a poem written by you on this subject would be copied into every newspaper in the world, and I, therefore, would have received a big advertisement." Whether that sort of thing does happen in the newspaper world I do not know. It is a matter on which I am profoundly ignorant. In regard, however, to the question as to whether the letter or article published in Paris was one published by Lord Northcliffe in his private capacity or not, I think the answer given to the House of Commons on Monday last by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was complete and comprehensive. I have nothing at all to add to that reply. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) said,
  "The British Government were unaware of it, and in no sense responsible for it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1918, col. 1800].
  I should have thought that explanation quite simple enough, and it is as far as I understand it. I would suggest to the hon. Member for East Mayo, if you have a Napoleon of journalism, how can you expect such a Napoleon to resist the opportunity of performing a Napoleonic feat in journalism?
  Mr. PRINGLE: With his official information?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Does it mean a breach of private contract?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I have no knowledge at all on that subject; I do not see how I could have. The trouble seems to me to be that what the hon. Member for East Mayo wants to do is a thing that would be impracticable—that is, to add to the already long list of Controllers in this country a Controller of Lord Northcliffe.
  An HON. MEMBER: Why not?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I should like to say this—although the point has not been touched upon—Lord Northcliffe, as far as he comes under this Vote, comes under it in connection with his work as Director of Propaganda in enemy countries. Propaganda in enemy countries is a very difficult and a very delicate work. I have not heard anyone suggest the name of any other gentleman who might be qualified to do it. I would ask the Committee to remember this: The work is very often justified by its results. If we are to judge by the articles which have appeared in the German Press during the Continuance of that enemy propaganda, we in this country have every reason to be satisfied with it. Again, I cannot help feeling that if the propaganda which has been conducted by this country inside enemy countries has helped to bring peace nearer by a day, by in any way breaking the moral of the people of those countries, it would be worth every effort which has been made and every sovereign spent on it. I have given the House all the information it is in my power to afford. I cannot see how any information which may be given tome about any document can help me in explaining this Supplementary Vote for the Ministry of Information. I have nothing to do with what has been done by someone who drew money from the Ministry of Information during the first four or five months of the financial year, and who does something entirely on his own in a private capacity, and pays for it himself.
  Mr. PRINGLE: If he uses information which comes to him confidentially in his capacity in that Department, it is a matter for the House of Commons.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Before the hon. Gentleman closes his speech will he make a little more clear that point mentioned about Lord Northcliffe, in regard to this matter, being in articulo mortis. Does he mean he is no longer the Minister of Propaganda in foreign parts?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I did not make myself as clear as I had hoped. What I meant when I said the Minister of Information was moribund was that he as such was slowly dying. I meant by saying that enemy propaganda was in articulo mortis, that it was near its death, and that the Ministry of Information, obviously, in regard to propaganda, must come to an end.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the hon. Gentleman mean when there is an armistice or right along?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I regret very much I am not able to give a further specific date when the Ministry of Information in respect to enemy territory will finish its operations. My hon. Friend may take it generally that the Government is anxious to bring both of these Department to an end at the earliest possible moment consistent with the public interests.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: This Vote is specified at £538,349, so I assume it has been carefully calculated, and that those concerned know exactly what are the figures. Will my hon. Friend tell me how much of this money was paid by the Ministry of Information to Lord Northcliffe prior to this date? I want particularly to get that out, and I will tell the Committee why. I happened to be on the Committee which inquired into the expenditure of this foreign information. We were told by Lord Beaverbrook he could not give us the payment made to Lord Northcliffe. I want very much to find out how much money was paid to Lord Northcliffe, or to that Department through Lord Northcliffe, or will be, out of this money that is now being voted. I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend say that this office was moribund. I should have thought that the moment an armistice was declared and arranged that the whole thing would stop.
  Mr. BOOTH: No.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Well, I do not know what good you are going to get from a Ministry of Information if an armistice prevents any further fighting on the part of your enemies. The object is accomplished.
  Mr. BOOTH: There are friendly countries to consider.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I am bound to say that when Lord Beaverbrook took the matter up as a business man, and assuming that the information he distributed was suitable, that he made a much better show of it than did the Foreign Office. He told us that when he came in the expenditure was £1,800,000, and that he reduced it to £1,200,000. Here we are taking a Vote for £1,520,000.
  Mr. BALDWIN: I think my hon. Friend is wrong.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think my hon. Friend is on the wrong side of the page. Is he not taking all the Supplementary Estimates together?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Perhaps so; I am afraid I must recall a good deal of what I have said. Still, I want to know, and I trust the House will be told, how much up to the present time Lord Northcliffe and his Department has spent in disseminating foreign propaganda. Lord Beaverbrook told us that when he took it in hand the expenditure was as I have stated, and the reduction was to £1,200,000. That was very good and very satisfactory. I still submit, however, that £1,200,000 is a very large amount to pay for work which is not simple information, and of no earthly use for either Allies or neutrals. The last time this Vote question was up I referred to the question of the cinemas. They are going on to-day. What earthly good they are doing I do not know! We have the cinema picture of Lord Beaverbrook distributing prizes at a girls' school. What on earth has that to do with the matter? Why should that expense be incurred? Then, there is a cinema preparing—I do not know whether I am right here or not, but I understand so—with great events from the Life of the Prime Minister. Is that Ministry of Information propaganda? Are they building up that cinema now? It has not been produced yet. If care is not taken it will not be in time for the General Election—for which I rather think it is intended. Even so, when Lord Beaverbrook on one occasion was asked the use of some particular picture or pictures, he replied. "Oh, well, the people like to know what is going on." What has this sort of information to do with the War, or with regard to showing to our neutrals or to the Allies generally really what we are doing?
  The only good thing they have done—quite agree with my right hon. Friend here—is that the entertainment part of the matter has been very useful; the entertaining of soldiers and officers going abroad. But that is an Entertainment Vote, or it should be. There was taking the American editors about from place to place, and entertaining them, and so on. That would have a very good effect on the opinion they would form of this country and its activities, particularly in regard to the entertainment of themselves; but even that was very much abused, although I think it was the only good thing, so fat as I have been able to ascertain, that the

  2369
  Ministry of Information has done. The editors have the pamphlets and leaflets—winch nobody reads. These are sent out by the thousand. There is a great library of these things. The Ministry have even bought books at a higher price per volume than even the ordinary bookseller would pay. They have bought them by the hundred thousands. I urge strongly that it is absolutely no use spending money on this thing the moment an armistice is declared on the terms we know it will be declared. Therefore the Enemy Propaganda Department and the Ministry of Information ought both to cease. I do not know how much it is anticipated will be spent in the current financial year, but it ought to be a very small amount indeed. We all know that there are a good many editors and sub-editors attached to these Departments, and some of them are drawing good salaries, and there will be some difficulty in stopping it. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend will put an end to it. As for the attack which has been made upon Lord Milner, I think it will be a very strange thing if he does not cease to be Minister for War; in fact I have even heard the name of his probable successor mentioned. I hope all this expenditure will stop the moment the armistice terms are fixed, and we should then close these Departments up.
  Mr. COTTON: I listened with a great deal of interest and attention to the statement which was made by the Secretary to the Treasury, but I could not help feeling as I listened to it that he was rather in the position of a very brave man struggling with a bad case. I listened to all he had to say with regard to the two branches and the activities of this Ministry, namely, the arrangements made for the American troops and the visits of the overseas editors. With regard to the entertainment of the American troops, there was no need for the establishment of a Ministry of Information to do that. I cannot imagine how the one can justify the other. I entirely agree that those arrangements were absolutely necessary and essential, but I cannot understand the connection between those arrangements and the necessity for the existence of the Ministry of Information.
  With regard to the visits of the overseas editors, why have these constant visits been necessary? Why has it been necessary to import cargo after cargo of overseas journalists? There have been certain newspapers which have been incessantly
  2370
  decrying the efforts made by this country in the War, and therefore it became essential to bring over journalists from America, Canada, New Zealand, and what-not in order to explain that this country was really not doing so badly; and, as a matter of fact, that it was this country that was bearing the chief brunt of the War. The very newspapers which not long ago were decrying the efforts of this country are controlled by the very person whom the Government appointed to be Director of Propaganda in enemy countries. Was there ever such an extraordinary turn of the kaleidoscope as that? We heard to-day from the right hon. Gentleman that within the last few months this Department—I suppose it may be called a Department, although the whole thing seems extremely nebulous—over which Lord Northcliffe presides, has come under a separate heading in the Vote of Credit which covers it. I think it is rather strange that we have had to wait until this afternoon for any information in regard to this matter, and now we are only told that this was done two or three months ago. Was this separation effected at the time of Lord Northcliffe's visit to Paris, or how long before?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Two or three months.
  Mr. COTTON: That does not answer the question which the public are constantly asking, and it does not give the information which hon. Members have been asking for. What is the exact official position occupied by the Director of Propaganda in Enemy Countries? Sometimes we are told that he occupies an official position, and then at another moment, when he breaks out in some direction, we are told that you must not consider that as having been done in Lord Northcliffe's official position, but as done by him in his public or private capacity as the proprietor of a great number of newspapers. All this mystery is producing a very evil effect upon the minds of the public, and it is reducing some of them to ribaldry. I have heard this Ministry described as a huge secret department, and I have heard all kinds of jests levelled at it. I have been asked if members of the Ministry of Information have been taking part in the preparation of the famous film, and whether one of them in the disguise of a policeman, posed as the prominent politician, escaping from the Birmingham Town Hall. Surely, the honest way is to avoid all this absurd secrecy.

  2371
  I asked a question not long ago with the object of eliciting information as to the staff which was employed by this Ministry, the nature of the duties they performed, and the salaries they received, but I obtained a reply to the effect that this would entail a very great amount of labour. Go into any of the war-time Departments and look at the staff list and you will find out who is employed, but in the case of the Ministry of Information nobody knows who is employed there and apparently the Secretary to the Treasury is in the same position.
  I cannot see why this House, and the public, should not be informed of the names of the gentlemen employed at the Ministry of Information, what are the offices they occupy and what salaries they draw from the public purse. We may be told that a great many of them render services for nothing. With regard to that, I would like to express a view, which I am quite sure is shared by a very large number of members of the public and, I hope, by many Members of this House, and it is that people who undertake public work should be paid for it in order that they may be under some sort of control. Nothing can be worse than the principle of appointing a man to perform public duties in a Government Department and saying to him, "If you do not want to receive any salary we shall not compel you to draw any." What has been the effect? We never have any direct representation of this Ministry in the House. I know there is the Secretary to the Treasury, and I bear testimony to his courtesy and the efforts he has made to help those who have been anxious to get information. But, after all, however efficient the hon. Gentleman is, it is not the same thing as having a direct representative of the Department in the House who ought to be able to answer questions relating to his Department, and who may be under some sort of control by Members of this House. Nothing can be worse than a haphazard arrangement like the present. Why may we not have some sort of Report presented to the House with regard to the acivities of this Ministry? Why may we not know what they are doing? We have been told that they entertain American troops and organise the visits of overseas editors, but that is not all the work they do; and if we cannot know now, surely we ought to have some sort of promise or under
  2372
  taking that at a proper time we may be told exactly how this money is being spent.
  Mr. BALDWIN: This is the second day's Debate on this subject, and those questions have been dealt with before.
  Mr. COTTON: This is a matter I cannot help feeling strongly upon, and so many people are talking about it that I feel bound to put their views before the House. This is a very serious matter. It is an expenditure of public money, and proper information should be given. Although these points may have been debated on a previous occasion, the information does not seem to have been given which ought to have been given, there is the point put by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as to whether the activities of this Department are going to be suspended during the election. I want to be quite frank. Paragraphs are seen in five or six newspapers, all of them more or less identical, sometimes from a distinguished anonymous Frenchman, representing that the Prime Minister is the indispensable man of the moment. You see this distinguished anonymous Frenchman making his appearance in newspaper after newspaper, perhaps in different language, but it all comes down to the same tiling, and there is a very strong impression that all this is the work of the Ministry of Information. It may be perfectly unjust, but there it is, and I am bound to say that it is creating a very mischievous effect. It is the result of setting up a Ministry like this and surrounding its operations with every conceivable kind of mystery and refusing all information as to the names and duties of the persons employed in it.
  6.0 P.M.
  I suggest, in the interests of the Government itself, that this kind of impression ought not to be allowed to exist one single day longer than is necessary. Under the system which now prevails, an atmosphere of suspicion is being created. It is said with regard to everything of that kind which appears, "Oh, it is the gramophone of the Ministry of Information." I have been constantly told that. It is not my business to defend the Minister of Information, and I do not intend to do so. The people whose duty it is to defend the Ministry are the people who set it up, and they do not do so by telling us that the Ministry have done admirable work by entertaining American troops and by

  2373
  organising visits of overseas editors. Everybody knows that those are more or less side-shows. What they want to find out is the real kind of work that this Ministry has been doing and how the money has been spent, and that is just the information that they cannot obtain. There appears to be no one to answer for the Ministry except the hon. Gentleman. We are in a very peculiar position, and I am quite sure, if the matter is left as it was left by the hon. Gentleman, that those who will read this Debate in the hope of obtaining information with regard to this strange Ministry and its peculiar activities are doomed to very serious disappointment.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: This Debate on this very important Vote has raised questions not only of immediate domestic importance, but also of considerable constitutional importance. The hon. Gentleman who sits on the Government Bench informed the Committee, and I think it was the first time the announcement had been made, that the expenses of Lord Northcliffe as Minister of Propaganda in enemy countries have been transfererd from this Vote, although this Vote contains some of them for the current year, to the Vote of Credit, and that henceforth they will only appear in a special sub-Department of the Vote of Credit. The hon. Gentleman gave no reason for this very strange change. I presume it is a matter which has been arranged by the Minister of Information. What is the object of transferring these expenses to the Vote of Credit? There is only one result. It removes from this Committee effective criticism of that part of the Vote. It means that in future years the only opportunity of discussing the matter will be on the Vote of Credit, when all sorts of other questions arise, and when it is impossible to have the same kind of detailed discussion which it is possible to have on the Estimates. When the hon. Gentleman made the announcement, he should at least have stated the reasons for transferring Lord Northcliffe's expenses from this Vote to the Vote of Credit. We were informed, when the appointment of Lord Northcliffe was made, that he was subject to some higher authority. We were informed that the Minister of Information was in supreme control and controlled even Lord Northcliffe. To-day we are told that it is not proposed to appoint a new Minister of Information. Who, then, now controls Lord Northcliffe?
  Mr. BOOTH: Mr. Arnold Bennett.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I understand that Mr. Arnold Bennett is not appointed Minister of Information, but simply to carry on the work of that Department. Therefore, I ask who controls Lord Northcliffe and directs his propaganda, so far as it now proceeds? The hon. Gentleman refers to Lord Northcliffe as a Napoleon. I think he said a "great Napoleon."
  Mr. BALDWIN: I was quoting the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon).
  Mr. PRINGLE: A super-Napoleon.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: It is true that the hon. Gentleman was quoting from my hon. Friend, and he said if he were a super Napoleon it was no wonder that he was able to perform such journalistic feats as the publication of the article to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) has drawn attention, May I remind the hon. Gentleman that if this be a Government document, as has been stated, it really does not require a Napoleon of any kind in order to publish a document which comes into his hands in the course of his work in connection with the Government? The humblest of Napoleon's servants could always publish a document which came into his hands in connection with his duties. Therefore I think it is relevant, now that we are told that Lord Northcliffe's expenses are transferred from the Estimates to the Vote of Credit, and that Lord Northcliffe is no longer controlled by any Minister, to ask why these changes have taken place, and what arrangements are going to be made in the future. Personally, the announcement that I should hear with the most undisguised satisfaction would be that Lord Northcliffe had no connection whatever with any sort of propaganda on behalf of this or any Government. I regret that the present Government should have taken the representatives of a great Press and have thus interfered with the free expression of public opinion. I regret very much that these arrangements for the most part are secret arrangements, and that the editors and proprietors and representatives of so many English newspapers are in the secret service of the Government of the day. I think it is very bad public policy. It is a reversal of the traditions of English public life. Before the War it was an established principle, which was known to be binding upon every

  2375
  Government, that when any Member received an office in the Government he severed his connection with all commercial or other undertakings in order that there might be no conflict between his private interests and his public duties. Why has not that course been followed in the present instance? Lord Northcliffe and other newspaper proprietors are given posts in the Government. Why are they not required to divest themselves of their private interests and directorships which may clash with their public duties? I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will publish the names and the salaries of all newspaper proprietors and editors who are now employed in the Ministry of Information? There is no reason why this information should be denied to the House of Commons and to the public.
  Mr. BOOTH: Why not all journalists?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am willing to enlarge the information to the fullest extent. I specified editors and proprietors of newspapers for this special reason. When I read in so many newspapers which are under one final control daily appeals to prejudice and passions, I feel that it would be greatly to the advantage of the public to know whether the writers of these appeals are in the employment of the Government of the day. We have a right to know how far the Press is a free Press, and how far it is corrupted by secret appointments and secret salaries. I therefore suggest that the time has arrived when complete publication should be made of the proprietors and editors of newspapers who are in the employment of the Ministry of Information and who are drawing what up to the present have been secret salaries. A General Election is thought by many to be approaching. Considerable mystery is observed so far as the Government Bench is concerned, and, therefore, no one can speak with certainty, but I desire to add my appeal to those which have been made that during the progress of a General Election, if one takes place, the activities of the Ministry of Information should be suspended. I hope that the day has already passed when any propaganda in foreign countries will be considered necessary. I hope that we are at the end of the War. I am considering this country and I think it would be a reversal of all the great traditions of the past if, during the progress of a General Election, the
  2376
  resources, the funds, and the organisation of the Ministry of Information were used in order to influence public opinion in favour of one political party.
  Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD: Which party?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Any political party. My hon. and gallant Friend will draw his own conclusions as to the political party which is most likely to be favoured by the activities by the present Ministry of Information. Whatever the party may be, it is a wrong and improper proceeding. It is wrong that any political bias should be imported into the work of the Ministry of Information, and no assurance has been given to us in that connection. In order to show how very important this matter is, let me refer to the cinema. The cinema has been greatly used by the Ministry of Information. I am not surprised, because it is a great social instrument; it is an instrument of popular education and we have only just begun to realise how powerful its influence may be. It is because it may have such a great popular influence that the Committee should receive an assurance that cinema films are not going to be of such a type as, under the guise of being something patriotic, will be used in favour of the political existence of the Government of the day. I hope before the Debate closes and before this Vote is assented to—if it be assented to; I should like to see it rejected—that the Committee will receive further information on these points which I think are very relevant to the Vote.
  Mr. GRANT: The course of the discussion in Committee has turned broadly upon criticism of the Ministry of Information, but it has not been so much criticism of the Ministry of Information as criticism of Lord Northcliffe. I think it would be a pity if the discussion came to an end without one member of the Committee giving expression to what is undoubtedly a large body of feeling which has nothing but admiration for the work which the Ministry of Information has carried out. One or two hon. Members has asked what the Ministry of Information have done, and rather suggested that they have done little other than the excellent work they accomplished in the entertainment of American soldiers and in taking care of the editors from foreign countries when they came to visit us. But circumstances have allowed me

  2377
  exceptional opportunities of seeing the work which has been done by the Ministry of Information in South America. Recently I have passed through all the States of that great continent, and I have had exceptional opportunities of seeing the work which the Ministry has done there. As the Committee is aware, there is a very strong German element in South America, and they would not be surprised to hear, if they did not know it already, that every effort was made by German propagandists in South America to put forward their views in order to turn the populations from the Allies towards the enemy. No money was spared, no stone left unturned, every effort, however unscrupulous, was used, to put forward the enemy point of view. I do not think it is too much for me to say that if it had not been for German propaganda in South America that two or three of the greatest States there would long ago have been on our side, and not still neutral, as they are.
  The entrance of the Ministry of Information into the field has created a tremendous change of feeling in South America. For the first time, these people have had facts instead of lies. They have gradually been able to realise that the aims of the Allies are their aims, and that their interests are our interests, and I cannot help thinking that the work which is being done there deserves eulogy from anybody who has any real information with regard to it. This Motion is put down as a nominal reduction of expenditure. It makes an attack on the expenditure. Though, I dare say, there has been some waste, and a certain amount of reduplication, and possibly expenditure that was not necessary, yet whatever the expenditure has been it has been an undoubted success, and it has been simply nothing compared with the expenditure which has been incurred by enemy propagandists in that country. From the experience I have had, I feel that I should not do justice to my conscience if I did not take this opportunity of paying the highest tribute to the work I have seen done by the Ministry of Information, which came lately into the field, in South America, and which had enormous obstacles to overcome. They have overcome them by an exhibition of brilliant ability and by an effort which deserves our greatest commendation. I should like to take this opportunity of associating myself with the expressions
  2378
  of regret which have been voiced at the illness which has overcome Lord Beaver brook. I cannot help thinking that it was to his keen insight, his determination, his ability and his restless energy, that the success achieved has been very largely due.
  Colonel HAMERSLEY: I wish to speak of another branch of the Ministry of Information, and to bear testimony to its work in the northern part of America. I have just recently been in that part of the country, and, without any connection with the Ministry, I had an opportunity of witnessing the work that they are doing, and the results of that work. Only a year ago the Germans, by their propaganda, had largely influenced the public mind of America, and there was no question that at that time the majority of people in America thought we had not as a country taken our fair share of the burden of the War. The Ministry of Information, having established its propaganda on our part there, has entirely dispelled that, and from what I saw and heard on my travels through America there is now a profound opinion that we have taken quite our share, if not more than our share, in the burden of this War. To my mind, if an end is put to the Ministry of Information and if its activities are withdrawn from America it will be nothing short of a calamity to this country. We have a long way to travel yet to get rid of the prejudices and the ideas which have been inculcated into many, many citizens of America against this country. Though those prejudices are rapidly disappearing, largely owing to the Ministry of Information, we must remember that though the pro-German in America is not heard at present, yet immediately another opportunity or chance arises he will be heard, and will rise up again with all the propaganda he can bring to bear. If we have nothing in that country to counteract him, it will fall back very likely into the state it was a year or two ago. I should regret, and any Englishman who has seen and had experience in America of what is being done would sincerely regret, if the activities and work now being carried on were to be stopped. They have good offices there, the men are thoroughly into their work now, the money we have spent would be very largely lost if we stopped that work; and I do trust that, before they withdraw them, the Government will seriously consider this and realise what the result will be. One

  2379
  of the greatest results that could happen from this War would be a union between America and these Islands, and everything should be done to bring that about.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: By coercing Ireland?
  Colonel HAMERSLEY: If coercing Ireland were necessary to do it, I would do that. I consider the union of America and England a far greater thing than Ireland, or any consideration of Ireland. I trust the Government will thoroughly consider this, and will realise that the work we have done now will have lasting effect, and that it will not be destroyed by being ended.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I rise, just for a moment or two, to congratulate the Ministry of Information that up to the present, except for the Member for East Finsbury and the Member for Mid-Lanarkshire, no one has said one condemnatory word of the work of that Ministry. The Debate has gone off on an attack on Lord Northcliffe, which attack I shall not pursue. I think it is out of order, and more than that, Lord Northcliffe is well able to look after himself, whatever opponents may be arrayed against him. I should like to deal specially with the remarks made by the hon. Member for East Finsbury, recently returned to this House. What brought me specially to my feet was the obvious ignorance of the hon. Member, and I regret he is not here to enjoy, possibly to appreciate, I trust to benefit from, the criticism I shall make on his remarks. He referred to the Ministry of Information as if its principal duty was the bringing over, to use his own most happy expression, of cargoes and cargoes of overseas journalists. I cannot understand the attitude of mind of any Member of this House or of this Empire who can refer to a visit of overseas journalists, invited here by the Government of the day to visit their own troops, as the visit of cargoes and cargoes of journalists.
  Mr. COTTON: The word "cargo" was merely a picturesque expression. It was not meant to represent that they were brought over as cargo.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: The explanation which the hon. Member has supplied confirms my opinion that he has no conception of the great Imperial movement
  2380
  that is surging around him but evidently swamping him and leaving him unconverted. The Ministry of Information, I would remind the Committee, came into being shortly after the formation of the present Coalition. Up to that time this country's and the Empire's cause was going back in the United States and in every neutral country owing, as hon. Members have pointed out, to the intense and keen propaganda of our German enemies and to our neglect of the most elementary steps to meet it. When Lord Beaverbrook was Appointed Minister of Information many people expected that things would not go right. I am, myself, only an acquaintance of Lord Beaverbrook, but I am bound to confess this, that his career at the Ministry of Information has been one of the most successful careers of any Minister in this Coalition Government. He actually rescued from the Germans the neutral countries and America by launching out on a system of propaganda the success of which can be vouched for by everybody who has been in those countries both before the Ministry was established and since its work has commenced, I would appeal, even to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, if the work of the Ministry of Information was not good work for the Allied cause in the United States. This Ministry has done two great things, to which I would like to draw the Committee's attention, and especially the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Finsbury, who obviously has not followed this most valuable movement up to the present nor realised its prime importance in the development of the future of the world. Not only did Dominion journalists come to this country, but journalists came from all the Allied countries and from neutral countries, and especially from our great Ally in fact, though not diplomatically, the United States of America. It cannot be too often borne in upon this House that American people are not walking in step in everything with the people of this country or of this Empire. There are wide differences of opinion, deep-seated differences, not yet removed. The Ministry of Information has done more than any other Department in English history to remove misconceptions and to re-establish a better feeling between the old Mother Country and the great United States of America. The hon. Member for East Finsbury pooh-poohed the idea of the entertainment of American troops by the Ministry.
  Mr. COTTON: I did not pooh-pooh it; what I said was that it was not necessary to set up a Ministry of Information in order to entertain American troops.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: Then the hon. Member admits that to entertain American troops is a good thing?
  Mr. COTTON: Hear, hear!
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: But there was no one else to do it. No other Department ever attempted to do it. The Ministry of Information undertook it. It is no light task; it involves the entertainment of hundreds of thousands of Americans, the vast majority of whom have never seen England or cared for England. Unless every one of these men goes back with a new and better conception of this Mother Country than he had before, then we shall be losing one of the best advantages ever presented to us by America joining our cause. If the £1,000,000 or the £2,000,000—whatever the Ministry has spent, even if it be £10,000,000—has led to a better feeling between this country and Americans who visit us, it will be well worth the money ten times over. There is one other point in regard to which the Ministry of Information has wrought possibly better than any of its personnel realise. It has brought together the remotest parts of this Empire. It has strengthened the feeling, which is not always as keen as some people try to make out, between different parts of this Empire and the Mother Country. It has made us closer allied to our American kinsmen. Whether the Ministry is continued in its present form or name or otherwise, I hope that the better, kindly, and closer feeling that has been brought about by that Ministry will be continued in some shape or form by the Ministry, if necessary, strengthened. To let it all drift back again until the Mother Country becomes the isolated part of the English speaking world would be a calamity which no man who looks a year ahead, let alone a century, would view without deep dismay. I join with other hon. Members who have expressed regret that Lord Beaverbrook has lost his health. I understand that he has gone on four or five months' complete leave owing to his work at the Ministry. He deserves credit for what the Ministry have done. I can speak in compliment of the work he has done, because I know him but little and was one of those who doubted the wisdom of his appointment at the beginning. It would be only in
  2382
  keeping with the traditions of the House, at any rate of fair play and common-sense, to pay a tribute where tribute is due.
  Colonel ASHLEY: I wish to associate myself with what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sunderland (Sir H. Greenwood) in reference to the very real and excellent services which Lord Beaverbrook has rendered to the Ministry of Information and the nation. He has not spared himself; his health has broken down in consequence of what he went through. All those who have had an opportunity of seeing what he did in that office must feel that he performed a real service to the nation in working the Ministry in the way he did, at a cost which was small compared with the results achieved. Whether the Ministry is continued in its present form or in some changed form, I hope that at any rate for the remainder of the War, for the period of demobilisation, indeed, until we reach what I may call normal conditions, the Ministry in some form will be continued. It is of the greatest importance that we should take into consideration what has been done by the Ministry in the past, and continue the work on the same lines during the period of demobilisation, when inevitably differences, small or great, must appear and creep between the Allies. It will be necessary for us to have some guiding Department which can endeavour to put forward our case in a moderate and sane way, and so smooth over the difficulties which are bound to occur. May I say how much I personally appreciate what has been done in regard to Germany. There is no doubt that what the Ministry has done has had a great effect in unsettling the moral of the German people by letting them know the truth, which they did not know before the Ministry took up the work. I ascribe a great deal of our late successes in the field not only to the gallantry of our troops, but also to the fact that the population of Germany has during the last year been informed more accurately of the world position and of the facts of the War than they were in the first two or three years of this gigantic conflict.
  May I advert to a more particular matter which the Ministry has had to undertake. During the remaining time the Ministry or its successors will have to work I attach the greatest importance to the treatment of the American troops who are passing through this country, whether the men are coming back hero wounded or staying

  2383
  here—a few of them are convalescents, although most of them do not come here for convalescence. They should continue to be treated with the greatest consideration and help. I have had the privilege myself of meeting a great many thousands of American officers and men, and the gratitude with which they receive the smallest civilities and the smallest help from an Englishman in his home is really touching. If one offers them the smallest mark of attention or hospitality one is overwhelmed with thanks for doing something which it is only a great pleasure to do. It is not surprising, perhaps, that they have that feeling. They have been for months in a training camp in the States; they have been from sixteen to twenty days crowded together in a transport, with many more men on board than she ought to carry; then they arrive at a port in what is to them a foreign land, which 99 per cent. of them have never been before; they are then packed into a train and do a twelve or fifteen hours' journey, being dumped down probably in the middle of the night in a camp in a country they have never been in before. The Ministry has offered them attention in the form of entertainments, bands, and affording them means of playing games. They have done that in the past. It is very much appreciated by the men, and cements the kindly feeling which is so much stronger between this country and the United States than it was before the War. I want to ask the Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who represents the Ministry hero this afternoon, that, in addition to continuing that good work, he should take some steps to ensure that American officers and men who come to London on leave should be absolutely sure of finding accommodation. I do not wish to refer to the difficulties of English officers in finding accommodation when they come here on leave, but we ought to make adequate arrangement here for American officers and men, so that when they come here, or to any of the big towns, they may be quite sure of finding accommodation for the time of their stay. It would be a disgrace to this country if, when they come back here, as many of them do at this moment, they find no place to sleep in and are compelled to sleep on the floors of waiting rooms at stations or on the billiard tables of hotels. I only hope that as the War comes to an end and they come back in great numbers there will be no
  2384
  accommodation lacking. The Ministry of Information has done its work extremely well, and I hope the Treasury will not stint the money necessary to enable them to carry it on.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am afraid I cannot appreciate all the compliments that have been showered upon the Ministry of Information and the work it is supposed to have been doing. I know only two illustrations of its work so far as it affects me personally. On a recent occasion I had sent to me a large envelope with some twenty or thirty picture postcards of all the British generals and admirals who at the present moment are serving under the Flag, and I was told that if I distributed them it would help to keep the country up to its standard in pursuing the War. These postcards were not the ordinary picture postcards; they were printed on the very finest paper, and produced in the finest three-colour system. They were distributed broadcast over this country. That is another example of the intolerable waste of public money which is common to every one of the Departments of which we have had knowledge in this House. What, to my mind, is another evidence of waste is the system of kiosks set up in a few railway stations in London, which are about the size of an ordinary sentry-box, and in which there has been placed a small boy, usually under eighteen years of age, or a girl, to whom the public are invited to go and obtain information on every subject, from the Military Service (No. 2) Act to the variety of food coupons now issued by the Food Controller. I have never seen the use of this function of the Ministry of Information. It is nothing more or less than a most intolerable waste of public money. Therefore, I am not able to join with my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down (Colonel Ashley) in congratulating the Ministry of Information on the very excellent work which it has done. I do not think the House of Commons really knows whether the Ministry of Information hag done anything or not. On all occasions on which an attempt has been made to secure information as what it has been doing we have met with the usual rebuff, which is now one of the funiosities of the War and the Front Bench, that it is not in the public interest to give information as to what is being done; and so far as I am aware no information has been provided to enable the Committee to discuss this Supplementary Estimate.

  2385
  There is a further matter which we ought to have a definite and distinct understanding about before we allow the Estimate to pass. I appreciate the fact that Lord Beaverbrook is the victim of illness and I am certain we all hope that his recovery may be speedy. But when Lord Beaverbrook was Minister for Information he was in the House of Lords and is was impossibe for any of us to get any information with regard to what he was doing. There is no Minister on the Front Bench now responsible for the Ministry of Information, and at a quarter past eight there is to be an Adjournment Motion in order to discover whether we are going to have a General Election or not. I do not very much mind whether we have a General Election to-morrow or the day after. You can have it as soon as ever you like. I shall be quite glad to see it come, and to look after myself in my Constituency. But if we have a General Election this House is dissolved and cannot reassemble until January, or probably the beginning of February. That means that from now until the new Parliament reassembles this House is allowing a great Department of the Government to go on spending money on schemes which have never been discussed, about which we know nothing, and in regard to which we have no Minister responsible in this House. A Member of this House has some responsibility and I object to giving these blank cheques to Departments which, like Mahomet's coffin, seem to hang midway between Whitehall and Downing Street and have no real function which can be criticised here. Therefore I am prepared to oppose the Government getting this money unless, on behalf of the Prime Minister, and speaking for the Government, the Secretary to the Treasury is able to put us in possession of information as to who now is responsible for the Ministry. We were told the other day that it was not proposed to appoint a successor to Lord Beaverbrook. I suppose that means that the new Minister of Information shall not be a member of another place, but may be a Member of this House. The other day the President of the Local Government Board retired, or was dismissed, or was promoted, I do not know which, and his Ministry was associated with the Ministry of National Service. The Government obviously felt that the Local Government Board could not be without a representative on the
  2386
  Front Bench for any length of time, and they promptly and judiciously and economically handed it over to another Minister. The Committee is entitled to demand that before we part with this Estimate we shall know the other Minister, if that is the arrangement they are going to make, who is going to be responsible for questions put in this House with regard to the policy and the future of this Ministry of Information.
  The second point I want to deal with is the continuance of this Ministry in the event of peace negotiations immediately being entered into. A number of hon. Members have pointed out the necessity of continuing the propaganda of the Minister of Information in other countries, even in the event of peace. Apparently I have been labouring under a misapprehension. I understood the Ministry of Information's main task outside the four corners of the Kingdom was to engage in what we call propaganda against the enemy, and Lord Northcliffe, amongst others, has been in charge of that propaganda, and, so far as I know, has performed his task with great assiduity and great knowledge. But do we want any propaganda in any other country once we are at peace? Are there going to be any enemy countries after peace has been declared? It is hoped that eventually there will be a League of Nations. Obviously a Minister of Information, whose primary object is to distribute facts in enemy countries, is not required after peace has been declared to distribute facts among countries which are perfectly friendly to us, and I regret exceedingly that those who are supposed to be the custodians of the public purse, imbued with this spirit of extravagance, suggest that we should go on spending the millions of pounds that we are spending now in the Ministry of Information without any knowledge being laid before the House, because we have never yet had, beyond the facts placed in front of us by the Committee which has investigated the financial side of the Ministry, any information at all on which we could decide whether the expenditure of this money was wise or not. Therefore I am very much opposed to the use of the Ministry of Information for this purpose.
  There is another argument why the Ministry of Information should not be used for this purpose. I take it that one of the great reforms that we hope to get out of the present war is the reformation

  2387
  of our Consular service, and many of the bitterest complaints to which I have listened have been complaints against the inadequacy of that service in supplying information to British citizens in all parts of the world. Surely we do not want to create a competition between the Ministry of Information, about which we know really nothing, and the Consular service, which ought to become a real, live, vital part of the business interests of this country, and I regret exceedingly that any hon. Member should have encouraged an already extravagant Government to foster an extravagant notion that after the War they are going to have extravagant powers to be more extravagant still with the money of the people of this country.
  A third point on which I should like some information is the position of certain men in the Ministry. I do not know whether any hon. Member can tell us who is really in charge of the Ministry. I noticed the other day in the papers that a certain Mr. Arnold Bennett, who sometimes writes articles and I believe has written novels—I believe he is the author of a play called "The Title," to which I have listened, though I cannot get any information out of it relative to this Ministry—s now somewhere in authority in the Ministry of Information. There have been a good many London journalists in the Ministry. In fact all London journalists seem to pass through it, just as any private soldier passes through a cadet school, and I think the House will be interested to know, for use in subsequent years, how it is possible to make use of all this conglomerate of material that you find collected in the Ministry of Information. What is Mr. Arnold Bennett doing there? Is he writing international novels for propaganda purposes in belligerent countries? There was great trouble recently about plays being produced in neutral countries, which involved a legal action. That, I believe, was done under the administration of another London journalist with disastrous results. Can the Secretary to the Treasury, who probably knows as much as we do about the Ministry of Information, tell us whether any of Mr. Arnold Bennett's plays are going to be used in Germany? If "The Title" going to be introduced into Germany? If we are to believe everything that is going on now it would be a very appropriate play in a great many German towns. We are
  2388
  entitled to know something about these appointments. All we know about them is what we can pick up in the newspaper Press. We do not know what they are, or what they are worth, how much these men are being paid, where they are being paid enough or are being overpaid for their work. Before the Estimate is released I want to know something about matters of that kind.
  7.0 P.M.
  A fourth matter I want to raise is of great interest to a large industry in this country. I refer to the use of the cinema by the Ministry of Information. I have noticed any number of motor vans, fitted up most elaborately with cinema machines, which have been sent all round the country into the most remote spots in order to acquaint the people with what has been happening. I should not have thought that was possible in view of the fact that practically every newspaper now has the Government information, and that it would be quite unnecessary, in view of the large number of picture papers, for the Government to have cinema films driven throughout the country by motor vans. But in all that the Ministry of Information has done, it has not attempted to develop the British industry of the making of cinema films. We hear a very great deal in this House from time to time about the resuscitation of British industry. We have many speeches made here on the fact that British industries are not given a proper opportunity to develop. It is true that the cinema industry has had its home in America, and, thanks to the climate and the considerable number of years during which it has been ahead of the British industry, it is able to produce films quicker and perhaps better than can be done in this country. But I have heard—and it is one of the disadvantages of these Debates that we are not able to get information—I have heard that the Ministry of Information is contemplating, even at this moment, though we are in sight of an armistice and peace, the creation of a huge undertaking in this country to themselves make and develop these firms. It has even been told to me by some of the most representative firms in the British industry that the Ministry of Information is contemplating bringing over from America managers for each department of this huge undertaking. I think we ought to have some information about that. Is any of the money in this Estimate being devoted to this purpose?

  2389
  I wish to state that the British cinema industry, while young, is very competent. We have a number of British firms which have produced some of the very best films on the market. If the Ministry of Information is going to develop the film side of its propaganda, we have a right to ask that it shall develop it through British manufacturers. By so doing the Ministry will stimulate the industry, and when the War is over it may become a very large industry in this country. That is the very thing which members of the Government try to get others to do—to promote trade and industry in this country. Unless I can get some satisfactory assurances from my hon. Friend that this course will be pursued, and that the development will be in the hands of those who at the present moment are in the British film industry. I shall divide against this Vote. After all, that industry is not only a great industry, but it has a representative in this House, my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who holds a very authoritative position in regard to it. Unless my hon. Friend can assure the House that the British cinema industry, which is alarmed at any attempt on the part of the Ministry of Information to go beyond these shores in developing this particular thing, I must press my opposition to a Division.
  There is only one other point I should like to raise. I think we ought to have an understanding about the relation of the propaganda by the Ministry of Information to the General Election which is about to take place. I understand, and I should think it is probably correct, although we who represent the constituencies are not likely to get the announcement, that it will possibly be made on some cinema film during the week-end instead of being made to the responsible Members of this House. I want some very definite understanding on this point before the Government get the Supplementary Estimate. I invite the attention of hon. Members to this point—I want some understanding as to what is to be done with the cinema vans which the Department are running into every constituency of the country, by means of agents of the Ministry of Information, who draw large salaries, with a view to exhibiting to the people in those localities films which describe everything, from German atrocities to the endeavour to live and grow fat on the coupon system.
  2390
  Between each of these films there is exhibited invariably a large portrait of the Prime Minister. We understand that a film of the Prime Minister's life is to be made, and we know it is being made by a firm all the members of which have changed their German names in order to prove to the British people that the film is entirely British made by men who rejoice in good old John Bull names. I want to know whether this film of the Prime Minister's life is to be used by the Ministry of Information. Of course, if he is going to appeal to the country, the people should know something about his life, and the Ministry of Information is the Department which should supply information in that respect. But it may be that this film is not under the control of the Ministry of Information.
  I want to know if during the election, if after the date of the Dissolution has been announced, the Ministry are going to withdraw these propaganda vans, or are they going down into any of our constituencies to provide entertainment while the election is going on. It has been suggested by one of my hon. Friends that this cannot be done by Act of Parliament. But may I point out that the Ministry of Information is a Government Department and not an outside organisation. I see nothing to prevent the Ministry of Information pursuing its propaganda in many subtle ways during the whole period of the General Election to the detriment of every Member of this House, because the exhibition of this film, even in the constituency of a man who supports the Government, might damage him very considerably. Whether that is so or not, I want to know from my hon. Friend whether he will give the House an undertaking that from the moment the Dissolution of Parliament is announced that kind of propaganda will be withdrawn, and that the candidates for Parliament will not be put into competition with propaganda films interspersed, as they are all over the country, with photographs of Ministers. I should not mind if the photograph of my hon. Friend in charge of this Vote were one of them, because he would impress the country. But I do object to a large number of the other photographs that appear, and to the way in which they are insinuated into the film. You might just as well print a little slide with the words, "Vote for the present Government." I am prepared to take a Division on this because it is a question of principle. We must have a distinct

  2391
  understanding from the Government that the various methods pursued at the present time by the Ministry of Information will cease during the period of the General Election, and unless that undertaking is given I intend to divide the Committee. I have not mentioned many of the other points which have been referred to by other speakers, and on which they want information, but I hope my hon. Friend will, in regard to the subject I have put forward, be able to give a satisfactory explanation in view of the fact that he wants to get this large sum of money to-night.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I take the same view of this Vote as the hon. Member who has just spoken. May I say, by the way, I regret he does not know more of Mr. Arnold Bennett and his play "The Title "? I do not share at all the desire of my hon. Friend that Mr. Arnold Bennett's play should be produced in other countries. I understand the main theme of the play is that titles in this country can be acquired by the payment of money, and I hope that any such gross caricature of the unspotted honour of this country will not be allowed to circulate in foreign countries, thereby diminishing that reputation for unspotted high-mindedness which we attribute to ourselves. I am in favour of the appointment and generous maintenance of a Ministry of Information on right lines. I remember meeting two of the leading figures in the great Jugo-Slav world, one of whom unfortunately died before he saw the liberation of his country. Both of these gentlemen were strong supporters of the Allies, because, like we Irishmen, they thought the success of the Allies would mean freedom to the world and to their particular country. Being sympathetic with the Allies, they were somewhat free of their criticism of the methods of the Allies. One said to me, "If you had one paper in Bulgaria you might have a chance of keeping Bulgaria on the British side. The Germans have seven, but you have none." The other said, "If you had one paper in Athens on the side of the Allies you might have some chance of defeating the conspiracy of the ex-King and the Army against the entrance of Greece on the side of the Allies. But you have not one, while the Germans have four." And so, throughout the world, we have the spectacle of German propaganda work being done better in every country—the spectacle of a German Propaganda
  2392
  Department, well officered, well organised, well subsidised, while this country to a large extent allows judgment to go against it by default; it did so especially at the beginning of the War.
  I think I may add that even in America papers were utilised for German propaganda work early in the War. On one point I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). I think a Ministry of Information is essential to this country, especially in time of war, and my complaint against this Government is not that it established the Ministry of Information, but that it did so too late. From the moment the United States entered into the War they established a Ministry of Information, and they put at the head of that Ministry one of the ablest men in the United States—Mr. George Creet—an American with an American grandfather and an Irish grandmother. I know on which side his sympathies are in the Irish, controversy. Mr. Creet was put at the head of the Ministry of Information, and it cannot be denied that he has done a great deal to produce that moral breakdown in the German nation which is one of the causes of their breakdown in this War. The American Ministry of Information has done enormously good work in this direction, and that is why I want a similar Department in this country. The very first thing it should not do is that it should not be used in time of war as a means of domestic propaganda for any political party. I agree with everything that has been said with regard to the energy, zeal, and ability of Lord Beaverbrook, and I join in the universal regret that his health has been shaken by his labours, and trust that he may have a speedy recovery. May I suggest that Lord Beaverbrook had one little fault—a good fault in times of peace, but not quite so good a quality in times of war. Lord Beaverbrook had the courage and the strength of his convictions. He is a strong partisan, and whatever he thinks is right he does his best to bring it to success and prosperity. I have seen indications in some of the publications issued by the Ministry of Information and on some of the most contested questions of our domestic life, the Minister of Information has taken a side which a man of the strong and well-known convictions of Lord Beaverbrook would be inclined to take. That is wrong. I should think it wrong of Mr. Creet, in Washington, if he

  2393
  took such a line. He is a very strong democrat, a very strong supporter of the great President of the United States. He is in sympathy with the efforts of that very eminent leader to liberate the masses of the American people from the stranglehold which held them under the pernicious influence of gigantic and not particularly delicate wealth and trust combinations. At the same time he would be open to criticism if in the pursuit of his duty as the Minister of Information he communicated to the Press of his country anything which was in favour of democratic principles, although he has faith in them himself, and although they are the principles of the great leader of whom he is a trusted servant.
  That should apply to the Minister of Information in this country. Therefore, I think the hon. Member for East Edinburgh and the hon. Member for North-West Lanark were perfectly justified in bringing forward this question, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who has conducted this matter with such courtesy and ability, will recognise that. I think they are entitled to ask for a pledge that the activities of the Minister of Information, so far as our domestic affairs are concerned, shall not be continued during the period of the War. I do not think it is fair that the public money of the country voted to the Ministry of Information for the defence of the general and external interests of the country in the War should be allowed to load the dice between political parties during the election which is about to come. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) has made some allusion to the use of the cinema. Naturally, I am delighted to find that the potentialities of the cinema are being discovered. I discovered them for myself ten or fifteen years ago, and I am surprised that the world has been so slow to see how valuable the cinema might be in many things, including political controversy. I cannot say that I share my hon. Friend's objections to the cinema being used to describe the life of the Prime Minister. It is a very interesting life, lived honestly, and ending in such a great and conspicuous success.
  An HON. MEMBER: Not ending!
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Well, culminating. Such a film would have an excellent effect upon the minds of the public. It would have an excellent effect on the right hon. Gentleman himself if he ever saw it.
  2394
  Surely the story of his consistent support of democratic principles would naturally induce in him a determination, which I am sure is strong, to keep on the same old democratic lines of his political creed. Therefore, I cannot regard the production of a film describing the life of the present Prime Minister as ridiculous, unfair, or uneducative. Here again I have to ask a question which is suggested to me by an observation made by one of the great leaders of the cinema industry in America. He is an Irishman. In fact, nearly all the great figures in America are Irishmen, including the President, who is a grandson of parents born in Ireland. If hon. Members want the names, I will give the names of great men in America, and most of them you will find have Celtic blood in them. This man is a great leader in the cinema industry in America, and also in the life of America, and he said, "We are going so far with the cinema industry in America that I believe the time is coming when we shall be able to decide the Presidential election." I do not know whether that boast was justified or not, but at any rate it has some application to the use of the cinema with Government money for the purpose of winning an election. I think that is not the kind of thing calculated to raise the level of our political life to that great high level of impeccable purity which it has reached at the present moment. I do not think such a use of it by the Minister of Information would be calculated to do good.
  The Ministry of Information has devoted some of its activities to welcoming and entertaining American troops. No purpose could be more admirable and no necessity could be greater. I always regard as one of the stupidities, I will not say the most characteristic defect, of our life in this city is that we have allowed some of the greatest figures in our own Empire, and the greatest figures in the world, to come within our gates, and to pass from our gates without a word of recognition, without a card of invitation, without a lunch or a dinner, or anything else, while they were here. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite will remember that he took me to see the late Sir Richard McBride, one of the greatest figures in our Empire, a Minister at the age of thirty-two, and Prime Minister and almost Dictator of the great province of British Columbia for ten years. We found him left lonely, sad, and almost

  2395
  abandoned in a London hotel. We got rid of that by various means. I think it would have been a crime, considering all that we owe to the American Army, if some means had not been adopted for giving them proper hospitality and proper welcome. I had the pleasure of travelling across the Atlantic with 4,000 American troops, part of a convoy, which was bringing over 40,000 soldiers. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hazleton) reminds me of the fact that these soldiers were under the command of two Irish Generals.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we are all doing a little propaganda of our own instead of restricting it.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I think I was inspired with a little of the sublety of the Minister of Information, and that I was getting my propaganda without exposing myself to your sleepless vigilance. I think you will find (Mr. Whitley) that I get there in the end. I am dealing with a point made in the work of the Ministry of Information, that among its beneficent activities it provides welcome and entertainment for American officers and troops. I did a little of that kind of work myself on board the steamer, and I did a good deal of it in America. I was welcomed at more than one American camp during my visit, and I do not think they found any fault with the particular line of thought which I brought before them. I observe that there is a Committee for welcoming the American troops, and the chairman is the hon. and gallant Member (General McCalmont). He is no doubt a very charming host, but I would like to know how many Liberals and how many Irishmen has the hon. and gallant Member invited to assist him in his labours?
  General McCALMONT: Does the hon. Member ask how many Irishmen and Liberals I have invited to assist me?
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Yes, Irish Nationalists.
  General McCALMONT: I do not quite follow the question. So far as I know, I have not invited anybody to do anything politically. I did not know that politics came into this question.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I have not suggested it. But surely my hon. and gallant Friend has to entertain these American soldiers, and among the various sources of entertainment I assume there are some
  2396
  addresses. How many Liberals and Irish Nationalists has he invited to address the American officers?
  General McCALMONT: So far as I know, I think I am safe in saying I have issued no invitation to anybody. That is not part of my duty. I do not issue invitations to anybody to address American officers or troops. Invitations have not been issued by me to anybody, but I believe I am right in saying that several Irishmen have addressed the American troops; and I know of one lady in the past few days who has addressed American troops, and whose principles are the same as those enunciated by the hon. Member himself.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I am very glad to hear it. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to get the right kind of man and the right kind of woman to address American soldiers, he will have to seek them in ranks which do not quite share his own political views.
  General McCALMONT: I think I am entitled to deal with this point. The hon. Member appears to be making a suggestion, so far as I understand it, that I have made use of this position for the purpose of arranging for people to address American troops on political questions. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I have made no such arrangements whatsoever at any time. If I did arrange these sort of things, they would certainly have been arranged in the Department over which I, for the time being, preside; and if I had done so, I should never be animated by motives which the hon. Member seems to suggest I am animated by. I think it would be fair to me if he would quote some instance or instances of person or persons addressing American troops who should not have addressed them.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I cannot give instances, I am in perfect ignorance as to who did or did not.
  General McCALMONT: Then my hon. Friend has no right to suggest that I have allowed anybody to address American troops who ought not to have addressed them.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to think it extremely unfair that I should ask him questions as to the manner in which he conducts his work. I think I am entitled to ask the

  2397
  question, and I repeat it—how many Members of Liberal or Nationalist opinions have addressed the American troops under his guidance? As the hon. Gentleman has taken these observations of mine as something unfair, may I say that I do not think a more unfortunate selection—
  General McCALMONT: I cannot carry in my head the names of people who have addressed American troops during the last six months. I have been responsible for this Department for the last two months. I cannot say off-hand who addressed them. If the hon. Gentleman had done me the honour of letting me know that he was going to raise this question I should have been in a position to give him a straight answer. He makes the suggestion that I have been animated by party views, and he does not give me a fair chance. If he will suggest that somebody has addressed American troops under my auspices who ought not to have done so I am prepared to answer it, but if he presses me to give names which may or may not exist, for which I may or may not be responsible, I think that is grossly unfair.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman something which I think he can confirm. I do not know that any member of the Irish party has been invited to address these officers.
  General McCALMONT: Nor any other party.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that it was not part of his duty when he had these American officers over here to ask them if they wanted to be addressed by Members of the House of Commons?
  General McCALMONT: It was certainly not part of my duty.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Whose? It must be somebody's duty.
  General McCALMONT: It was not mine.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: When I was in America there was not an occasion on which I was within forty or fifty or even within two hundred miles of a camp of soldiers when I was not begged and prayed to go there and welcomed when addressing them. I have not been invited in this country by the hon. Gentleman or anybody else, but, though I say it myself, I do not think that I would have been quite an unwelcome guest.
  General McCALMONT: The hon. Member is entirely under a misapprehension. Speaking from my recollection, only one gentleman has addressed American officers under my auspices. That was Major Fox, a returned prisoner of war, who addressed the officers at Washington Inn in the course of the last week. Various other gentlemen and ladies have addressed troops in various parts of the country. So far as I know none of these speakers were Members of this House, and, with the exception of Lord Denbigh, who addressed the troops at Winchester on one occasion, I do not think that any of them were Members of the other House; and as to the suggestion that I asked them to give addresses on any political question, such a thought never crossed my mind. No one addressed them on any Irish question, and I think
  that the lady whom I have mentioned, who addressed the troops in Winchester last week, was the only person who mentioned Ireland. I do not think that it is part of my duty to arrange addresses for officers. That is entirely managed by their own committee in London.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: If I had the honour of occupying the place of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, one of the first things I would have done would have been to invite Members of this House to address them—not on any party question. I never addressed them in America on any party question; I addressed them on the question which was of intense interest to them, namely, the issues of the War. I do think it rather unfortunate that, when so many of these men and officers belong to the Irish race, no man of their own race and creed was invited to address them.
  General McCALMONT: That is quite untrue.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: So far as I know that is so. It is not for me to say it, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had done either myself or any member of my party the honour of giving us an invitation to address the American officers or American soldiers we would have been very glad to accept it. We never got any such invitation, and I think that it was deplorable that some such step was not taken. However, I pass that by and return to the Ministry of Information, merely remarking that the provision of welcome for American soldiers was one of the main reasons for

  2399
  the establishment of the Ministry of Information, and I conclude by asking the hon. Member in charge (Mr. Baldwin) will he or will he not give the undertaking that in the coining election the liberty of this Department shall be suspended so far as political domestic propaganda is concerned. I do not mean the filming of the Prime Minister, or anything like that, but anything of a party complexion shall not be issued by the Ministry of Information so as to load the dice against any party at the expense of the country?
  General McCALMONT: I only rise to say that I shall take the very earliest opportunity of getting a reprint of the hon. Members remarks and issuing them to the A Officers' Council of London. Then that council will be in a position to judge whether they require his services to speak to them or not. The American Officers' Council in London arrange their own entertainment. There are three in number, but these places have nothing to do with me. However, I will take the earliest opportunity of conveying the hon. Member's desires to them and will give a list of parties represented by the hon. Member and others of the same gentlemen, and I have no doubt that in future they will be kept fully occupied in addressing these officers.
  Mr. THOMAS: I want to join in the appeal with regard to propaganda during elections. I am quite indifferent as to what the opposition to any candidate may be, because I recognise that it is not only the right but the duty of all parties and candidates to use every means at their disposal in order to get their own particular views accepted. But while that is the duty of political organisations and of parties and individuals it most certainly must never be made the duty of the Government itself. There is, I believe, general agreement among all who are in touch with the industrial classes that whenever peace comes the problems immediately following it will not only be difficult but will require very delicate handling. That, in my judgment, is inevitable, and anyone who knows anything of the industrial classes and is in touch daily with their opinion would not for a moment challenge the statement that the dangerous period which we have to face more than all others is the period between peace and normal conditions. Rumour says that we are to have a General Election follow-
  2400
  ing an Armistice. I think that it will be frankly admitted that the position at that moment would be overwhelmingly in favour of the Government. Personally I should be expressing their feeling when I say that that is one of the reasons why the General Election will take place then. After all, it will only be a khaki election. But if in addition to having an election in those circumstances the Government make the mistake of loading the dice against any section of the people, then they will have created a situation that will absolutely destroy the authority of this House. I believe that the safety valve of the future is this House. I disagree totally with the people who believe that you can ignore the House of Commons and rely absolutely on what is called industrial action. I know the power of industrial action only too well. I am called upon to exercise it, but I recognise this danger, and I want the authority of Parliament recognised as being essential to the future of the country. You can only get that recognised, you can only get respect for authority and government, by the people having confidence in the Government and by the people having confidence in the methods by which the Government are elected and by being satisfied that they have had a square deal I admit frankly that the Ministry of Information has been necessary. Like the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, I have been in America, and when I came back I said distinctly to the Government that one of the failures for American opinion was due to their want of action in not taking steps properly to inform America of what England was doing. On the contrary, the great bulk of the Press read, in America was more concerned in deprecating our efforts and in making out that we were practically doing nothing. From that point of view I believe the Ministry of Information has done good, but that is an entirely different thing from taking any partisan side or influencing in any shape or form a political campaign. It is because I believe it would be dangerous, and not in the best interests of the Government itself, that I hope a very clear and definite statement will be made on that point, and if it is I am sure that will do much to allay feeling in the country.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not think precautions of the kind are necessary. We heard that Mr. Arnold Bennett is now in charge. I have the honour of knowing Mr. Bennett personally, and I should think, if there is

  2401
  one Member of the House he would be inclined to make a favourite of, it would be the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), and I am perfectly certain you could not get him to allow the Department to be used to hurt my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. THOMAS: I am not concerned with the question of Mr. Arnold Bennett or anybody else. What I was trying to put was a danger which I want avoided.
  Mr. BOOTH: The whole discussion has been on personalities. Lord Beaverbrook has been attacked because of his pronounced views, and Lord Northcliffe because of his pronounced views. We were told, now that Lord Beaverbrook is gone, that Mr. Bennett is the man in charge, and if he is inclined to make a, hero in this House he would, I think, choose my right hon. Friend, so that I cannot understand what all the alarm is about. I challenge any hon. Member to get up and say that Mr. Bennett is going to use his position in favour of the present Prime Minister. Of course, they know he would not, and I do not believe anyone would in the same position. I am perfectly certain Mr. Bennett would not. What is all this bother about? I have listened to all these warnings, and I have not the remotest notion of what my hon. and right hon. Friends are driving at. I do not agree with the suggestion in two or three speeches that this Department should be closed down. I quite agree that I would not like the Minister of Information to be doing very much in this country during the election, but I do say it is highly necessary that that Department should continue its splendid work in foreign countries. Take Austria, where new nationalities are springing up or newly asserting themselves or having new recognition. The Minister of Information has not been able to do very much in the way of educating the Czecho-Slovaks, the Jugo-Slavs, or even the Hungarians, with regard to this great Empire in the past few years. I think there is a most excellent chance in the next few months for the Ministry of Information to get literature into those now republics.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Tell them about Ireland!
  Mr. BOOTH: I hope they will tell them about the different parts of the United Kingdom and of the Empire. I say quite frankly I would like these new Republics to know not only our political history and
  2402
  literature, but also other information about the Empire. What has been going on in Sweden? I have taken the trouble to find out what the propaganda department of Germany has been doing in places like Stockholm. The school children, as they are leaving school, are presented by German agents with nicely-bound volumes with gilt edges as little gift-books to take home. [An HON. MEMBER: "And chocolates!"] And chocolates as well. They have secret agents who go to the parks in Stockholm and leave handsome volumes lying about where people pass, in order to convey to those people the glorious history of the Huns. That has been going on for the last few years on a wide scale. I do not suggest that we should do the same, but I ask the Government whether they are going to stop at once because Lord Beaverbrook has resigned. I do not think it would be right. Take the great districts of Belgium and Northern France. A Member of this House recently received a letter from his son stating that people in parts of rescued France had only then seen British khaki for the first time in their lives. What chance had a Minister of Propaganda in the last few years of telling that French population what has been going on? The same remark applies to Belgium, where the people have been ground down since Brussels and Antwerp were occupied. Belgium has got to be re-peopled and re-established in industries and in universities, schools, and so on. I venture to say that expenditure of the kind I suggest might well take place in Belgium itself and Northern France, telling the people there what this great Empire has done for them, and explaining to them our learning, and our schools of philosophy, as well as politics, and even our business. The German Ministry of Information have always kept an eye on business; and why should not we tell the Belgian people about how our machinery orders will have to be placed by those people? I would urge on the Government to spend more money. They spent too little on secret service and propaganda. I am not now discussing and do not wish to traverse what many hon. Members have said with regard to methods. I am only putting this question in a general way, since I think the Ministry has now got the best chance it has had since its formation to do some real, useful work.
  Mr. HAZLETON: The hon. Member who has just spoken has opened up rather an alarming prospect of what the future

  2403
  activities of this Ministry of Information might be. He has suggested that it should undertake not in enemy countries, but in practically all foreign countries, particularly among the new nationalities, a sort of current history of England or a history of current events in England. The hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (General McCalmont), in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), made another equally alarming suggestion. He told the Committee that he proposed to get a reprint of my hon. Friend's speech and to circulate it amongst the American officers in London. If that is to be the policy, I hope if it is pursued that the Ministry of Information will also get a copy of Tuesday's Debate on Ireland and the Irish question and circulate it amongst the Czecho-Slovaks and Jugo-Slavs, and other nationalities of Europe, along with the chocolates, and that might be a very effective method of counteracting a great deal of the sort of propaganda that we have had up to the present. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will reconsider his announcement about circulating my hon. Friend's speech. I agree with every word said by my hon. Friend, but what did his speech amount to? It amounted to a political controversy with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and are we to circulate to the American officers in London political controversies which take place on the floor of the House of Commons? It would be much better if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would follow the advice given by my hon. Friend, and not create dissension between this Empire and co-belligerents.
  General McCALMONT: The hon. Member misunderstands the matter. It is in order to carry out the wishes of the hon. Member, and to make quite sure that the American officers may know that the Nationalist Members desire to address them.
  Mr. HAZLETON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot really get away in that manner. If he wants to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, let him ask the American officers if they would like to be addressed by the hon. Member, but for Heaven's sake do not plunge the American officers in London into the midst of political controversy at a time like this. I hope that he will adopt some other method that will be much less open to question, because,
  2404
  if that is to be the method adopted by the Ministry of Information on its various branches, I do not wonder that there has been a great deal of friction and irritation and annoyance created by those methods. The hon. and gallant Gentleman really misunderstood the Member for the Scotland Division. That hon. Member did not suggest for a moment that the hon. and gallant Gentleman sought to use his position for political purposes.
  General McCALMONT: He suggested that.
  Mr. HAZLETON: He never meant to make that suggestion, and really did not make it, and I do not think the Committee understood him to do so. The charge was that the hon. Gentleman's crime was a crime of omission, and not a crime of commission.
  General McCALMONT: Deliberately.
  Mr. HAZLETON: No, my hon. Friend did not use the word "deliberately," and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the record of the speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I am quite certain he will not find that in it. It was inefficiency of which my hon. Friend complained and thoughtlessness, if you like, and those are serious enough charges. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will pay attention to them. I turn from that subject.
  General McCALMONT: I accept the apology.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. HAZLETON: If we have some reform in the methods which the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to adopt, then I hope that what I have said was worth while. Before I turn to other branches of this matter with which I propose to deal, there are a few general words about the Ministry of Information that I want to say. I think the country has had far too little information about the Ministry of Information. A great deal has been said as to the curious cloud of reticence and secrecy about the future control of this Ministry, but I think it would he a desirable thing that the whole procedure of the Ministry—and here I am going to offer a practical suggestion to the Minister for his consideration—that the whole procedure of the Ministry and the kind of propaganda that has been carried on ought to be far more available than it has been to those anxious to follow its proce-

  2405
  dure. Its literature has been spread in a great many foreign countries. Why should not the Minister bring down to the House, so that it may be available to Members, a set of the pamphlets, a set of the posters, and a set of the other propaganda literature that is spread abroad in so many languages and so many countries throughout the face of the globe? What do we know he is saying at this moment to the Russian people? How are they treating the propaganda in Russia? The House of Commons has a right to know, and surely it is not too much to ask that the type of leaflet and pamphlet now put before the Russian people should be laid on the Table or put in the Library of the House, or a translation of it, because I believe there is only one Member of the House of Commons who speaks Russian.
  Mr. BOOTH: Two.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Then we should have some knowledge, at least, of the lines upon which this Ministry is proceeding. From my experience of the work of the Ministry in foreign countries, and that is in the United States of America, I hope they are not doing in many countries of Europe some of the things they have been doing in the United States of Amercia. But before I leave Russia, let me ask the Minister whether it is a fact that this Ministry of Information and Propaganda has spent huge amounts of money in Russia upon posters and other literature in evident total ignorance of the fact that eighty-seven, or a higher percentage than eighty-seven, of the Russian people can neither read nor write. Is that good value for the money spent? Who is responsible for a policy of that kind, and what is the amount of money that has been spent in Russia on literature which the great mass of the people are not able to read? In regard to America, there are one or two questions on which I would like enlightenment. I do not know how long Lord Northcliffe has been Minister of Propaganda.
  Mr. BALDWIN: He is not Minister of Propaganda.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I mean Director of Propaganda in enemy countries. I do not know how long he has been in that position. I do not know whether it was before or since his official connection with the Government, but while I was in the United States of America a rather curious circumstance—at least it appeared curious to
  2406
  me—occurred when, in the midst of a certain controversy that took place over Irish affairs in the House of Commons and in the United Kingdom earlier this year, columns and columns of articles from the London "Times" and letters in the London "Times" were cabled to the newspapers of the United States of America and were published in those papers. If Mr. Hall Caine, or somebody equally ridiculous, wrote to the London "Times," the letter was published. Columns were touched up of the grossest and unfairest libel upon Ireland, and were published in some of the papers. Was that telegraphed at the expense of the "Times," or at the public expense by the Minister of Information? I think we have a right to know. There was also a question that was raised in an earlier Debate, which was never answered, about Mr. Ian Hay. Then, in addition to Mr. Ian Hay, you had in America, as a propagandist for this country, Mrs. Pankhurst. Had the Ministry of Information and the Department of Propaganda anything to do with Mrs. Pankhurst's visit to America, and was it at their instigation, or the instigation of any Department of the Government, that she went around making the most outrageous speeches in connection with the position of Ireland and the War?
  Mr. PRINGLE: What did she say?
  Mr. HAZLETON: I am not going to repeat what she said.
  Mr. HOGGE: You got the information from them; let us have it from you.
  Mr. HAZLETON: And I am not going to tell the Committee what I think of what she said. The suspicion was prevalent in America that Mrs. Pankhurst was in some way, unofficially or otherwise, an agent of the Government in her visit to that country. In my experience throughout the twelve or thirteen months I was in America, it was almost impossible outside, I will say, the splendid work which was performed for the cause of the Allies by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division to find pro-Allied propaganda on the part of anyone from this country—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about F. E. Smith?"]—and I would certainly take this opportunity of bringing up the conduct of the Attorney-General during his visit to America if I had given him notice, but I think that the practice of the House of Commons is that on an occasion of that kind it is usual to give

  2407
  notice to the Member concerned, and therefore I must postpone the very interesting and enlightening things I would have said about him to another occasion.
  I turn to the last branch of what I want to say, and that is about the activities of this precious Department in Ireland. I disagree to some extent, at any rate—and it is not often I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division—but I disagree with him on this point. He said he hoped the activities of the Ministry of Propaganda and the Ministry of Information would be continued after the War. He assumed—I think he said—under proper safeguards. I differ from him, at least so far as Ireland is concerned, because the activities of this Department in Ireland have been grossly inefficient, and in many cases open to the gravest attack. For instance this Department was responsible for the fact that when the Colonial pressmen were over here every effort was made to prevent their going to Ireland at all, and it was in defiance of the Ministry of Information and Propaganda that the Colonial pressmen went to Ireland and sought to get information about the Irish question at first hand. Again, it was late in the day that the War Aims Committee, which I understand is presided over by Sir Horace Plunkett, was set up in Ireland. I am not going to reflect upon the activities of that Committee. I will only say in that connection that I think it was a great pity that at an early stage of the War, when Ireland was enthusiastic for the cause of the Allies, an efficient Ministry of Information, under charge of those who understood Irish conditions, was not set up. We might have avoided many of the unfortunate disasters which
  the history of the last two or three years has produced. I agree, of course, that the War Office was responsible for a large part of the mischief which turned Ireland from a country full of enthusiasm for the cause of the Allies to one which felt that it was going to be cheated and betrayed. Really, nothing has been done in Ireland of the slightest advantage under this Ministry, and I hope that the very moment the War is concluded its Irish activities will be brought to a conclusion.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I do not intend to trouble the Committee by a further speech, but I think it useful before we leave this Vote to point out that the most important, if not the only essential, question which I put at the beginning of my speech to-day has received no answer from the Financial Secretary. The burden of my complaint in respect of Lord Northcliffe's article in the Press was this: That, according to information which had come into my possession, that article was based on, and in parts textually identical with, a confidential document. I think, in view of the time at which the question was put as to whether that was true or not, that if the Financial Secretary was unable to answer me, as he professes he is unable to answer me, although there are within the precincts of the House representatives of the Ministry of Information, we should have had on the Front Bench some Minister who was able to answer me.
  Mr. BALDWIN Mr. BALDWIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided. Ayes, 114; Noes, 43.

  Division No. 91.]

  AYES.

  [8.15 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Anderson, G. K. (Canterbury)

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Carew, C. R. S.

  Hancock, John George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Festham

  Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Havelock-Allan, sir Henry

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Barrio, Charles C.

  Coote, William (Tyrone, S.)

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Seals, Sir William Phipson

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Horne, E.

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Currie, George W.

  Hume-Williams, Sir William Ellis

  Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Falconer, James

  Jackson, Sir John (Devonport)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

  Boyton, Sir James

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Ganzonl, Francis John C.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Brookes, Warwick

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

  Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Gretton, John

  McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Swift, Rigby

  Macmaster, Donald

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel Sir E.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

  Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Rowlands, James

  Wheler, Major Granville C.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Morrison, H.

  Rutherford, Sir W. Watson (W. Derby)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

  Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin U.)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Shortt, Edward

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Norton Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J.

  Somervell, William Henry

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Spear, Sir John ward

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Stewart, Gershom

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Sutton, John E.

  J. Hope and Mr. Pratt.

  NOES.

  Anderson, William C. (Attercliffe)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Bliss, Joseph

  Hackett, John

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Lelx)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Harbison, T. J. S.

  Molloy, Michael

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  Buxton, Noel

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Byrne, Alfred

  Hogge, J. M.

  Reddy, Michael

  Cotton, H. E. A.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Sheehy, David

  Dillon, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Tootill, Robert

  Donnelly, Patrick

  Keating, Matthew

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Doris, William

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  King, Joseph

  Esmonde, Capt. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Flrench, Peter

  Lundon, Thomas

  Boland and Mr. Pringle.

  Field, William

  Question put accordingly,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending
  on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Information."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 40.

  Division No. 92.]

  AYES.

  [8.26 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Anderson, G. K. (Canterbury)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Gretton, Col. John

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut-Col. Sir J.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barnett, Capt. R. W.

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Hancock, John George

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Barrie, H. T.

  Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Barrie, Charles C.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel Sir E.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

  Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

  Rowlands, James

  Bigland, Alfred

  Horne, Edgar

  Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

  Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin, U.)

  Boyton, Sir James

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Scott, A. MacCullum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Jackson, Sir John (Devonport)

  Shortt, Edward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Brookes, Warwick

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Swift, Rigby

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir W. J.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bcote)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Butcher, Sir J. G.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Wardle, George J.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Festham

  McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

  Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

  Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Coote, William (Tyrone, S.)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Currie, George w.

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Yate, Col. Chas. Edward

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, Sir George

  Falconer, James

  Morrison, H.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  J. Hope and Mr. Pratt.

  Ganzonl, Francis John C.

  Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

  NOES.

  Anderson, William C. (Attercliffe)

  Hackett, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Harbison, T. J. S.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Buxton, Noel

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Reddy, Michael

  Byrne, Alfred

  Joyce, Michael

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Cotton, H. E. A.

  Keating, Matthew

  Scan Ian, Thomas

  Dillon, John

  King, J.

  Sheehy, David.

  Donnelly, Patrick

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Doris, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Esmonde, Capt, John (Tipperary, N.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ffrench, Peter

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Field, William

  Molloy, Michael

  Boland and Mr Pringle

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  It being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

  PARLIAMENT (DISSOLUTION).
  Mr. DILLON: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  I really do not think there ever was more justification for a Motion for the Adjournment of the House than exists on the present occasion. This election—I suppose we may assume there is to be an election—is absolutely unique in all its aspects. In the first place, it is an election which takes place after Parliament has three times prolonged its existence, a thing unheard-of in English history since the Long Parliament, and a thing which in my opinion, as I stated when the Bill was introduced for the prolongation of the life of Parliament, was a very great mistake. I think the election ought to have taken place when this Parliament had run its ordinary course, but the Government have prolonged the life of Parliament almost to the conclusion of the War.
  That is not the aspect of the election to which I desire to draw attention. If ever there was an election in connection with which a responsible Government ought to have sedulously and carefully given to the people a full opportunity of having the issues on which they were to vote clearly defined and debated in such a way as to enable the people to understand what they were voting on, certainly this is the occasion. It is the occasion not only on account of the immeasurable importance of the issues and problems which will have to be dealt with in the new Parliament, but because we have taken a great step and have called into existence millions of new voters who have had no education in
  2412
  the issues of public life. Therefore I say that unless there was some overwhelming cause to the contrary, the Government were bound, if they really meant to preserve the spirit of democracy in this country, to go out of their way to offer to the people ample time to understand the issues on which they were voting.
  There is another reason, and in my opinion even a stronger reason, why it was necessary for the electorate to have ample time. The people of this country have for upwards of nearly three centuries been accustomed to a certain machinery by which the great free institutions of Great Britain have been worked, and it is a machinery absolutely essential if you are to have a real appeal to the people in respect of great public issues. That machinery is the party machinery which I know has been denounced in this country over and over again, and though its faults have been criticised and exaggerated, after all it is the only machinery known to the people by which they can be instructed and enlightened on the issues which are at stake in popular elections, and if you have not party machinery I fail to understand how you are going to reach the masses, immersed as they are in cares and solicitudes of everyday life, and enlighten their minds on the great issues upon which they are called upon to vote. In the present instance, therefore, the party machinery is scrapped. It has disappeared. There are political leaders in this country who rejoice over that fact; but I am a very old political hand, and I do not share in their Utopian anticipations. I have thought over this subject a great deal, and I have had a great deal of experience. I have always failed to see how you are going to work the democracy without some such machinery. The party machinery is simply an organised method of bringing home to the people the issues, and the only substitute for it is a secret bureaucracy and a system of secret arrangements

  2413
  behind the backs of the people. For those two reasons I maintain that there never was an occasion on which it was more incumbent upon the Government of the day to give fair and full notice of the coming of a General Election, so that the platform and the Press could be used in order to crystallise and make clear to the mass of the voters the issues upon which they were asked to vote.
  There is a third reason, and it also is a strong reason. We have called into existence a vote which is not only new, but which in character is wholly against the traditions of this country and of every other democracy in the world, that is the vote of the soldier. I listened with amazement to the Debates on the Franchise Bill, and I rose once or twice to protest against what I conceived to be one of the saddest things ever done by a responsible Government, namely, to introduce party politics into the trenches while the troops are actually engaged in battle. I have never been able to read of such a proposition before in all the history of democracy. We had a terrific example of the effect of such proceedings in the break-up of the Russian Army. It was the introduction of party polities and the revolutionary politics of the Soviet which turned the Russian Army into a mob and dissolved one of the greatest armies that the world has ever seen. No one who has devoted any attention to the history of the Russian troops can deny that there was any army in the history of the world which had a more glorious tradition as fighting men. Within a very few weeks they were turned into a mob, as the result of introducing party politics when in the face of the enemy. All of us desire that the soldiers who have defended the country and run such terrible risks, and who have given such a magnificent exhibition of bravery, should have a voice in the new Parliament; but the only way in which that can be done effectually and without danger to the discipline of the Army, is by postponing the election until peace has been concluded and the War is at an end.
  I have moved this Motion because we cannot get any definite information, but, if this election is going to be rushed on the country at very short notice, there cannot be the shadow of a doubt that you will cheat hundreds of thousands of soldiers of all possibility of voting. Whilst I am still opposed to the whole policy of introducing party politics into the
  2414
  trenches and calling upon the soldiers to vote, I think a more monstrous act has never been done by any Government or by any politicians than, having decided to give men the vote, then to turn round and, simply in the interests of the Coalition Government, and because they expect to snatch a verdict in the dark from the people of this country, propose to carry on the election in circumstances under which hundreds of thousands will be absolutely denied all opportunity of exercising the franchise which has been given to them. There is not the smallest shadow of doubt that if the election is rushed in the first weeks of December a very large proportion of soldiers will be denied the right of voting. Take the case of the soldiers who will be able to vote, and I maintain that they will be a mere fraction of the men in the fighting line. How in the name of common sense can the Government pretend that in the interval between the time when the election will be announced and the time when the polling has to take place there will be any physical possibility of instructing the soldiers on the issues at stake? The thing is ludicrous. There is no machinery by which the soldiers in the trenches can be informed of the issues. Under the circumstances, the votes even of those who will be able to exercise the franchise will be collected in the dark. It will be a farce and a swindle. The votes will be collected by the officers without the soldiers really knowing what the candidates stand for. They cannot. It is impossible.
  I have made inquiries, and I am informed on the very best authority that the Post Office has given notice to the Government that if the election takes place in the early days of December all the millions of Christmas parcels to the soldiers will have to stay at home. They cannot be delivered because the post will be occupied transferring the voting papers of the soldiers. I would like to know what the soldiers think about that. Will they be pleased if, instead of getting something extra, as they deserve to do, and, if the Government makes it possible, as I am sure they will do as an expression of gratitude of the people and of pride in their achievements, they simply get some election literature and ballot papers to vote for men about whose principles they are absolutely in the dark? It will be cold comfort to them. I say that alone constitutes nothing short of a public outrage. I am informed that the Post Office has

  2415
  served formal notice upon the Government that that is the situation. If the election takes place in the early part of December the post between this country and France and the other countries in which our troops are serving will be blocked and the whole volume of Christmas letters, cards, millions of parcels of substantial Christmas fare will be completely cut off. But, in addition to that, I am informed further that the men who have been recruited—as I think most cruelly and unnecessarily—the men of over forty-five years of age who have been recruited within the last few weeks, and who are not really in the Army, are now, like Mahomet's coffin, suspended between heaven and earth, and are neither on the home voting list nor the proxy voting list, and cannot vote at all, and will be disfranchised. I have here a memorandum furnished by a friend of mine stating that, to his own knowledge, in one constituency alone, there are over 400 of these men, mostly over forty years of age, family men, in business, who have been recently recruited and who, if this policy is carried out, will be disfranchised. It is bad enough, God knows, to take unfortunate men of forty years of age from their business and ruin them! Then when they have been ordered out to serve their country, they are to be informed that owing to the necessities of the Coalition Government, and their anxiety to get a verdict while the market lasts, they must be not only ruined, as I think unnecessarily, but also deprived of a franchise and a vote. Possibly the Coalition Government may be under the impression that they might vote against them, and consequently they may not be so sore on the subject as these men feel. For these reasons I think it is a cruel policy to the soldier.
  But I turn from that to wider issues. I have not seen in any newspaper, not even in the Government-kept Press, which now consists of three-fourths of the Press—I should say, four-fifths of the Press—any reason given for the necessity for rushing on the election, except the one statement that the Prime Minister might lose his market and not get the blank cheque for which he is asking. I want to know this, What is the motive, what is the necessity for having the election at this particular moment? If the War Cabinet had made up their minds squarely and honestly that an election was really necessary in the public interest, why did they
  2416
  not announce it three weeks ago, a fortnight ago, or even now, withdraw the censorship and leave the platform open, and let the political leaders endeavour to-clear up the issues that are before the country? That is a very difficult question to answer, but I think I shall be able to answer it. To-night we have been informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is wholly unable to make any statement on the matter at all although he had asked me to postpone a question on Monday last, and said he thought he could make a statement to-day.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Not about the election.
  Mr. DILLON: Yes.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The only statement I hoped to make to-day was when the Session would end and what business would be taken before that date.
  Mr. DILLON: Everybody understood that when the right hon. Gentleman was going to state when the Session would end he would state also when the election would take place, because that really was implied. But he is now wholly unable to give us any hint when the election is coming on. Why is he unable? I think I can give it, if he cannot, and I fall back on my usual authority, Lord Northcliffe, who is an excellent authority. The truth is, of course, that there is going on behind the backs of the people an attempt to make a secret bargain between the different wings of the Coalition, which has turned out to be a more difficult job than Ministers expected. On Tuesday morning it was announced in the "Times":
  "It is understood the Prime Minister has already acquainted—"
  acquainted—
  "the Unionist Leaders with his ideas on such questions as economic policy and Irish government."
  That is a very euphemistic way of acquainting the Unionist leaders with those ideas. I wonder what those ideas are. Do you not think the people are entitled to know what those ideas are? Did anybody ever yet hear in English history of a General Election coming on in two or three weeks, and the ideas of the Prime Minister and his surrounding Ministers unknown to the people, but carefully concealed, and the subject of secret conferences? I think it is no

  2417
  wonder that there should be this hugger-mugger and delay about announcing the election until these secret negotiations are completed. We hear now universal denunciation of secret diplomacy. That is condemned on all hands, but we are getting a taste of something worse than secret diplomacy. Secret diplomacy is to be abolished under the coercion of President Wilson in dealing with foreign affairs, but apparently it is going to be transplanted to England, and we are to have secret diplomacy in dealing with home affairs. I take the political correspondent of the "Times," to-day. Here is what he informs us to-day:
  "It is understood that important Ministerial conferences will be held to-day on the interdependent questions of the General Election and the future of the Coalition. The Prime Minister will meet his Unionist colleagues in the Government during the morning and consultation with his Liberal wing will ensue in the afternoon."
  I understand that these conferences took place, and that the Cabinet were in Secret Session all the morning, with the result that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to give us any information. Here is an even more significant statement:
  "Many other Members have accepted the general plea"
  —that is the plea in favour of the Coalition circulated by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle—
  "subject to qualifications either as to the fixing of a time-limit for the continuance of the arrangement or as to the character of the reconstruction programme adopted by the Government. On this latter point"
  —this is the significant thing—
  "it is of interest to record that a deputation from the Unionist War Committee, including Sir Edward Carson, waited upon Mr. Bonar Law yesterday to ask for a declaration of national economic policy. The reply which they received was regarded as satisfactory."
  "Regarded as satisfactory." Does that mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared for Tariff Reform? Surely, is it not a monstrous thing that the people of this country should be driven into an election like a flock of sheep without having the right to know what are the secret intrigues by which they are going to be driven and committed to policies that are nothing to do with the War and may affect the whole future of the country? If the Government would stand up to-night, and give us a pledge that this new Parliament, which they are now calling for, and which they are rushing the people of this country into at this election, would be only confined to a mandate for the conclusion
  2418
  of peace then there would be little difference of opinion, that would be a clear issue, and the people might be applied to. What security have we, once this election is over, that the Government, having won this verdict by fraud and by concealment, may not maintain the life of that Parliament for five years, and carry out all kinds of reform which they have kept in the recesses of their minds and in the secret councils that have been going on to-day and yesterday. Those of us who remember 1900, remember what Ministers are capable of, and I warn Ministers to remember the judgment that overtook the men who engaged in the fraud of 1900, when the people of this country were called upon to vote upon the single issue of the War—a little prematurely, because it was said that the War was over. The country was swept on that issue. What was the result? We all remember that that Parliament was brought into existence for six years, and carried out all kinds of reforms—what the Tories called reforms in those days—against the will of the people, and it was an absolute fraud on the electors. We remember how that khaki election was carried out. Every man, including the present Prime Minister—it brings back memories to our minds—who opposed that Government was denounced as a pro-Boer. The late Mr. Chamberlain, then Member for West Birmingham, issued his manifesto, saying,
  "Every vote given for a Liberal is a vote given to the Boers."
  He swept the country on that issue. The present Prime Minister sat then for his present constituency. I remember that an Irishman wrote to me then. He was president of the United Irish League in Carnarvon Boroughs at the time, and said that the priest had called upon them to vote against Mr. Lloyd George as an anti-Catholic and as an enemy of Catholic education, and he asked what they were to do. I wrote back and said: "Stand by Lloyd George, for he has always been a proved friend and a faithful friend to Ireland." The Irish vote saved him. He got in by a narrow majority, although he was a convinced pro-Boer. Some dozens of honest Liberals were slaughtered on the khaki cry and the pro-Boer cry. That election was won on that issue, and the Parliament was prolonged for six years, and all kinds of reactionary and anti-Liberal legislation was passed. Then Nemesis overtook the authors of that

  2419
  election; the tidal wave came and they were submerged. I put this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it is a square, a simple, and a plain question, and I think I am entitled to ask it and that the House is entitled to have an answer. It is this: If they have made up their minds—they appear to find it devilish hard to do so—to have an election in December, will they give the people of this country an honest promise that the next Parliament will conclude the peace, and then dissolve on a new register and give the people an opportunity of giving a real verdict on the great problems of Reconstruction which will then face them?
  9.0 P.M.
  Another point is, what is the state of the lists? The Prime Minister knows and the Chancellor of Exchequer knows that it is absolute chaos. I took up the "Daily Chronicle"—the latest of the kept newspapers, the purchased newspapers—to-day and I found in one line—I am quoting the "Daily Chronicle," because its authority is unimpeachable, and it is now a Ministerial organ—that they say in one constituency in London alone there are 26,000 voters who ought to be on the register but who are not on the register. A similar condition of things exists in hundreds of other constituencies. Take my own Constituency. A young fellow came to me the other day who had been riding round my constituency on his bicycle. He told me that there were town lands where every house which ought to have three or four votes had not a single vote. He said there were twelve houses in succession and not one vote. This is owing to the radical change in compiling the register, in some cases I am afraid a dishonest one, and in other cases simply owing to a want of understanding because the official machinery was not in working order. Therefore it is idle for the Government to say, as they do say, that one of the great acts of the Government—and the Press of London are in full cry—it is disgusting to see the performance of the Government papers in London, the Sunday papers, and the weekday papers play the same tune exactly, as everybody will see—only the other day in the "Daily News," one of the still surviving independant journals in Great Britain or in London, there were parallel columns showing how they all said the same thing—by some mistake the same paragraph appeared in the North London papers—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir D. Maclean): I think the remarks of the hon. Gentleman in his last few sentences are quite wide of the Notice of Motion.
  Mr. DILLON: I agree it is a rather delicate thing to be criticising the Government Press, but the point of my Notice of Motion is that the people of the country ought to have adequate time to clear up these issues. I think it is germane and in order under the Notice of Motion to prove the difficulties with which the people have to contend and the way in which the ordinary channels of information upon which the people rely, or used to rely, for having the issues of the election placed before them are now bedevilled and destroyed, and they are robbed of them. Those two important things reinforce the reason for giving adequate time and notice to the electors of the coming election. The whole purpose of my Motion is to complain of the conduct of the Government in not giving adequate notice. I say that if the War Cabinet in their wisdom—which I do not very much admire—came to the conclusion that a General Election was now necessary, they ought to have made up their minds some weeks ago, or at least by this time, and they ought to have given the people notice and every facility in the way of relaxing the censorship and freeing public meetings to debate the issues upon which they are called upon to vote. The Government have taken every conceivable means of clouding the issues, hiding their purposes, and of carrying on a system of secret conspiracy and negotiation behind the backs of the people, and then rushing an election in such a way that the utmost possible amount of inconvenience will be created, and at the same time creating the impossibility of informing the elector how he should vote. I confess the whole matter has a very far-reaching, vital, and fundamentally important bearing. It has been said, and said truly, that democracy is on its trial. It is on its trial. Throughout the whole of this War I have been an ardent friend of the cause of the Allies, on one ground and one ground alone—because I regarded the present struggle as the supreme and deciding struggle between the systems of democratic control and bureaucracy and the Prussian system. Thank God, the democrats have won! But democracy will be no less on its trial after the War than before the War. Democracy has many

  2421
  weaknesses, and I solemnly say that if this Government persevere in their present course, the time may come when they will be recognised as enemies of democracy hardly less dangerous than the Prussian system which has now been overthrown.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Motion with which the House is asked to deal is, as far as I can recollect, that the House ought to be informed when this Parliament will come to an end.
  Mr. DILLON: And the General Election.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The two go together more or less. The hon. Member has spoken for a little more than half an hour. On that point he spent about three minutes, as far as I could gather. The rest of his speech was taken up with almost everything which, at a time like this, could enter the mind of any politician, and it seemed to be that it might possibly be regarded as the views of the hon. Member on the general situation as it presents itself to his mind. I was not surprised to find that among those views was a very strongly expressed belief that the present Government is a bad Government. I have been a Member of the House for about eighteen years, and I hardly ever remember a speech from him in which the same thing was not said about whatever Government happened to be in power at the time. So that, as far as that general observation goes, I think we can flatter ourselves that possibly our vices are not greater than those of the ordinary Government of this country. With a good deal that he said, which had absolutely nothing to do with his Motion, strange to say, I was in agreement. He told us that in his belief some form of the party system would continue, and I agree with him. I do not think there has ever been any form of democratic Government in the world where parties were not a regular section of the machinery by which that democratic system was run. I do not know of any other way in which it can be done. Perhaps a slight but pertinent illustration of the truth of that observation is to be found in the fact that during the last twelve months a party was formed to do away with parties, which had only the effect of adding another to the number. There is no doubt that parties have got to stay. But, on the other hand, I myself think, as a general observation, that it would be an amazing thing if, after the terrible experiences through which the world has passed in the last four years, there were
  2422
  not a change in the outlook of parties, and a tendency to go further apart with some and closer together with others. That, I think, is inevitable, and that is all that is happening now.
  The hon. Member gave a number of other very interesting observations. He told the House, for instance—he got it from some newspaper and read it as if it was the history of some great new fact and a proof of some new crime on the part of the Government—that the members of the Unionist War Committee had waited upon me yesterday to express their views and to hear mine on after-war policy, and he added, quoting the newspaper to which he referred, that they were satisfied with the answer. I can assure him that there is nothing new whatever in that, except perhaps the last part of it. I have had deputations of the same kind from the same body at regular intervals during the whole continuance of the War, so that I think he may relieve his mind and feel that that at least is not a new phenomenon, and is not evidence of any special viciousness on our part. He told us, also, quoting again some newspaper, that the Prime Minister was to meet to-day first his Unionist colleagues and then his Liberal colleagues, and we were to be engaged in some kind of secret diplomacy in putting an end to democracy in this country. To begin with, if any of these meetings took place, I was not at them, and never heard of them. I do not pretend for a moment that we are not thinking about the General Election and the possibility of it. So is the hon. Member, and so is my right hon. Friend. But I can assure the House that the amount of time that we have given to that has been very infinitesimal, that that there have been no such meetings as have been suggested, and though, of course, a decision must be taken, it will be taken in the midst of other occupations, and will certainly not occupy the main time either of the Prime Minister or of his colleagues.
  One thing struck me particularly in the hon. Member's speech, and I am quite sure it will give immense satisfaction when the speech is circulated among the troops at the front. I was delighted, and I am sure the soldiers will be delighted, to find what an intense interest he takes in their welfare. It will interest everyone who has been a Member of the House to find what an effort he has made all through the War to help the

  2423
  soldiers in the struggle in which they are engaged. That will come, I am sure, as a very agreeable surprise to the soldiers who are in the trenches now. Then he told us that the idea of giving votes to soldiers while they are fighting was an absurdity and that he was himself altogether opposed to it, and that that was the cause of the dissolution of the Russian Army. I may be wrong, but I do not remember any General Election taking place in Russia in which the Russian soldiers were asked to take part. The dissolution of the Russian Army was not due to any specific cause like that. It was due to the general breakdown of discipline, and, so far as I know, any question of having an election at which soldiers should vote had nothing whatever to do with it. He told us also that it was a farce to ask soldiers to vote, and that they could not be supplied with information which would enable them to form any intelligible opinion of what they were voting about.
  Mr. DILLON: I did not say that. The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me. I said, "If you do not give proper time, it is quite impossible."
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I admit that they need time, like everyone else, but I think the hon. Member will find, when he looks at his speech, that he implied that there was need this time to get information to enable them to record their votes. I have not had the privilege of being very often at the front, but I have been there, and my experience is that the soldiers are at no disadvantage in that respect, that they receive constant letters from home, and that they still take the same interest as those of us who remain here in what happens at home, and I think he will find that when the times comes they will be quite as well able to make up their minds as to how they will vote as any other section. What does it all amount to? The hon. Member's speech had, in reality, nothing to do with this Motion. His speech was a plea not to have an election at present. It was that and really nothing else. There is a good deal which can be said in favour of that view. I am not going to deal with that at all. It does not arise on the Motion, and it will be time enough for the Government to justify asking His Majesty to grant a Dissolution when they have taken that course. It will be time enough to do it then, and if the course is taken I do not
  2424
  think we will have much difficulty in justifying the decision. What seems to have entirely escaped the view of the hon. Members are two simple facts. In the first place this Parliament, unless an Act of Parliament is passed, will come to an end in January next year. That is one fact which ought to be borne in mind. There is another fact. There has been added to the electorate an immense mass of new voters. The present Parliament has long outstayed its ordinary time of existence, and if anything were being discussed on which a vote was taken by this House, if it suited the hon. Member he would be the first to say that this House had absolutely no right whatever to express an opinion on the subject. There is a good deal to be said for that. It ought also to be remembered that as a matter of fact there never has been a case when there has been a great change in the franchise—and here we have had the greatest possible change—without the earliest opportunity being given to the new electors to record their vote. The hon. Member tells us that the register is all wrong. I am a little doubtful as to that. I doubt if it is so defective as he suggests. But there is one inference to be drawn from his observation on that point, and it is not that we ought to have an election now, but that we ought not to have an election until a new register can be set up. I venture to say with every confidence that if the Government were to propose not to have an election now it would be absolutely impossible to hold it over to enable a new register to be set up. The hon. Member suggests that the Government are thinking of their own party advantage. Let me put this to him. He said he was in favour of our having an election in the ordinary course.
  Mr. DILLON: Certainly, I always was.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Other people were not. I cannot myself see why if he were always under the impression that the ordinary constitutional methods should be pursued and Parliament should come to an end at the usual time—I cannot see why he has changed his mind at the present time except for this reason, that at the earlier time it would not have been especially distasteful to the hon. Member, and I assume that at the present time an election would be very distasteful to him. That is not a conclusive reason for the course suggested by the hon. Member. That is all I have to say on the subject. It is for the Government to decide. If there

  2425
  is to be an election on the advice given to His Majesty by the Prime Minister, if that takes place, then we shall, I hope, be able as a Government to justify the decision which has been come to by the head of the Government. But until that takes place I am not prepared to argue what may prove to be a hypothetical question. The hon. Member says that the longest possible notice should be given. I entirely agree with him. But I would remind the House again of what I said before. Nothing is more clearly recognised by our constitutional practice than that these things are the subject, not of any written rule, but they are governed by custom, and in my belief there is no custom more clearly defined than that what advice on this matter should be given to the Sovereign as a question not for the Cabinet but for the Prime Minister.
  Mr. DILLON: That is not a recognised practice, and I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House should say that it is. I believe that the custom has always been that the advice should be given with the consent of the Cabinet.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: And I am quite sure that the hon. Member is quite wrong. I know of my own knowledge of recent cases where no intimation whatever was given to the Cabinet until the decision had been taken, and I believe that has been always the regular practice. At all events, the hon. Member must recollect one instance very much complained of at the time, the instance in which Mr. Gladstone dissolved Parliament in 1874, when his colleagues received, I believe, the first intimation of the coming election from the public Press. At all events, it is an undoubted fact that he had sent the message to Her Majesty Queen Victoria before any one of his colleagues received any intimation. There would be good ground for complaint if the Government, knowing there was to be an election, were making use of that knowledge to set at work party machinery to help them, and if they were keeping the knowledge dark.
  Mr. DILLON: That is exactly what I complain of.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There would be good ground for complaint if that were the case, but I, as one of the colleagues of the Prime Minister, know that it is not.
  Mr. DILLON: He has given his decision to the papers.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; and he has not given it to any of his colleagues. We may have opinions of our own, but it is the fact that if the Prime Minister has made up his mind to give certain advice to His Majesty, he has not informed his colleagues of that intention. That disposes of the charge that we are setting to work machinery in our favour. I go further, I say it is quite true that the circumstances at the present time make it desirable to give the longest possible notice. In ordinary practice, notice of Dissolution has not been much greater than is necessary by compulsion at the present time. If hon. Members will carry their minds back, I think they will find that there has rarely been general knowledge of a coming Dissolution for more than a week before it actually is expected. I think under the promise which has been given, and it is part of the understanding in regard to this election, there must be a clear week's notice before the Proclamation, and there must be twenty days after the Proclamation before an election takes place. I think that if you look back on the previous elections longer notice than that has not been the rule. Of course, people will say—I am digressing now—if the election takes place now, it is being taken for purely party reasons. That is always said. I very well remember that when the election was taken by the right hon. Member for East Fife, in December, 1910, it did not seem very wonderful to say, and we said, what hon. Members say now, that they took that election because they thought it was good for their own party. That is always said. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is a War on now!"] That is always said when a Dissolution takes place, but it never was the case before that, as a matter of fact, in view of the circumstances, this Parliament will be by the end of January three years past the proper time of its death, that there has been an entire change in the franchise, and that in addition, the House does not present the old franchise, because it has been allowed to drop. In face of all these facts, surely it is plain that the natural thing is to have an election and the burden of proof that you ought not have one lies with those who say an election ought not to take place. I am prepared to say to the House of Commons that the moment the Government knows definitely that there is going to be an election, at that moment the information will be given to the House of Commons.
  Mr. BRUNNER: Who are the Government?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Well, I am one of the Government. I will put it in that way if it will please the hon. Member better.
  Mr. W. YOUNG: Will it be given to the Press first?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I think not. In the Prime Minister's view and in my view the question of deciding whether or not there should be an election is the duty of the Prime Minister, but I will say to the House of Commons now that as soon as I know definitely there is to be an election, as Leader of the House of Commons, I will at once inform the House. I do not think I can say more than that.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Why not have a January election?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member prefers a January election. I do not know why. If a January election takes place there are many arguments in favour of it, just as there are many against it. It may be said that our sole object, if we have one, is because our market is good, or because we think it is. That has been said of every Government every time there is an election, and there may be some truth in it in the case of every election. But whatever the truth or inaccuracy of such a statement, it is undoubtedly the privilege of the Government of the day, represented by its head, to select the time to advise His Majesty for having an election, and we claim that right, and when we exercise that right, we shall do our best—and I am not afraid of saying it—to prove that it is not in the interests of a party, but that it is in the national interests that that election should be taken.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman said he did not propose to state the arguments for the holding of an immediate election which, in his view, does not directly arise from the terms of the Motion, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man of such a candid mind that he can never resist, or seldom resist, the temptation of giving the House the benefit of all his thoughts, and having been led along the course of argument by the Mover of this Motion, he, while disclaiming any intention of doing so, gave the House a very elaborate series of reasons why, in his view, an immediate General Election was desirable, and
  2428
  indeed, essential. He disclaimed any responsibility so far as he was concerned. He threw the whole burden of the decision upon the Prime Minister, whose prerogative alone it is to determine the issue when a Dissolution is to take place. So we have been told. Therefore, if there be any unpopularity in the decision, it does not belong to the Prime Minister's colleagues. The three reasons which my right hon. Friend gave for holding an early election, were these: In the first place, he said this Parliament ends in January, and unless fresh legislation is passed it must come to a conclusion in three months' time—that is, three months hence. The moment when that argument should be advanced is at the end of January, and then it would be proper to consider whether or not in the circumstances of the moment the House, in view of its duty to the electorate, and in view of the international position, would be right or would be wrong in asking for an extension of its life. That is an argument which at the beginning of November, and not at the end of January, wholly fails in its force. The second argument was that this House has exhausted its mandate, and that it has no mandate from the electorate to deal with the problems that at this moment press upon it. Every Member of this House is conscious that it was elected at the end of 1910 to deal with a series of domestic problems. It had no mandate for the War. It had no mandate to deal with any of the questions that have arisen during the last fateful four and a half years. It had no mandate to decide the terms of peace, yet I think, with the general assent of the nation as a whole, it has dealt faithfully and patriotically with the great problems of the hour, and I believe that its career will be justified in history.
  Thirdly, my right hon. Friend says, among the arguments which he declared he was not going to give, that a new electorate has just been created, and that never before has there been a case when a great franchise reform having been passed an immediate reference to the people was not made. I say that never before has the nation, immediately after a great Reform Bill been concluding a War on a vast scale, and been faced with urgent and vital international problems arising from the coming of peace. If there were any manifestations of public opinion in favour of an election, then I agree my right hon. Friend's plea would be a valid one. I can imagine that in 1832, in 1868,

  2429
  or in 1884, if the Government of the day, after passing a great Reform Bill, had denied to the newly-enfranchised people the right of declaring their opinions there would, doubtless, have been a popular outcry throughout the length and breadth of the land, and the nation would have clamoured for a renewal of the mandate of Parliament. Where is there a whisper of that now? When you travel about the country to elicit expressions of public opinion, or when you talk to men of all parties in any quarter, is there any active desire for the turmoil and disunion of a General Election? What is the issue of the election to be? Is it a question whether or not the Government have authority to conclude peace on the terms which it has announced. There is no division of opinion as to that. The whole nation one might say, without exception, is unanimously in favour of the terms of peace laid down by President Wilson in the main. I think the Government were well advised to make an exception in regard to the question of the seas. I think the whole nation is unanimous in support of the course which is now being taken by the Government in the International issues that are before the world. It is wholly unnecessary for them to seek an expression of confidence in their policy with repect to the conclusion of the War. The nation, by every means at its command, has expressed its agreement with the Government in power. What other issue can there then be? Are they going to seek a mandate now for a five years' term of office in order to carry out such post-war policy as may commend itself to-night? My right hon. Friend cannot be surprised if there is a suspicion that the Government propose to use the patriotic unity of the nation on the question of war and peace as an instrument to secure a post-war majority on questions on which there is not the same unanimity. That is the main objection to an election at this time.
  We are enfranchising a vast number of new electors. The majority of them are women. The women, I believe, are taking in the main a serious view of their responsibility. They look upon politics not as a party game but as a grave and solemn matter. They are anxious—millions of them—to use the new franchise so as best to secure the good of their country. And while they will gladly avail themselves of an occasion to deal with a straightforward issue and express their views clearly on
  2430
  great questions put before them without complication and subtlety on their first introduction to politics as citizens, they will, I venture to say, find themselves bewildered by the manoeuvres of political strategy. That is the first objection to this election. There is another objection which I think has not yet been mentioned in this Debate. Ministers will have within the next few weeks, if Germany, as we all hope, agrees to the Armistice which is now being debated between our representatives and Marshal Foch—[An HON. MEMBER: "There is no Debate! "]—My hon. Friend is quite right—which is now being agreed to, we hope, by the German representatives on the terms proposed by Marshal Foch—if that is so, think of the problems with which our Ministers will have to deal within the next few weeks.
  A Peace Conference must meet almost at once. All the large issues of the future will be at stake, while at home we have to carry through the most gigantic transformation which the nation has ever known in an equally short time, because from a peace footing we came on to a war footing to a great extent gradually. There was the severe initial shock, but the full development of our war energies only came in the course of months or years The withdrawal of labour for the Army and the munition factories was a gradual process, but at the conclusion of peace, unless we are to keep our millions of munition workers employed at the cost of the taxpayer making munitions which will no longer be necessary—and that cannot be contemplated for a moment—the whole of our munition workers must be demobilised, and with the utmost speed. A score of problems will have to be dealt with. Food questions, questions of shipping, will still have to be dealt with. The whole economy of our nation and our Empire will have to be transformed with the utmost rapidity from a war footing to a peace footing. That is the moment, when the Peace Conference begins its deliberations, when this great transformation is proceeding at home, for all the heads of our Departments to be busily engaged—in what? Carrying out the business of performing those vital functions? No! In touring the country from end to end and making electioneering speeches in order to secure a majority in the next Parliament.
  Again, consider the case of the millions of our electors who are now serving in the War, serving in the Army or in the

  2431
  Navy. When we passed the Representation of the People Act, no one then, I think, thought it desirable that an election should take place during the War, and the vast majority of the House was determined if such an election took place there should be some opportunity given for soldiers to vote. Many of us thought that it would be nearly impossible for soldiers serving in the distant theatres of war to vote, but a scheme was devised to enable them to vote by proxy. That scheme has proved a failure, as many of us said it would. I am very glad that some of us here resisted, and succeeded in defeating, the plan to compel all soldiers if they voted at all to vote by proxy, and not to vote by ballot papers, and that a change was made so far as soldiers serving in France are concerned. But in the case of soldiers in Mesopotamia Salonika, Egypt, Palestine, and Italy when they do vote at all they will have to vote by proxy, and it has been confessed by the late President of the Local Government Board that the whole device of proxy has proved a failure. I very much doubt if even one in ten or twenty of the soldiers in distant theatres of war will be able to vote at that election if the election is taken now. Take next soldiers who are serving in France and Belgium What opportunity will they have to inform themselves fully, not merely of the personality of the candidate for whom they are asked to vote, but of the principles for which they stand and of the main issues at this election? Obviously they would be able to perform their duties as citizens far more effectively if they were at home for a few weeks or a few months, during which, at all events, a large proportion of them would return to civil life when they could take part in the election in the ordinary way as free civilians, and with no longer the limitations imposed upon them as soldiers. And at home they would have the atmosphere of the election, and know well what the issues are to be decided, which would not be the case if they were at a distance, where they can only judge from a printed election address or such information a biased Press may give them.
  There is another point to which the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dilon) referred, in connection with these soldiers. This election is to take place early in December. If it is after December the whole of the mail service to and from the Army
  2432
  will be absorbed by sending out, first, the election addresses, and, next, the ballot papers, and then securing the return of the ballot papers. I myself had the privilege of being Postmastesr-General for five years. One of these years was during the War, and I visited the front and examined the system of working of the Army post office, and I am convinced that the Post Office will have great difficulty in performing the task put upon them if it does nothing else and all the ordinary mails are more or less suspended, and the soldiers at the front will not like to spend the first Christmas during the armistice, as we hope there may be, without receiving any of the communications from their friends at home, which they are accustomed to receive. They ask for bread, and you give them a stone. They expect Christmas puddings, and the Goverment give them a ballot paper. Whatever the problems of the election may be at home, I think that upon the Army the effect is likely to be even greater, and as for our sailors at sea, almost all of them will be disfranchised, I am afraid, if this election takes place during the War. The whole matter can be summed up in a sentence. If this election is to secure the Government authority to conclude peace on the terms announced, it is unnecessary. If this election is to decide the course of post-war policy, it is premature.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I desire to associate myself with the Mover of this Motion, and with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken with regard to the issues of the proposed General Election. I followed as closely as I could the speech of the Chancellor or Exchequer and I had a difficulty in deciding whether he was seeking to persuade the House that he was in favour of an election or that he was against an election, and I think that he tried to leave the impression to those who heard his speech that an election was somewhat remote.
  Mr. BONAR LAW Mr. BONAR LAW was understood to dissent.
  Mr. HENDERSON: At any rate he did give us to feel that it was not definitely decided upon. Personally, I am not disposed to accept that view of the position. I believe that an election has been decided upon. It is quite true that the Prime Minister has not taken the formal steps which will eventually have to be taken, but I believe that the election has been

  2433
  decided upon, and that there is going to be more than one issue. I think I may say that there are going to be two issues. Ostensibly, we are going to have an appeal to the country in order that the present Government may obtain a mandate to make peace. When the stunt for an election began in certain organs of the Press, the idea, advanced with striking unanimity, and I think the hon. Member for Mayo referred to the striking unity of certain Press paragraphs, but that is not surprising, but when it began what was the line that was taken? It was that it was necessary to have an election in order that the Government should have a mandate to carry the War through to a successful termination. When the War happily began to end, more as the result of the magnificent efforts of our gallant troops, supplemented or reinforced by a skilful handling of the political weapon by the illustrious President of the United States of America, it was necessary for a change of tune to take place in the Press. So instead of getting a mandate to carry the War through to a successful termination they then told us it was necessary to get a mandate to make peace. If that was necessary, I do not think any section of this House would dispute it for a moment. It is not necessary. I have no hesitation in saying that never was it less necessary from the standpoint of Parliament than it is now. I think there never has been a time during the whole of the period of the two Coalitions when it was less necessary than it has been during the past few months, and I might almost say during the whole lifetime of the present Government. I admit that there was a time during the previous Administration when there was a vast amount of criticism in this House, and when it almost looked as if an election would be necessary, because it would become impossible to carry on the government of the country for the successful prosecution of the War. But on the formation of the present Government that became absolutely unnecessary, for the simple reason that a majority of those who enjoyed such freedom to criticise passed on to the Front Bench. I happened to be a member of the Government at the time, and I know the experience of relief it was and how different it was to sit there under the new Government than it was under the old. You could not imagine the transformation it effected, for the simple reason that the independent committees which met once
  2434
  or twice or thrice a week, and began to hold pistols at the head of the Prime Minister and his Government had passed away almost like snow before the sun, merely because so many of their Members had been silenced by being placed in office and by taking seats on this side of the House on the Front Bench rather than on the other side. Therefore, I say it never was less necessary during the whole time of the two Coalitions than it is at this moment.
  10.0 P.M.
  But may I say I am strongly opposed to an election, and I am going to give, or will try to give, one or two reasons. I am going to oppose an election at the present time at the risk of having it said, as it is always said on such occasions, that we are out to protect our own political skins, and that we are afraid of this, that, and the other thing. I want to take no notice of those statements, because I think they are absolutely unworthy of colleagues in the House wherever we sit, and are, to a very great extent, beside the question. The first reason which I advance against an election at this time is this: I think it is totally opposed to the spirit in which the Government has been carried on since the formation of the first Coalition under the leadership of the right hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith). Then a Coalition was formed in which three parties joined. I do not mind saying that I always regretted, very seriously regretted, the fact that the Fourth party, under their very great late Leader, did not see their way clear to becoming members of that Government. I believed in the idea of a National Government and that a National Government ought to remain in existence until the work for which it was formed had been made absolutely secure. But if that spirit is to be carried out properly, it implies one thing, I think, that ought to be regarded as essential. It implies this: that the carrying on of that Government ought not to be to the advantage of any one party nor ought it to be used at this period in any way to be to the detriment of any of the parties in the Government. I am going to show if you have an election at the present moment you depart from that, and at any rate to the extent of one of the parties, the party with which I am identified, you place that party in a position that it ought not to be placed in, having regard to the immense value and I hope I will not be thought to exaggerate

  2435
  when I speak of the immense value, that not only the first of the Coalitions obtained, and certainly the second of the Coalitions obtained, for I want to say unhesitatingly, and I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be prepared to deny what I am going to say—I want to say here that the second Coalition would never have been possible—I challenge contradiction on the point—but for the fact that the party with which I am associated determined upon accepting the invitation to become members of that Government.
  If I am right in making that claim—and I think I am—then I say I can press with greater force the point I was making. Once that Coalition is formed, it ought to be so carried on until its objects have been finally and completely achieved, and carried on so that its work will not make for the advantage of one of the parties and the disadvantage of one of the other parties. I am prepared to show that if the election comes now, that will be completely departed from, and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. When we joined the first Coalition—and I will admit it was slightly improved upon in the second—what was the position? I suppose the representation that we had in this House was taken as the criterion, or, in other words, a sort of system of proportional representation was put into operation. Hence it might be argued, on the basis of proportional representation, that in the present Government the numbers to which we were actually entitled were exceeded. I am prepared to concede that that might be fairly argued, but is any section of this House going to argue that the conditions under which either the first or the second Coalition was formed, and the selection or the number of Labour representatives chosen, is any criterion of the position as it might be under the election taken on normal conditions with the electorate extended by some 11,000,000 or 12,000,000, as it will be on the new register? I do not think that it could be contended for a single moment, if we take it merely on the basis of proportional representation, that we had anything like our fair or adequate share in the Coalition, having regard to the immense size of the register.
  As I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he seemed to make the point that as we had a register consisting not of 8,000,000, as the register did in 1914, but of nearly 20,000,000, that was an argument
  2436
  in favour of an election. Yes, but I would like to ask his attention to this point. That surely pre-supposes that when you are going to give your extended electorate an opportunity of giving their judgment they give that judgment under proper conditions. Does he wish to suggest, or does any other representative of the Government wish to suggest, that taking an election under existing circumstances is appealing to the judgment of the nation under fair and proper conditions? I would take a good deal of convincing, and therefore, from the standpoint of Labour's legitimate share or from the standpoint of the broadened electorate, on neither of those points can we be satisfied. But I want to take it one stage further. The hon. Member for Mayo put what I thought was a very pertinent question. He put the question as to whether we could have an undertaking, in view of the Fact that the papers now tell us that the object of the election is to obtain a mandate for the making of the peace—he put the very pertinent question, Will the right hon. Gentleman say, or can he say, or will he get authority from the Prime Minister to say, that once that has been accomplished, another appeal to the country will be made?
  Mr. DILLON: He did not answer that question.
  Mr. HENDERSON: No. I followed his speech very closely, and I noticed that, skilful leader as he is, experienced politican as he is after eighteen years in this House, he nicely evaded it, and I want to come to it, because it is the crux of the whole question in so far as the Labour party is concerned, because we are going to hold a conference—such as I should like to see all the other parties hold—of probably a thousand delegates and they are going to have something to say on this matter. These delegates on two occasions have approved of Labour being represented in the Government, but these delegates are going to insist on fair play, and I think they are entitled to fair play, and to know before we go to the country this. Supposing it takes twelve months before the final stage of the Peace negotiations is reached—I meant the stage not of the end of the armistice, or the signing of what might be described as preliminary peace conditions, but the stage when everything that has been agreed upon will be put into the Treaty of Peace and finally signed. I want to know whether he will

  2437
  tell us or get authority to tell the House that, when that stage has been reached, there will be another appeal to the country?
  Mr. DILLON: That is the acid test.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Am I entitled or not to ask this question? I am not asking it for the sake of asking a question. I am treating the matter very seriously, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do the same. I am going to try to give the reasons why I think I am entitled to ask this question. Supposing we get the Treaty of Peace, what is going to be the position if the Parliament Act is availed of, and the Government that has got elected for the purpose of giving effect to their peace proposals goes in for three or four more years—the full limit of the Parliament Act? What is going to be their work? Their main work is going to be to deal with questions that we are vitally interested in. Let me re-mind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of one in which I am very vitally interested as an ex-member of the Government—I mean the restoration of trade union conditions. It has been said from that Front Bench by the Prime Minister that nobody had more to do with getting trade unions to forego the conditions for which they had fought for many years than I had to do as Chairman of one of the Committees that was created at the Treasury conference in 1915. Now that is a question in which Labour is vitally interested. Take all the great problems of reconstruction. We are vitally interested in those questions. Have we to have a mandate for the settlement of peace used for four years to deal with these questions without a proper mandate? Because I want to say that, by virtue of the conditions under which this election is going to be conducted, it will be well nigh impossible to get a proper mandate for the problems of reconstruction. The minds of the electorates will be concentrated, or at any rate will be influenced, more directly by the wave of feeling of patriotism that must flow as the result of the intimation which will be made public in a few days that this War has been won—as the right hon. Gentleman said—won for democracy. If that is a correct summing up of the position, it seems to me that no Government is entitled to ask for the verdict of the country in order to enable them to make peace, and then to go along and use the power thus given to deal with the great problems
  2438
  of reconstruction, and deal with them when some of those who are most vitally interested have not had the opportunity properly of expressing themselves, and certainly will not be properly represented in giving effect to any proposals which may be brought forward.
  I want in a word or two to associate myself with the second reason why I think this election should not be taken. Like other hon. Members, I am receiving constant communications from France. I have no hesitation in saying that the information I have received is twofold. First, many soldiers have not, from one cause or another, been placed upon the register, or, at any rate, are not in a position to record their votes. The point which is mostly made in my correspondence is that they are indifferent to an election being taken while they are on any of the battle fronts. What they say is: "We do do not want an election now; we want the election to be taken when as many of us as possible can be at home, and then we can more clearly understand all the issues involved in the contest." I think when we remember speeches which were made in this House—I remember many of them—that no election should take place until the soldiers who had done so well were in a position—not a few of them, not a small percentage of them, but the overwhelming majority of them—to record their votes, it is passing strange that we should now have the threat or risk of an election being taken when I believe it is correct to say that many thousands of the soldiers and sailors will not be in a position to record their votes. Many of them will decline to record their votes. They are not, they will say, in possession of the information that they feel they ought to be in possession of before the decision they are called upon to take is to be given.
  I should like to make one point more. It is a point which has not been touched upon by any of the previous speakers. I should esteem it a favour if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would just give me a moment as I put this point to him. One of my strongest objections to an election is as to its possible effect upon the industrial life of this country. I do not think many of the members of the Government, or many of the Members of the House, quite realise the dangers to which we are going to be exposed soon after peace has been secured. Let me try in a sentence or two to put what I mean. We

  2439
  shall have to begin very shortly the process of demobilisation. The demobilisation of the Army will be a serious matter. To me there is a more serious matter. The most serious question to me is the demobilisation of our munition workers. When you demobilise your soldiers you will do it gradually; what is more, whether they are demobilised at a quicker or a slower pace, they will be cared for by the Government, not only up to the moment when they are discharged, but for some time afterwards. I think there is a gratuity and an unemployment insurance benefit for a certain number of weeks after they are discharged if they are unemployed. What about the munition workers—I use that term in its broadest sense, and I include all manner of workers, male and female, that have been engaged upon war work? Take the question of the women. That in itself is going to raise a very difficult question indeed. I do not know that any of us quite realise how we are going to get the men satisfied without doing an injustice to the women. I do not see how we are going to get the skilled workmen satisfied without doing an injustice to the lesser skilled men who have been brought in to do certain duties during the War period. Peace has come much more speedily than was expected. Supposing that the armistice begins to operate at once. I cannot imagine the Government going on in anything like the same degree, keeping the workpeople engaged upon the employment which they have been on for months past, and, therefore, there has got to be a sudden conversion, or a speedy conversion in industry from the processes of war to the processes of peace. I fail to see how the conversion can take place with these people employed however short the period may be, and I think there will have to be a period of enforced idleness.
  Try to visualise the position. You may have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of these people on the streets, men and women, no longer for the time being with any employment to follow. It seems to me that that may have this effect, for it is wonderful how contagious the spirit between nations becomes. We know what has been taking place for months in Russia, and we have evidence of what has been taking place in Bulgaria, and more recently in Austria Hungary, and we have some idea of what is beginning to operate in Germany. We
  2440
  do not know how far this will go on in Germany, but the point I want to urge is that I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will keep very pertinently in his mind that we ought not to do anything in this country that would in the slightest degree encourage an emulation of this deplorable spirit that has characterised the life of Russia during the past few months, and which is beginning, I am afraid, to make its influence felt in some of the other countries with whom we shall be concerned in the making of peace.
  The question may be asked: How is this affected by the General Election? I just want to answer that question. Suppose we have this election and there is a continuation of that which is going on in some of the constituencies, where bargains are being struck in the name of the Coalition Government between two parties. I get information almost daily in connection with this matter. We are told that representatives of the party that has been led for some years by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the Unionist party—and one section of the Liberal party are joining together to run Coalition candidates, and that the one thing that they are going to try to do is to prevent Labour from getting its proportionate share of representation in this House, having regard to the broadened franchise of 20,000,000 electors. Let us imagine for a moment that they succeed. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise what may be the effect of their success? I want to claim that if one thing more than another has kept down the revolutionary spirit in recent years in this country it is the fact that Labour has had the power to express its grievances upon the floor of this House. I believe that the coming of a Labour party into this House, even in limited numbers, has done that one thing. It has provided the break, as it were, upon any desire upon the part of the extremists to go lengths industrially that they might have been disposed to go if there had not been this method of giving expression to their grievances, and of getting, if not those grievances altogether remedied, at any rate getting something which gave them a certain measure of satisfaction. Try to imagine all the problems of demobilisation and reconstruction being settled with this revolutionary spirit abroad to which I have referred, and with this sense of injustice, that the Government have taken an advantage of the working classes by

  2441
  asking for a mandate to make peace and then continuing in office, denying Labour its proper share of representation. It will give those people who may be disposed to adopt revolutionary tactics the feeling that they must take matters into their own hands, because Labour, owing to the fact that the authority of the Government in this House and the country has been improperly applied, and not through any fault of their own, will be no longer in a position to deal effectively with the grievances upon which labour feels so strongly.
  I hope therefore, that this aspect of the case will be taken, even at the last hour, into consideration, because I believe—and this is the last word I am going to say upon this subject—that not only is it inconsistent with the spirit that has obtained for three years in this country in the formation of our Government, that not only is it in opposition to the wishes of the large majority of the soldiers in the field, but it is endangering our national safety. I think all these three points are sufficiently important to justify the Government in doing, what I think they ought to have done, to have gone on and completed their task, and really to have carried the War to its successful termination, which can only be in the strictest sense when they have a treaty of peace, and when it is known what that treaty of peace contains. Then they could have come, resuming normal conditions, the Prime Minister connected with his old party, or any other party, and all the members of the Coalition returning to the parties with which they are connected when this Government was formed, and allowed us all to go, as it were, starting off the mark in a fair, straightforward, English fashion, and not merely have used this opportunity, as I believe it is being used, for the purpose of dividing the sheep as against the goats.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I really can add very little to the very powerful and impressive speech—the most powerful and impressive I have ever heard him make—which my right hon. Friend has just addressed to the House. But I just want to have a few words upon an aspect of the question which more especially appeals to me. Before I do that, I want to say, first, to the Leader of the House, that I am grateful to him for the candour which characterised his observations during one portion of his speech which was very much
  2442
  in contrast with the lack of explicitness in another part of his speech. But if he was candid, I regret to tell him that he was singularly inaccurate in his statements. I cannot understand how so well-stored an intelligence as his actually repeated the ridiculous old fable that Mr. Gladstone called the Dissolution of 1874 without consulting his colleagues and keeping some of them even in ignorance of the statement of his intentions. What are the facts? In order that I may be able to correct the statements of the right hon. Gentleman—I would not take the trouble of doing that for a moment except as they bear on the point of the Debate—I have looked up the biography of Mr. Gladstone, I commend a perusal of that biography to the right hon. Gentleman. He would see that the story of Mr. Gladstone, off his own bat, without consulting anybody except one or two of his colleagues, springing a Dissolution on the country, is absolutely without a particle of foundation. I will not at this hour trouble the House with reading the extracts from Mr. Gladstone's own diary on this question. It will be sufficient to call attention to two dates. On the 18th January, 1874, Mr. Gladstone thought of Dissolution for the first time. On the 23rd he brought his project of Dissolution before the Cabinet, and the Cabinet unanimously approved the Dissolution. I have another fact which the right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten. The right hon. Gentleman forgets what happened when Mr. Gladstone retired from the Premiership. Why did he retire? Everybody knows why because, after the action of the House of Lords he wanted his colleagues to go to a Dissolution. His colleagues declined to go to a Dissolution, and Mr. Gladstone retired from office in consequence. What was the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to-night? His statement, founded, as I have shown, on entire ignorance or forgetfulness of all the precedents and facts with regard to a Dissolution, laid down the doctrine that the choice of the time of Dissolution belonged to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone. That statement is entirely inaccurate, as I have shown. But what is the meaning of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman? What a flood of light it throws on the whole system of government under which we now are! Here is the Leader of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the second man in the Cabinet of the Empire, and he

  2443
  comes down with the entirely false and unfounded statement that the choice of the date of Dissolution belongs to the Prime Minister alone, without his having consulted with his colleagues in the Cabinet. What does it mean? It means personal government.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: In these days of democracy!
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Personal government! That is one of the methods by which we are signalising our triumph over Prussian autocracy and making the world safe for democracy. Why do I call attention to that? It is not to enlarge the historical knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman or to contribute to his greater grasp of the facts of the history of politics. It is to call attention to this particular fact as a symptom of the whole situation. I complimented, and frankly complimented, the right hon. Gentleman on the candour of a part of his statement. I regret I cannot do the same with regard to the other part. He was asked several questions. The first question, to which he has made no reply, was, on what policy are the Government going to ask for a renewal of the mandate from the country? On that he is silent. As in the case of the Dissolution, there is only one man to decide the policy. When the Prime Minister, and only the Prime Minister is gracious enough in his royal condescension, as in the noon-tide splendour of the great All-Highest War Lord—when the Prime Minister is willing to tell him, "This is the hour for Dissolution," he obeys. Similarly, he waits on the Royal and Imperial Command to tell the House on what he and his colleagues are going to ask for the confidence of the country. That is an extraordinary situation. That is making the world safe for democracy. Again I have to mingle praise with blame, because I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman credit for candour in one respect. We do know the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on one question, though on that I am not sure that we know the policy of the Prime Minister. I would like to ask—not as a matter of idle curiosity, but as applying to the vote I am going to give when I am asked to vote at the poll at this election—whether the speech that the right hon. Gentleman made on the Irish question the other night had been rehearsed to the Prime Minister before it was given to the House?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr.Whitley): That is clearly going beyond the terms of the Motion for which leave has been given by the House. The hon. Member must keep to the Question.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: May I not, in perfect consonance with order and with the terms of the Motion, renew my demand on the right hon. Gentleman to give us some indication of the policy on which the Government is going to the country? If that be outside the Notice of Motion I will not pursue it, but if it be inside, I repeat the question. I wonder to see these Labour Members still on the Treasury Bench, one of them, like myself, the son of an Irish farmer, the right hon. Gentleman did not give any answer to the suggestions and inquiries made by my hon. Friend with regard to the attitude of the Government on some of the questions of the day. Are we going to have a Liberal or a Tory principle of reconstruction?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is quite irrelevant to the present Motion to raise questions of that kind. The only question raised in the Motion which Mr. Speaker put to the House is the question of withholding information as to the duration of the present Parliament. The hon. Member must not go beyond that.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I must deplore my absence of the subtlety possessed by my hon. Friend, whose less clumsy tongue was able to reach a wide sphere of discussion. Probably under these circumstances I had better repeat the questions my hon. Friend put.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I may remind the hon. Member that there is a Standing Order against repetition.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: If my recollection is right there is an adjective—"wearisome repetition."
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Chair is the judge of the adjective.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I am quite willing to leave myself in your hands as to whether I am wearisome or not. But I come back to the point. Are you going to precipitate this election on the country at a moment when hundreds of thousands of people are to be without employment and without wages, probably without homes—at a time when the whole world is infected with new

  2445
  revolutionary ideas? There is no excuse for precipitating an election at this moment. The right hon. Gentleman and his chief are abandoning the old ground of principle and wish to secure a personal verdict or a personal issue. A good many people are constantly girding at the party spirit. The party spirit is the very salt that keeps the life of every democratically favoured nation free and healthy. If you substitute the personality of any man, I do not care who he is, for the good old, pure, healthy, party system, you are dealing a deadly blow at all that makes the public life, of this or any other nation pure and healthy.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): The Debate has really been extremely interesting, but I think on one or two points the House seems willing to consider the desirability of going back upon its own conduct. The whole argument that has been advanced from the opposite benches really consists in this, that the absent voters, the soldiers and sailors, the proxy voters in Palestine and Mesopotamia and in the far-off reaches of our Empire, as they cannot all effectively vote really ought not to be called upon to vote at all, and therefore the election should fit in with the conditions which exist at the time of its taking place. May I ask the House to consider for a moment why it was that we inserted a special clause in the Representation of the People Act making arrangements for the absent voters and proxy voters. What was the basis upon which this was done? Clearly the idea of the House was that the election would take place in a period of war. If we reduce the case to its simple factors, everyone of us in this House, including my very dear Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, who were Members of Mr. Speaker's Conference fully visualised the certainty of the election taking place under War conditions, and we recognised, as indeed we must all recognise, the great necessity for so adapting our electoral machinery as to give these men who have been civilians and were not being dispossessed of their civilian rights a chance of voting effectively when the election took place. Inasmuch as all human affairs must be more or less imperfect, you can never have a condition of absolute perfection such as
  2446
  would seem to me the idea of many Members, if this thing is to be done at all. The House with this full knowledge and a great sense of responsibility placed an addition of 150 per cent. upon the existing register—that is to say, we multiplied by two-and-a-half the voters of the nation. We said to the soldiers: we are not going to be so mean as to deprive you who are fighting to maintain the Empire of your citizenship. We are going to do all we possibly can in exceedingly difficult circumstances—such as have never existed before in the history of the world—to see that the sailors and soldiers must be given as effective a chance as possible to record their votes. The argument now used is that, as there is a great likelihood that many of them cannot vote, therefore, you must postpone the election until they come home. Can anybody deny the doctrine of moral authority that ought to animate an assembly such as this?
  Is it not a perfect truth that every day we were feeling that we were really committing a serious infraction against the sense of moral responsibility that ought to guide our actions, and that year by year we were getting less and less in touch with the electorate? When the House with a full knowledge said that the 31st January should be the determining date—
  Mr. DILLON: They never said anything of the kind.
  Mr. WALSH:—They did it with a full knowledge of the facts, and when they placed the absent voters and the proxy voters as integral parts of the Representation of the People Act, they did it with the idea that the War was going on, and that the election would be conducted under war conditions. It is said by my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. Henderson)—and I use that term in the fullest meaning—that the Coalition included all parties in the House with the exception of one. I share the regret that the party which sits on the benches opposite did not join; but they are the surest arbiters of their own conduct, and we have no right to complain. A coalition does imply the cessation of party conflict; yet my right hon. Friend is the Secretary of the Labour Party which months ago agreed to break the party truce. If he were here he would probably say that he never advised the breaking of the party truce. He never lifted his finger to prevent the breaking of the party truce. He was

  2447
  very eloquent to-night about the necessity of maintaining the Coalition until the terms of peace have been fully adumbrated—if one may use a special Parliamentary expression—and until the whole of the conditions are fully known upon which the soldiers and sailors when they return will be able to give their opinion. But the right hon. Gentleman himself, as the secretary of the Labour party, has been an assenting party to the breach of the party truce, although the abolition of party conflict during the War is the very basis of any Coalition. We are now told of the deplorable state of things in Russia. We were advised not to do anything that might bring about a similar atmosphere in Great Britain. Yes; but I remember people throwing up their hats in the Labour Party Conference, and hailing the spirit of Russia as a glorious revolution, and hailing the leaders. Now we are told it is deplorable. It is deplorable—I thought it was deplorable then. I think I knew a little more historically than some of the people who threw up their hats and hailed it as a glorious revolution. I thought that the conduct and the spirit of Russia then was deplorable. It would be deplorable if it were imported into this country; but I would really like to see men of great responsibility in the Labour movement, men of high character and great responsibility, doing a little more to stem the incoming of that spirit which is such a deplorable thing in Russia.
  What relevance, if I may say so without the slightest disrespect to the Chair, was there in the point about the troubles that will arise when demobilisation takes place? That is an argument that an election should never take place. Clearly we are losing our mandate, our mandate at least is lessening from day to day—[An How. MEMBER: "You would lose your job!"]—and of course an obligation rests upon the House of Commons to place itself more and more in contact with the electors. I think, speaking from memory, that there are 7,000,000 women voters—
  Mr. LOUGH: In England and Wales.
  Mr. WALSH: Yes; I think that the Scottish and English electorate is not included in that. Surely these women, upon whom an almost unutterable anguish has been imposed during the last four and a quarter years, have the right to be consulted at the earliest possible
  2448
  moment consistent with the broad welfare of the State and the conditions stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It is not true to say that we are conspiring, or speak of subtle and underhand workings that were talked about, and which would not bear the light of day. I can only say that the real reason I have risen was because of the very direct reference which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) to myself. I know nothing of any conspiracy; I have not the slightest idea of any such thing.
  Mr. DILLON: You are on the doormat.
  Mr. WALSH: I do not feel the slightest injustice.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: It is because you have not got swelled head.
  Mr. WALSH: For myself, I admit very fully that the conditions to-day are very different from those in existence some few months ago. Let any hon. Member think of the conditions that did exist a few months ago. Labour seemed very strained. In almost every essential industry there were strife and conflict, and it did not seem quite sure to any man who loved his country, and desired that it should come out triumphant from this terrible conflict whether the heart of Labour was altogether antagonistic to the Government, and, of course, if that atmosphere had been maintained the defeat of the Allies and of ourselves was inevitable, and with that defeat the defeat of the hopes of humanity for centuries. Labour, I think it right to say, has become a great deal more conciliatory. I think that the action of the Government, and of every State Department has resulted in greatly amplifying the general goodwill of the nation. In that sense, perhaps, the need for an election is not quite so insistent as it was, but those in the homes of the people, and particularly in the homes of the 7,000,000 women voters have the right to be consulted at the earliest possible moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Upon what?"] On the general conditions. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Coalition!"] How is it possible for the Leader of the House or any single person to state on an occasion of this kind what the multifarious issues of an election will be? [An HON. MEMBER: Democracy!] I ask any man will he in his own constituency confine himself to one issue? Will he not have to deal with many questions? Are

  2449
  not the issues at every election multifarious? How is it possible to answer questions which are submitted to us relevantly, but which, of course, every man knows cannot be answered by any single person? What I rose specially for was to say this, that if the Labour movement is willing to say that that an honourable party truce shall be observed during the whole continuance of the War until the conditions of peace are made then there may be a great deal in the point of view submitted by hon. Gentlemen. But inasmuch as the Labour movement which is headed very largely by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle, declared that the party truce shall be broken, and party conflict shall be brought into the whole political atmosphere, how can he consistently, therefore, take up the attitude he has taken to-night? My last word is that I have no knowledge of any conspiracy. I have no knowledge of it, and I have been in the Labour movement for a very long time and have had a much more direct connection with organised labour, and a much longer connection with organised labour than my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle. I say there is no conspiracy, and hon. Members may disabuse their minds of the idea.
  Sir E. CARSON: I only desire to make one or two observations. And may I say that I think the House cordially congratulates the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken on the very bold and independent way in which he has treated this question. I am bound to say that however I may differ from the Prime Minister in politics I think at this particular moment, having regard to the courage and ability and the statesmanlike qualities he has shown in the last few months, fateful months for this Empire and the world, to accuse him of conspiracy, or attempts to gain personal advantage, is the lowest form of argument that could be used. In my opinion the Prime Minister, whatever his faults, and in very few questions do I agree with him, is the great outstanding figure of the Empire at the present moment. After all, what is the argument at the present time against an election? It is a strange thing to find all these democrats criticising what—an appeal to the people of this country! Take care, they say, "lest you encourage Bolshevism if you appeal to the country for their verdict. An appeal to the country is inevitable, and for this simple
  2450
  reason: You have enfranchised millions of the people of this country who have never voted before. I myself have opposed the enfranchisement of 7,000,000 women, but, having enfranchised them, do you really think, from the moment their names appear upon the register, you have any right, in the face of an Act of Parliament, to prevent them from expressing their opinion, and their opinion at the gravest crisis in the Empire to which they belong? You will make your by-elections a farce if you confine them to those who are on the old, stale register, now nearly eight years old, or six years old [An How. MEMBER: "Nine years."]—or something of that kind, and tell them, "Though you are enfranchised by Act of Parliament, you are to have no voice in deciding who is to be the representative of your constituency in the House of Commons." The truth of the matter is that behind all this parade of objection to the election from the Irish Benches opposite, they are only thinking of what will happen in Ireland, and when the election is over the real reason of this Motion will be found.
  There has been no argument, and there can be no argument against an election. What is to happen? Let us look at it practically. Supposing we enter into a Peace Conference, to-morrow or the next day, as I hope we will, when the War is over, as I believe it is nearly over—supposing we enter into a Peace Conference, what will happen? The Peace Conference will sit with closed doors for many months. What are we going to be doing here? Is it not essential, as regards the Peace Conference itself, that the nation should decide who is to have charge of it, and who is to have their confidence. But, apart from that, when you come to consider practically, what we are to be doing, while a Peace Conference is sitting, is it not essential for us that in meeting here we should have the mandate of the country behind us in everything that we do? Otherwise, I know perfectly well what will take place.
  This old, worn-out, listless House will not be attending to any of the business of the country. Hon. Members will be in their constituencies thinking of what is to happen when the General Election is to come. That, in the period of reconstruction, when everything is in a state of chaos, that requires the full force of the people behind them in everything they do, would lead to inevitable anathema in the conduct of business in this House; and what is more, while the Peace Conference

  2451
  was going on, and while we were listless, and while we had no mandate in the country, all the mischief-makers in the country would be doing their best in the backwash of the War, and with a disgruntled population in many respects, to create mischief, chaos, and anarchy.
  Mr. PRINGLE Mr. PRINGLE rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed.

  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1918–19 (Class II.).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for a grant to the Interim Forestry Authority."
  It being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to flit again upon Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. BYRNE: To-day at Question Time I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was his intention to appoint a. Committee to consider the question of increasing the weekly allowance to old age pensioners. I got an unsatisfactory answer. A few days ago I asked the Treasury representative a similar question, and at that time he said there was no reason or precedent for increasing the pensions. I reminded him on that occasion that a precedent was already established from the fact that the separation allowance had been increased.
  There was also the case in regard to the pensions of the sailors and the soldiers. Since the last increase in old-age pensions there have been two awards of the Committee on Production given for the purpose of meeting the increased cost of living. Old-age pensioners are to-day worse off on their 7s. 6d. per week than in pre-war years on 5s. The Government ought immediately to take steps to increase the allowance to old-age pensioners—by 5s. at least, to make it equal in value to the payment of pre-war years.
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present—
  The House was adjourned, without Question put, at Seven minutes after Eleven o'clock, till Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February.

WAR.
  RECONSTRUCTION.
    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
    SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
    SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
    COST OF LIVING (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
    COST OF LIVING (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
    LOCAL LOANS STOCK.
    LOCAL LOANS STOCK.
    CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN).
    CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN).
    ENEMY AIR RAID (COMPENSATION.)
    ENEMY AIR RAID (COMPENSATION.)
    LICENSED HOUSES, IRELAND (HOURS OF CLOSING).
    LICENSED HOUSES, IRELAND (HOURS OF CLOSING).
    OCEAN TRAVELLING (WIVES).
    OCEAN TRAVELLING (WIVES).
    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (OFFICERS).
    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (OFFICERS).
    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  HOUSING.
    ASSISTANCE FROM PUBLIC FUNDS.
    ASSISTANCE FROM PUBLIC FUNDS.
    BRICKS.
    BRICKS.
    ACQUISITION OF LAND.
    ACQUISITION OF LAND.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
    CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
    ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY (GUNNER BIRCH).
    ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY (GUNNER BIRCH).
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    ROYAL ENGINEERS.
    ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
    INSTRUCTIONS TO RETURNED PRISONERS.
    INSTRUCTIONS TO RETURNED PRISONERS.
    RECEPTION AT BRITISH PORT.
    RECEPTION AT BRITISH PORT.
    TURKEY AND MESOPOTAMIA.
    TURKEY AND MESOPOTAMIA.
    "UNFIT FOR FURTHER SERVICE."
    "UNFIT FOR FURTHER SERVICE."
    REV. J. G. LANE-DAVIES.
    REV. J. G. LANE-DAVIES.
  GENERAL ELECTION.
    MEETINGS (SOLDIERS IN UNIFORM).
    MEETINGS (SOLDIERS IN UNIFORM).
    MILITARY CANDIDATES AND AGENTS.
    MILITARY CANDIDATES AND AGENTS.
    LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
    LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
    LANARKSHIRE COUNTY DIVISIONS (PLACE OF ELECTION).
    LANARKSHIRE COUNTY DIVISIONS (PLACE OF ELECTION).
    GRATELEY CAMP, ANDOVER.
    GRATELEY CAMP, ANDOVER.
    10TH EAST LANCASHIRE VOLUNTEERS (MAJOR ECCLES).
    10TH EAST LANCASHIRE VOLUNTEERS (MAJOR ECCLES).
    TIME-EXPIRED DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (DISTINCTIONS).
    TIME-EXPIRED DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (DISTINCTIONS).
    YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION (HUTS).
    YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION (HUTS).
    ARMY NURSES.
    ARMY NURSES.
    GAS SHELLS (GERMAN EAST AFRICA).
    GAS SHELLS (GERMAN EAST AFRICA).
    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    SOLDIER'S LEAVE.
    SOLDIER'S LEAVE.
    MOTOR TRANSPORT REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
    MOTOR TRANSPORT REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
    ARMY OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
    ARMY OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
    22nd BATTALION LONDON REGIMENT (ENEMY GUNS CAPTURED).
    22nd BATTALION LONDON REGIMENT (ENEMY GUNS CAPTURED).
    WESTERN FRONT (PRISONERS CAPTURED).
    WESTERN FRONT (PRISONERS CAPTURED).
    ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (QUARTERMASTER-SERGEANT J. WOOD).
    ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (QUARTERMASTER-SERGEANT J. WOOD).
    ARMY DENTAL SERVICE.
    ARMY DENTAL SERVICE.
    QUARTERMASTERS AND OTHERS (PAY).
    QUARTERMASTERS AND OTHERS (PAY).
    WAR DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES, DUBLIN (WAR BONUS).
    WAR DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES, DUBLIN (WAR BONUS).
    ARMY PAY OFFICE, CHATHAM (WRITERS AND CLERKS).
    ARMY PAY OFFICE, CHATHAM (WRITERS AND CLERKS).
  MUNITIONS.
    ENGINEERING TRADES (SCOTLAND).
    ENGINEERING TRADES (SCOTLAND).
    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE.
    LOW FLYING (OXFORD).
    LOW FLYING (OXFORD).
    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT).
    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT).
    POLICE (PENSIONS) BILL.
    POLICE (PENSIONS) BILL.
    ENEMY ALIENS.
    ENEMY ALIENS.
    VILLAGE CLOCKS (CHIMING).
    VILLAGE CLOCKS (CHIMING).
    NATIONAL SHIPYARDS (GARDEN CITY SCHEMES).
    NATIONAL SHIPYARDS (GARDEN CITY SCHEMES).
    TRAVELLING POST OFFICES (TRIP ALLOWANCES).
    TRAVELLING POST OFFICES (TRIP ALLOWANCES).
  DEMOBILISATION.
    BUILDING TRADE.
    BUILDING TRADE.
    INSURANCE AGENTS (WAR BONUS).
    INSURANCE AGENTS (WAR BONUS).
    SHORT SEA TRADERS' ASSOCIATION (EMPLOYES).
    SHORT SEA TRADERS' ASSOCIATION (EMPLOYES).
    CORN PRODUCTION ACT (ADMINISTRATION IN IRELAND).
    CORN PRODUCTION ACT (ADMINISTRATION IN IRELAND).
    POLICE, SCOTLAND (REMUNERATION).
    POLICE, SCOTLAND (REMUNERATION).
    School Teachers' Salaries (Scotland).
    School Teachers' Salaries (Scotland).
    School Teachers (Leave of Absence).
    School Teachers (Leave of Absence).
    Post Office (Skilled Electrician).
    Post Office (Skilled Electrician).
    National Health Insurance Commissioners (Medical Research).
    National Health Insurance Commissioners (Medical Research).
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Read 2a.
PORTSEA ISLAND GAS BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
TITHE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

LICENSED STOCKBROKERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I will explain in a few words the object of this Bill. It appears that stockbrokers in Ireland charge commissions which were laid down by Statute in the year 1799. This rate of commission is now obsolete. All other stockbrokers in this country and elsewhere are allowed to charge higher rates. This Bill proposes that the licensing of stockbrokers shall be carried out by the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. These licensees will be required to give securities for their good conduct and the proper management of their business, and the Bill also provides that the sum of two shillings and sixpence per centum should be the maximum commission chargeable by a licensed broker on his dealings, with a penalty if excessive charges are imposed. As I say, in England stockbrokers are liable to no such limitations as exist in Ireland, and representations have been made to the Irish Government, which considers them just, that the antiquated Statute of 1799 should be amended. The request seems reasonable, and I submit to your Lordships that the Irish stockbrokers should be placed in a
1106
position equivalent to that occupied by stockbrokers in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BURGHS GAS SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ALIENS AND NATURALISATION.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Questions standing in my name—viz.:

1. If a licence under the Non-ferrous Metals Act has been granted to the firm of A. Strauss and Company, of which one partner is a Hessian naturalised in 1884, and the other, described as a Swiss, was naturalised in 1912.

2. (a) Whether the partners in the firm of Benjamin Bros., of Bermondsey, are Ludwig Benjamin, naturalised as Louis Benjamin, in December, 1914, and Albert Benjamin, a registered enemy alien. (b) Whether Albert Benjamin has been interned this year, and since released. (c) Whether a largely signed petition for the winding-up of this German firm was presented in 1916 without result. (d) Who were the sponsors of Ludwig Benjamin when he was naturalised four months after the outbreak of war.

LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, in answer to the first Question I may say that a licence under the Non-ferrous Metal Act, 1918, has been issued to A. Strauss and Company. The senior partner in the firm, which is of high standing and in a large way of business, dealing more particularly in tin and copper, is Mr. A. Strauss, born in Hesse and naturalised in 1884. Mr.Strauss was M.P. for the Camborne Division 1895–1900, and has been M.P. for North Paddington since 1910. His partner, Mr. H. Hilty, was naturalised on May 24, 1912. He was born in Switzerland. The company, which was established in 1874, have tin smelting works in Cornwall and Lancashire (Bootle).

1107
There is nothing to suggest that they had any close relations with any of the important metal organisations in enemy countries. Two sons of Mr. Strauss have served in the British Army, and one has been killed. The Non-ferrous Metal Act Committee, in their report to the Board of Trade, drew attention to the date of Mr. Strauss's naturalisation and to the facts just mentioned.
I now come to the noble Lord's second Question. Part of this Question comes within the province of the Home Office; but by request of my noble friend who usually answers here for that Department, I will endeavour to reply to the whole. The reply to (a) is that at the date of inspection of the business in April, 1916, the partners were reported to be Louis Benjamin, born in Hanover, who was naturalised as a British subject in December, 1914, and Albert Benjamin, born in Hanover, registered as an alien enemy, but who claims to be a British subject on the ground that he was born at the British Legation at Hanover in September, 1863, his father—born in February, 1795—being a natural-born subject of George III. In February, 1917, an agreement was entered into by the partners under which Albert Benjamin purported to retire from the business, but he was to be employed as an assistant of Louis Benjamin.
With regard to the point as to the winding-up of this concern, a petition, largely signed by members of the hide and leather trades, urging the winding-up of the business was forwarded to the Board of Trade in August, 1916. The case had previously been referred to the Board's Advisory Committee, who reported that jurisdiction under Section 1 of the Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, would not arise unless the nationality of Albert Benjamin were determined to be enemy subject. Steps had been taken to apply to the Court for a declaration of nationality, but the application has not been proceeded with owing, it is stated, to the present impossibility of obtaining evidence from Germany. The interests of the two brothers in the partnership business appeared, however, to be equal, so that, if Albert Benjamin had been regarded as clearly an enemy subject, it could not be said that the business came within the scope of the provisions of the Act of 1916 so as to enable a Winding-up Order to be made.
Albert Benjamin was exempted from
1108
internment on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee in 1915. In accordance with the decision announced by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons on July 11 last, that all exemptions from internment or repatriation were to be carefully reviewed and drastically revised, his case was referred to the Advisory Committee for reconsideration, and in accordance with their recommendation he was interned in September last, and is still interned, and there is no intention of releasing him.
It is not the practice, I may say in reply to the last Question, to disclose the names of the referees who vouch for the loyalty and respectability of an applicant for naturalisation. In accordance with Section 3 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1918 (which received the Royal Assent on August 8 last) which provides that where a certificate of naturalisation has been granted during the present war to a person who at, or at any time before, the grant of the certificate was the subject of a country which at the date of the grant was at war with His Majesty, the Secretary of State shall refer the question whether it is desirable that the certificate should be revoked for enquiry by the Committee appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Act. Before naturalisation Ludwig or Louis Benjamin was a subject of Germany. This Committee, which is known as the Certificate of Naturalisation Revocation Committee (under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Atkin) is now engaged in reviewing certificates of naturalisation in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the case of Louis Benjamin has been referred to the Committee, and is now under consideration by them. As the case is thus sub judice, it would not be right to make any further statement in the matter.
LORD SYDENHAM: I beg to thank the noble Lord for his complete answer. As regards the referees, I think he is aware that their names have been published in the Press, but I agree with him that it is much better that they should not be disturbed.

EMPLOYMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether arrangements cannot be made to facilitate the employment of prisoners of War; and to call attention

1109
to some of the difficulties that are now put in the way of those desirous of employing them.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, owing to the rapid march of events since I put this Question on the Paper, its subject-matter is perhaps going to disappear very soon, and it might hardly have been worth while asking it. But since I put it on the Paper I have received a letter from another noble Lord which shows that I am not quite alone in my experience. He says—
"I have experienced considerable difficulty. This time I applied for prisoners of war to cut cord wood and clean up after timber felling as soon as they could be spared from harvest. I asked for six and got three, but after a few days they were taken away, and I am still without any. It is impossible to employ prisoners of war if they are to be taken away at any moment, and if one is only to get a few days work at any time."
That was my personal experience too. I was told that I could have prisoners of war by applying for them. Sure enough, without any difficulty, six prisoners and an escort were provided. I procured several extra tools to enable them to do the work, and they worked for one week. After that they disappeared, and I have never been able to get them again, nor have I been able to obtain any real explanation why I could not get them. I was ultimately advised to write to the Colonel of the district, and he merely said that they were not available. As a matter of fact, I fancy that in West Sussex—the county of which I am speaking—there were a good many German prisoners of war, but I do not know whether they were all employed or not. So much for my own experience.
I also have had experience of another matter where it seems to me that prisoners of war might have been employed if it had been possible to find out how to get them, and to get over the serious difficulties that there seem to be in having your applications considered by anybody responsible who can give you a reason why you can have them or why you cannot. I am referring to the tin mining in Cornwall. The Government are anxious, I understand, to get tin, particularly to get tin produced in this country, but in the particular mine with which I happen to be connected we have never been able to get German prisoners. I am told that we could get them if we applied in the proper way, and further efforts will be made.
What I thought when I put the Question down, and what I could not help feeling, was the fact that there were several thousands of prisoners of war in this country who were merely a charge on the Government instead of earning money for the Government, as they would be if employed. I have, however, been assured that this is not so, and if all prisoners of war fit to work are employed that really satisfies me. I am indifferent whether they are employed by me or someone else so long as they are profitably employed, and that is really the point I wish to make. But there seem to be extraordinary difficulties in knowing who to apply to, or how to get the prisoners of war. It is also very awkward, as the noble Lord who communicated with me put it, if you are left in a state of uncertainty as to how long you are to be allowed to keep the prisoners when you get them. It makes it difficult to allocate work, and to carry it on with regularity.
THE ASSISTANT UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, as the House is aware, it was a very longtime before prisoners of war were employed upon any extensive scale in this country. I think that I am within the mark when I say that the war had lasted for something like eighteen months before there was any regular employment of combatant prisoners of war here. I remember very well, long before I had any connection with prisoners, visiting a prisoner's camp and finding, to my astonishment, men who had been imported from a great distance carrying out some perfectly simple work at the camp at very high wages which should have been performed by the prisoners themselves at a nominal charge. As the noble Earl and the House are aware, this difficulty in the employment of prisoners did not arise from any reluctance on the part of the Government Department, but on account of the decision of the trade unions and of the general dissatisfaction on the part of private individuals. It is an open secret that the employment of prisoners was strongly opposed by the various trade unions. This opposition has to a great extent now disappeared. Moreover, every private individual in this country was under the impression that because a man was a prisoner of war he was a dangerous anarchist whose first object would be to cut the throat of his employer and destroy any machinery or anything under his

1111
charge. People have now realised the groundlessness of those fears, and there is a considerable demand for the employment of German prisoners of war.
I may add, to confirm what fell from the noble Earl, that all German combatant prisoners of war in this country who are capable of being employed are employed at this moment, or, if they are not employed, they will be very shortly. As I explained the other day, the only combatant prisoners of war who are not employed at the present moment in this country are non-commissioned officers, who, as the noble Earl knows, cannot be employed against their will under The Hague Convention. The noble Earl's complaint seems to me to refer not so much to the difficulty in obtaining the employment of these men, but to the difficulty of keeping them when they have once been allocated. I understand from the War Office, in cases where men have been taken away at very short notice, that they were only allocated for temporary work, and that if prisoners are allocated, so to speak, permanently to any employer, there is no danger of anything of the sort happening. I do not know whether the noble Earl requires any further information on the subject, but I should like to reiterate that all prisoners of war who are capable of being employed are now employed, and that the War Office is only too glad that their services should be used in the most useful capacity.

BRITISH OFFICERS AND GERMAN REPRISAL.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask whether His Majesty's Government have decided to recommend some compensation, or some form of recognition, in the case of thirty-nine British officers who underwent a period of fifty-two days detention in solitary confinement in a German gaol as a reprisal in respect of the treatment by the British Government of German submarine prisoners in this country.
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will notice that in my Question I have made no mention of other officer prisoners or men who have been treated in the same way—namely, by reprisals in solitary confinement.
1112
I prefer to treat this as a test—if His Majesty's Government is willing to give us one—of the procedure that they intend in regard to the thirty-nine officer prisoners who were placed in solitary confinement at the time that the policy of the Government was to treat German submarine prisoners in this country in a different manner from other prisoners of war. I should like to remind your Lordships that these particular thirty-nine officers suffered indignities which would not have been resorted to even in the time of Frederick the Great, or Frederick William, his predecessor. On the first night of their incarceration and solitary confinement they were put on the same floor in a German gaol with prostitutes and thieves. British officers and gentlemen, my Lords! I hope that the Government will remember the indignities offered on that occasion. It was not until days later that the condition of these officers was somewhat ameliorated—I can hardly call it by the name of amelioration—and the only exercise that they had during the fifty-two days they were in prison was in a poultry yard about the size of this House.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this Question only appeared on the Paper this morning, and it must be perfectly obvious to the House that a matter of compensation for maltreatment of prisoners is one which will have to be considered as a whole by the Government. I am quite unable to make any statement with regard to the particular officers mentioned in the Question, but I desire to draw my noble friend's attention to this fact—that, however much we may sympathise with the officers whose treatment he has just recounted to us, there are very much graver and more serious cases of maltreatment, more especially among the men, with which this particular instance hardly bears comparison.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I apologise to my noble friend for giving such short notice—perhaps it was rather too short. I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that I had not taken any notice of other officers or other prisoners who have suffered indignities.
LORD BERESFORD: I think the answer is a very unsatisfactory one. Why, because there are men who have had worse treatment, should not these officers be

1113
considered? I hope the noble Lord will say that they will be considered.
LORD NEWTON: I think my noble and gallant friend has completely misunderstood me. I said that this is a question which will have to be considered as a whole. It is perfectly impossible to consider the question of these thirty-nine officers apart from the general question.

A MONDAY SITIING.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. I suggest to your Lordships that we should meet on Monday next, at the usual hour.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes-before five o'clock.